At 9/19/12 01:24 AM, Feoric wrote:
I'm not sure where you're not getting it so I'll just start at the begining.
How GM paid off its .
GM used an escrow account to pay off its loan .
This escrow account was funded by .
Therefore GM repaid their loan to using money given to them by .
So yes...the loan is paid back. However, the taxpayer was paid with money taken from the taxpayer.
Not with GM profits. Now that GM had a very profitable year last year just adds insult to injury. The corporation and the UAW got theirs...but the taxpayer foots the bill.
It also means that you are incorrect when you say: "They would have needed it if the company was struggling to make ends meet. The fact that they were able to pay back the loan in full means the company was turning around, which is reflected in their profits."
They did not and could not pay off their debt to the government on their own with their own profits and revenue...instead they used government money to pay a government loan. GM owes a debt to the American and Canadian taxpayer to pay back what was put into that escrow account....
So while technically the loan was "paid", it was paid in a way that is fraudulent and with full government/administration culpibility.
We hold about in GM stock valued at about $12.3 billion.
We paid, when we swapped debt for shares of stock with GM, $25.6 billion for it.
Since it's 2010 IPO...GM stock just hasn't performed as analysts predicted.
Oh, and I have no problem with the UAW getting a nice deal, because the last time I checked, unions weren't responsible ...
1) Who cares about white flight...good strawman attempt.
2) Yes, unrealistic contracts did raise the cost of vehicles leading to a decline in US auto sales.
3) Also, UAW contracts constricted the options businesses had to expand or contract their business such as getting rid of production plants which could have led to the shedding of redundant brands.
4) The headstart GM had due to WWII is a double edged sword and gave way in the 1970s and 1980s. See Japan, Germany and Korea had to totally rebuild factories with modern tech. Where as US plants didn't have an incentive to modernize. And besides, its not like we could completely bomb industrial experience out of existence in WWII.
5) Now we have money tied up supporting ppl who continue to make bad business decisions (and that is what the Volt is...a sign GM is still making bad decisions). We needed a Bain Capital to break it up and recycle its means of production to other venues such as Aptera.
But in the end...the UAW is partially repsonsible for creating the business environment in Detroit that let the American auto industry decline. I think the future for the US auto industry is to look at BMW, KIA, Toyota moving into areas that have people who need jobs...but are not self-absorbed union members.
...so you'll need to show me your sources if you want to discuss this further (the 44/45 billion figure comes from the WSJ, which is over a span of 20 years, btw). Which is a drop in the bucket when compared to the rest of TARP.
Already did so. If you re-read the sources I linked to the $44 billion originally came from Obama...not WSJ.
Right, yeah, I was making an analogy to Facbook but deleted it because it was stupid and I didn't modify the rest of my post. The IPO raised $18.1 billion, which is the second highest IPO ever.
Who cares? It didn't make enough.
No, you're entirely wrong. ... to reduce the money supply to slow down the rate of inflation. ... So, no, what you're describing is not going to happen in this universe.
Hate to break it to you...but we're not in the universe you describe. See...the Fed has found a way to both lower interest rates and increase the money supply. It's called QE3, and last week the Fed announced that it would buy $40billion/month in bond buy backs until 2015 which according to NASDAQ:
"Firstly, as the price of bonds is forced up, so interest rates on them are driven lower. Lower rates are meant to encourage lending and borrowing, which helps to stimulate the economy. Secondly, QE is effectively printing money."
My point is there are different kinds of inflation;
* inflation due to the intrinsic value of a commodity or product increasing (ie: as gas becomes more scarce and/or more demand...its value goes up).
* inflation due to the intrinsic value of a dollar decreasing.
For example in the 1990s Batman comics increased in price because of better paper and ink made the product worth more. However, recent price changes are more likely reflective of the drop in the value of the US dollar.
To think that stocks are going to be immune from the second type of inflation (a devalued dollar) is naive and laughable. The stock market will adjust to reflect the devalued dollar.