|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 5, 2013 12:55:01 GMT -8
Your post displays your complete lack of understanding the issues here. Now try to address the subject! Read my first post in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 4, 2014 9:07:03 GMT -8
Still playing that broken record, huh? What are irresponsible and uninformed response! If it sounds like a broken record, that is just what it should sound like. ?Taxpayers and others got screwed by the bailout. They will never be made whole unless GM gets much more profitable. Bond holders will never recover. The Union workers will continue to drink beer and smoke pot at lunch before returning to work to make your Volt. The loss to the tax payers is even more than previously thought. Now we see that GM is going to nominate a union guy to the BOD. Hope shareholders read their proxy statements and vote their best interest. www.moneynews.com/Economy/GM-bailout-UAW-taxpayers/2014/04/30/id/568657/?ns_mail_uid=2539844&ns_mail_job=1567483_05042014&promo_code=rinkwpcaJust one more reason to not own GM or trust the Obama folks on what TARP was about.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 4, 2014 9:49:47 GMT -8
I am suspicious of anything that is printed about how the "new" GM is doing. What really looms as a huge obstacle are the coming mileage requirements. It will take billions to design a whole new line of vehicles that, A) will meet the requirements, and B) the American buying public will accept. Reaching those two goals will be very, very tough, even for companies with loads of cash. I have to think that GM may well be so short of resources that it will be unable to meet the requirements. Well, they could always build battery powered, two passenger go carts with a range of 50 miles. Of course, nobody would buy them.
My guess is that GM is going to come to the government and ask for another huge bail out. I hope the request is rejected. We simply cannot continue to throw good taxpayer money after bad. At some point, companies are going to have to meet their fates. That's what happenrd to Packard, Studebaker, Woolworth's, Kodak, Lehman Brothers, and many others. When businesses like those fail, it causes plenty of pain for many people. In the long run, and I would say even in the near term, allowing the market to work its will is much, much better than propping up failed enterprises.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 4, 2014 13:24:27 GMT -8
I am suspicious of anything that is printed about how the "new" GM is doing. What really looms as a huge obstacle are the coming mileage requirements. It will take billions to design a whole new line of vehicles that, A) will meet the requirements, and B) the American buying public will accept. Reaching those two goals will be very, very tough, even for companies with loads of cash. I have to think that GM may well be so short of resources that it will be unable to meet the requirements. Well, they could always build battery powered, two passenger go carts with a range of 50 miles. Of course, nobody would buy them. My guess is that GM is going to come to the government and ask for another huge bail out. I hope the request is rejected. We simply cannot continue to throw good taxpayer money after bad. At some point, companies are going to have to meet their fates. That's what happenrd to Packard, Studebaker, Woolworth's, Kodak, Lehman Brothers, and many others. When businesses like those fail, it causes plenty of pain for many people. In the long run, and I would say even in the near term, allowing the market to work its will is much, much better than propping up failed enterprises. AzWm I expect that the unreasonable mileage standards will be revoked or at least modified shortly after the next presidential election if not before. That may help GM to some extent, but what has happened to the tax payer and the bond holders is just as rotten as ever.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 5, 2014 12:27:52 GMT -8
I am suspicious of anything that is printed about how the "new" GM is doing. What really looms as a huge obstacle are the coming mileage requirements. It will take billions to design a whole new line of vehicles that, A) will meet the requirements, and B) the American buying public will accept. Reaching those two goals will be very, very tough, even for companies with loads of cash. I have to think that GM may well be so short of resources that it will be unable to meet the requirements. Well, they could always build battery powered, two passenger go carts with a range of 50 miles. Of course, nobody would buy them. My guess is that GM is going to come to the government and ask for another huge bail out. I hope the request is rejected. We simply cannot continue to throw good taxpayer money after bad. At some point, companies are going to have to meet their fates. That's what happend to Packard, Studebaker, Woolworth's, Kodak, Lehman Brothers, and many others. When businesses like those fail, it causes plenty of pain for many people. In the long run, and I would say even in the near term, allowing the market to work its will is much, much better than propping up failed enterprises. AzWm I expect that the unreasonable mileage standards will be revoked or at least modified shortly after the next presidential election if not before. That may help GM to some extent, but what has happened to the tax payer and the bond holders is just as rotten as ever. I think you may well be correct in that prediction. It is doubtful that even a Hillary Clinton would try to engineer another multi-billion dollar bailout. I'd like to stress once again the folly of the government picking winners and losers in the economy. It's one thing for the government to fund pure research, since we can never know ahead of time what benefits will flow from the findings of individual research projects. It is another thing, a very bad thing, for the government to give money to companies to compete against other companies operating entirely with private money. GM, and especially Chrysler, was propped up by the taxpayers. Ford, a better run company to begin with, took not a single cent. The foreign companies, almost all of whose American operations are in the South, took not a single cent, either. It all boils down to who can most efficiently and productively allocate the wealth created by the nation's economy. I think it is private management, while those on the Left think, at least to a large degree, that it is the government. Of course, it's obvious that the Left has different criteria. They think in terms of "social justice." At least theoretically, the thinkers on the Left would prefer a more "equal" society even if that meant a less wealthy society over all. I, and those who share my beliefs, would like everybody to be rich. But we are clear-headed enough to realize that everybody is better off if we allow free markets to decide which endeavors are worthy and which are not. Ah, but the Left has an answer to that. We are, in their view, really stupid to think that there is such a thing as a free market. In a sense, they are correct. It's like free will. Seen in simplistic terms, there is no such thing as free will. For instance, I do not have the power to fly like a bird (which capability would come in handy in all sorts of ways!). So, see there, you really don't have free will since you can't fly, or for that matter swim ten hours under water without dying, or leap tall buildings at a single bound. So, yes, there are limits, many limits, to the number and nature of alternatives open to us in any given situation requiring a decision on our part. Still, when it comes to making personal life decisions, we indeed can choose from various options in critical moments. People who have low wage jobs say, "I just can save money," when asked to explain why their bank accounts have a zero balance. What they mean is that they are not willing to allocate their earnings in such a way as to be able to save a little each month. One has to be really dirt poor, and some are certainly in that category, to be unable to save anything each month. Even if it's just $5.00, one should be able to save something. Let's take that concept to the level of business and business decisions. Even if I am a really smart guy and have saved several million dollars with which to start a business, I won't be able to compete with GM, Ford, Toyota, etc. Even if I had ten BILLION dollars, it would probably be foolish to start a new car company since only so many car companies can succeed; there is an absolute limit to how many people worldwide will buy cars and trucks, and the successful companies have a huge head start. If I could somehow build a desirable, fuel efficient car with nice styling and features and sell it for $1,000.00 each, then I might be a success in the automotive field. That's unlikely. So, what do I do with my several millions of dollars. I could blow that money on wine, women, and song, or I could start a business that's not so crowded with established competitors as the car field. If I am a real "car guy," and if I have training in industrial design (one of my brothers meets those criteria, by the way), maybe I will start a design consulting business. I may fail, or I may succeed. If I fail, I move on to other jobs and my loss remains my own. If the government controls everything, maybe I'll get a bailout. . . maybe more than one bailout . . . preventing those millions of dollars from financing a startup across town that would succeed and be a net gain to society. Why do those on the Left need to be taught this simple lesson? AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 5, 2014 14:18:18 GMT -8
With several million dollars, William, why take the risk of a startup business? Be a rentier. Buy good dividend paying stocks, or a good equity income fund,and live off 75k or so a year in dividends, and pay no federal income tax.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 5, 2014 15:46:48 GMT -8
With several million dollars, William, why take the risk of a startup business? Be a rentier. Buy good dividend paying stocks, or a good equity income fund,and live off 75k or so a year in dividends, and pay no federal income tax. That is what I would do. I think William is just pointing out the pitfalls and alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 5, 2014 16:44:44 GMT -8
With several million dollars, William, why take the risk of a startup business? Be a rentier. Buy good dividend paying stocks, or a good equity income fund,and live off 75k or so a year in dividends, and pay no federal income tax. That is what I would do. I think William is just pointing out the pitfalls and alternatives. Exactly so. There is no such place as Utopia and there never will be. Humans are fallible and will make mistakes. That's a given. The problem from a political point of view is that elected politicians and unelected bureaucrats are just as fallible as anybody else. Why assume, as collectivists and others on the Left so often do, that having a governmental elite running the economy would be superior to letting those greedy capitalists have control? The more decentralized power in an economy is, the better. That's one reason why I oppose ObamaCare; a very small number of political appointees are, ultimately, going to determine what kind of treatment we are going to have. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 5, 2014 20:57:32 GMT -8
With several million dollars, William, why take the risk of a startup business? Be a rentier. Buy good dividend paying stocks, or a good equity income fund,and live off 75k or so a year in dividends, and pay no federal income tax. That is what I would do. I think William is just pointing out the pitfalls and alternatives. You agree with me again. Glad to see you start to come around after all these years.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 6, 2014 11:29:42 GMT -8
That is what I would do. I think William is just pointing out the pitfalls and alternatives. You agree with me again. Glad to see you start to come around after all these years. Wait a minute! You agree with prudent conservative investments after some "due diligence"? Is there cause for me to rethink my investment approach?
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 6, 2014 13:05:52 GMT -8
You agree with me again. Glad to see you start to come around after all these years. Wait a minute! You agree with prudent conservative investments after some "due diligence"? Is there cause for me to rethink my investment approach? No, your political philosophy. You can come to the light. It is not too late for you.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 7, 2014 12:19:38 GMT -8
Wait a minute! You agree with prudent conservative investments after some "due diligence"? Is there cause for me to rethink my investment approach? No, your political philosophy. You can come to the light. It is not too late for you. Well, I can't see that happening. You know. Old dog and new tricks are not compatible.
|
|
|
Post by hbaztec on May 8, 2014 12:56:55 GMT -8
I expect that the unreasonable mileage standards will be revoked or at least modified shortly after the next presidential election if not before. That may help GM to some extent, but what has happened to the tax payer and the bond holders is just as rotten as ever. I think you may well be correct in that prediction. It is doubtful that even a Hillary Clinton would try to engineer another multi-billion dollar bailout. I'd like to stress once again the folly of the government picking winners and losers in the economy. It's one thing for the government to fund pure research, since we can never know ahead of time what benefits will flow from the findings of individual research projects. It is another thing, a very bad thing, for the government to give money to companies to compete against other companies operating entirely with private money. GM, and especially Chrysler, was propped up by the taxpayers. Ford, a better run company to begin with, took not a single cent. The foreign companies, almost all of whose American operations are in the South, took not a single cent, either. It all boils down to who can most efficiently and productively allocate the wealth created by the nation's economy. I think it is private management, while those on the Left think, at least to a large degree, that it is the government. Of course, it's obvious that the Left has different criteria. They think in terms of "social justice." At least theoretically, the thinkers on the Left would prefer a more "equal" society even if that meant a less wealthy society over all. I, and those who share my beliefs, would like everybody to be rich. But we are clear-headed enough to realize that everybody is better off if we allow free markets to decide which endeavors are worthy and which are not. Ah, but the Left has an answer to that. We are, in their view, really stupid to think that there is such a thing as a free market. In a sense, they are correct. It's like free will. Seen in simplistic terms, there is no such thing as free will. For instance, I do not have the power to fly like a bird (which capability would come in handy in all sorts of ways!). So, see there, you really don't have free will since you can't fly, or for that matter swim ten hours under water without dying, or leap tall buildings at a single bound. So, yes, there are limits, many limits, to the number and nature of alternatives open to us in any given situation requiring a decision on our part. Still, when it comes to making personal life decisions, we indeed can choose from various options in critical moments. People who have low wage jobs say, "I just can save money," when asked to explain why their bank accounts have a zero balance. What they mean is that they are not willing to allocate their earnings in such a way as to be able to save a little each month. One has to be really dirt poor, and some are certainly in that category, to be unable to save anything each month. Even if it's just $5.00, one should be able to save something. Let's take that concept to the level of business and business decisions. Even if I am a really smart guy and have saved several million dollars with which to start a business, I won't be able to compete with GM, Ford, Toyota, etc. Even if I had ten BILLION dollars, it would probably be foolish to start a new car company since only so many car companies can succeed; there is an absolute limit to how many people worldwide will buy cars and trucks, and the successful companies have a huge head start. If I could somehow produced a desirable, fuel efficient car with nice styling and features and sell it for $1,000.00 each, then I might be a success in the automotive field. That's unlikely. So, what do I do with my several millions of dollars. I could blow that money on wine, women, and song, or I could start a business that's not so crowded with established competitors as the car field. If I am a real "car guy," and if I have training in industrial design (one of my brothers meets those criteria, by the way), maybe I will start a design consulting business. I may fail, or I may succeed. If I fail, I move on to other jobs and my loss remains my own. If the government controls everything, maybe I'll get a bailout. . . maybe more than one bailout . . . preventing those millions of dollars from financing a startup across town that would succeed and be a net gain to society. Why do those on the Left need to be taught this simple lesson? AzWm You seem to have it all figured out. We should try your unfettered capitalism in a country to see how this plays out. Oh wait we did, Chile and Haiti come to mind. What happened there? Free markets turned into monopolies that end up corrupting the governments. Very few markets are "free".
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 14, 2014 8:29:30 GMT -8
Haiti is and always was an economic basket case. And, anyway, it's an island, actually only part of an island, so it's hard to draw conclusions based on such a place. Well, come to think of it, Singapore is small, too, and, using generally free market ideas is wealthy.
As for Chile, I think you picked an example that reinforces my ideas. They even privatized, partly, their social security system. Pinochet was undemocratic politically, but under him Chile's economy became freer and more successful.
AzWm
|
|