There were many predictions of doom/gloom coupled with the usual boiling pit of sewage rhetoric but none of that has happened. Rest assured, though, I won't be holding my breath that any of my right leaning commenters are going to admit that they were wrong. In the final analysis, it doesn't really matter. What had to be done was done and, like many actions that the Obama administration has taken, success was the result.
See what can be accomplished when one doesn't have anaphylactic reactions to government?
53 comments:
Your crowing may be premature. Or is the only relevant measure of success stock price? How financial-capitalist pig of you!
That this may turn out okay does not change that it was done in contravention of established bankruptcy law. But we know how much you care about creditors being treated fairly - just fuck'em right?!
Er.. What definition of the word "success" are you using? There are various words I might use to describe an investment that requires a 60 odd % rise in the stock price in order for me to break even - "success" is not one of those words. Some questions for Mark to ponder on:
1. Are there any negative side effects to the governments actions in the case of GM, or is it a win-win all around?
2. Would you advocate bailing out any american corporation that is near bankruptcy? If no, given that you consider the GM intervention a "success", why not?
EPIC? EPIC?
Really?
Just how do you define epic Mark?
Only the government would consider it a success to buy stock at $43.84 a share and sell it at $33.
I guess we can add Mark to the list of people who consider that boondoggle to be a 'success'.
Considering where they were and what they have now become, I wouldn't call it a success. I would call it a fucking miracle. And that's courtesy of the US government, pal, commander in chief-Barack Hussein Obama.
What is shows is that your libertarian ideals don't shit gold 24-7 and that sometimes socialism or quasi-socialism can work within defined parameters. Will you admit that? Or is it going to be more of the same shit?
Daniel - I refer you to questions 1 and 2 in my post above. Let's see some critical thinking on your part.
What is shows is that your libertarian ideals don't shit gold 24-7 and that sometimes socialism or quasi-socialism can work within defined parameters.
Ah daniel, have you shitted out your full contribution to the discussion or are you going to stick around?
I'm going to guess that the rhetorical 'win' has been had and you don't want to risk actually talking about this any further.
Epic success, unless you were a GM supplier a couple years ago.
I'm half surprised you didn't title this post "Dizzy with Success."
Epic success, unless you were a GM supplier a couple years ago.
...or a stockholder a couple years ago.
I won't be holding my breath that any of my right leaning commenters are going to admit that they were wrong.
Good thing you aren't holding your breath.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/19/morning-bell-our-economy-cant-afford-more-gm-success-stories/
Read that and stop posting like Obama's lapdog.
IF you can understand the article, you will see the very things you rail against - Bondholders/investors getting screwed, cronyism perpetrated by Obama (UAW wins - Taxpayers lose), and legal and political ramifications far into the future. All told, just plain EPIC FAIL. Seriously, you sell shares for $11+ dollars under break-even and you call this success?!!
Money quote:
The legal and political chicanery used by the White House to produce the GM “success” story is also exactly why the United States fell from the ranks of the economically “free,” as measured by The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom this year. From Fannie Mae to Freddie Mac, from GM to Chrysler, from AIG to Citibank, our government continues to subvert the established rule of law. This lawlessness creates uncertainty in the business environment, and it is a huge reason why our economy is not recovering as it should be.
Why will you not get us to admit we are wrong? Because we aren't.
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/kausfiles/2010/11/19/gm-s-ipo-suckers-found.html
And
http://blog.heritage.org/?p=46893
Your post is an embarrassment of epic proportion.
6Kings, refute the facts, dude. Linking to right wing blogs won't cut it.
And starting from a place where the government, under NO circumstances, can be effective at anything other than the military doesn't help either. How is it ever possible for the government to assist a private company? Again, you are operating in "win the argument regardless of facts" mode.
Has GM bounced back or not? What does that mean? Why is it important for GM to stay afloat? What does interconnectivity have to do with this on both a national and international level? How is the health of GM related to the the strength of our economy? Bonus question: why do libertarians/conservatives get a hard on for the financial sector and shit all over manufacturing?
M, I don't think Newsweek or Mickey Kaus can be credibly called "right wing". I mean, if that is right wing to you - then you are so far to the left that you can't even speak for 1/100th of 1 percent of the U.S. population.
How is it ever possible for the government to assist a private company?
What part of the Constitution says the federal govt is supposed to "assist a private company"? I thought you were all about keeping corporations and the govt as separated as possible - lest that evil corporate influence sully the purity of govt. Usually "assisting a private company" is giving them special tax breaks - are you really down with that?
Why is it important for GM to stay afloat?
Good question - why is that important? You just ASSUME it is - because it reinforces a status quo that you like. Why not Packard? Why did the govt allow them to go out of business - and how did the auto manufacturing sector survive?
How is the health of GM related to the the strength of our economy?
Good GOD you're channelling Calvin Coolidge!
Bonus question: why do libertarians/conservatives get a hard on for the financial sector and shit all over manufacturing?
Bonus answer, but only if you take your head out of your ass and actually listen. Ready?
They don't. Libertarians don't do bailouts - so stop fucking blaming us. Got that? Unless you can link to Cato or Reason or von Mises that supports this - you are nothing but full of shit.
>6Kings, refute the facts, dude. Linking to right wing blogs won't cut it.
This one deserves a ROFL. Mickey Kaus, who ran for the Senate on the DEMOCRATIC ticket in California, runs a right wing blog apparently. You also might want to look up what a genetic fallacy is Mark - you just engaged in it.
>Has GM bounced back or not?
Let's back up and look at the upside down world Mark has created here. He puts forth the premise that the GM bailout has been a resounding success. Based on that dubious assertion, he gets asked a number of questions, asking him to back up that assertion in some fashion. Rather than answer any of those questions, Mark ignores them all, and then proceeds to ask us leading questions that, when answered, will support his own premise. To wit:
>Has GM bounced back or not?
You tell us Mark. You put forth the premise that the bailout is a huge success.
>What does that mean?
Yes Mark, exactly. What does it mean to "bounce back" or be an "epic success." You asserted it, you define it.
>Why is it important for GM to stay afloat?
Again, you tell us. I can't think of a good reason a money losing machine should stay afloat courtesy of the taxpayers, aside from temporarily buying some votes. Can you?
>What does interconnectivity have to do with this on both a national and international level?
Your buzzwords, you define them.
>How is the health of GM related to the the strength of our economy?
You tell us. I think the country will live on. It's not as though businesses haven't failed before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_business_failures
And for a bonus reminder Mark, since you were asked first, by me:
1. Are there any negative side effects to the governments actions in the case of GM, or is it a win-win all around?
2. Would you advocate bailing out any american corporation that is near bankruptcy? If no, given that you consider the GM intervention a "success", why not?
Hap, you answered my questions with questions. That's not a discussion. Answer them and we can continue.
Juris-the simple answer for you is jobs. That's why we bailed out GM. Tarp worked, dude. Sorry to inform you otherwise.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2010/12/01/reality-check-what-did-bailout-cost-taxpayers/
I have a post with more on this coming soon.
So what if it's not in the Constitution? Neither was creating a national bank but Hamilton and President Washington did it anyway because that was what was best for the country.
But, again, you're blaming Obama for mistakes that were made by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. We never should have gotten to this point but that's what you get when you play the laissez faire game in this day and age.
Juris-the simple answer for you is jobs. That's why we bailed out GM. Tarp worked, dude. Sorry to inform you otherwise.
Oh, THAT explains the 14% unemployment in California. Remember - no hypothetical speculation about how bad it would've been otherwise.
You are sorry alright - just not the way you think you are.
So what if it's not in the Constitution?
Yeah, so what. Just let the govt do whatever it wants to, right M? You do realize that same rule applies when the other guys are in charge - right? It isn't always "your guy" there.
Jaysus you are full of stupid tonight.
>Hap, you answered my questions with questions. That's not a discussion. Answer them and we can continue.
Read comments 1, 2, and 3. It is, in fact, you who are answering questions with questions. I merely repeated mine in my last comment. Are you going to answer them or continue to play games?
Haplo this would be where M would normally duck out at TSM, and I suspect, other than a snark and another [tangent inducing] question or two - this will be the end of his participation on this thread.
>You also might want to look up what a genetic fallacy is Mark - you just engaged in it.
It has been explained to him. Repeatedly.
Apparently he thinks fallacies are the kinds of arguments you're supposed to use.
I thought the two links provided a nice concise listing completely refuting "Epic. Success". Let's see, losing money, cronyism, screwing over investors, circumventing bankruptcy law, major structural problems at GM left unaddressed, etc. You must not have read or understood the articles.
You must not have read or understood the articles.
Aha! Markadelphia is John Conyers' secret identity! That explains everything!
"Jaysus you are full of stupid tonight."
Does that mean that Hamilton and Washington are full of stupid as well? Were they justified or not in establishing a national bank? Not in the Constitution, right?
I think they were quite smart, actually, to do what they did. Clearly, it was needed. In fact, I don't think the Constitution was ever meant to be set in rock granite. Clearly, neither did they. So who is the idiot? And enough with the "running away" shit. I post every day and get ideas for posts from comments so you really have your head up your ass on that one.
"It has been explained to him. Repeatedly."
I'm well aware what a genetic fallacy is, dude. Checking for bias and asking for an explanation in someone's own words when a question is asked is not dismissing something as irrelevant simply because of its origin. I was calling on 6Kings' view, backed by data, or at least a simple rebuttal. I post links all the time and at least offer an interpretation or understanding of them. Other than the links, he offered the words "And" and "Your post is an embarrassment of epic proportion." So, did he read or understand the articles? How can I know this?
Sorry, it was short. I had written up two different longer responses and each one failed to post. That was a 'hope this one works' or 'have I been locked out' post.
Well, Google has been crap lately so if that's the case than no one is to blame. I don't know what's going on, folks, but I seem to have no trouble posting and Tess just put up a comment in another thread so we may be good again. I have no control over this...sadly.
I would suggest typing a comment off line and then cutting and pasting just to be safe from now on.
Genetic fallacies, hmm? How many of you have seen any Michael Moore films? If not, why not?
And no problems for me posting.
Does that mean that Hamilton and Washington are full of stupid as well?
Well they certainly had plenty of contemporaries who disagreed with them, and ultimately the 1st Bank of the United States was disbanded - and the republic survived.
I have no problem with someone proposing an amendment to the Constitution - even stupid ones. That will all get sorted out (although Prohibition certainly proves you can have a stupid one get through). What I object to is the blithe idiocy that the Constitution DOES NOT MATTER - do whatever a majority can be summoned for. That you disregard the Constitution as a limit in some cases means you can disregard it in ANY case. Even THAT should worry you a little - but you insist on being so dense that it doesn't.
Mark, comment number 2. Still waiting on your answers.
>Checking for bias and asking for an explanation in someone's own words when a question is asked is not dismissing something as irrelevant simply because of its origin.
Here's a hint:
When your only response to a link is to cite its origin as ruling out those facts or ideas, then you're using the genetic fallacy.
You wrote, "Linking to right wing blogs won't cut it." That was your entire response to what was in his links. Genetic Fallacy. The End. Full Stop.
I think it's pretty obvious what he meant. He wanted 6Kings to offer more of an explanation than just the links. Mark, I wouldn't answer Haplo9's taunts. It's all just a part of that winning the argument game.
Yes, that's right Brendan. Because if Mark doesn't answer that means he's
a. Running away from the argument which means he's afraid.
b. Doesn't know the answer which means he's stupid.
c. He's a stupid idiot who doesn't anything about anything.
Ever feel like you are in still in school when you post here, Mark.
>He wanted 6Kings to offer more of an explanation than just the links.
What, precisely, makes an argument restated by 6Kings and requiring links back to what he already linked valid, when a link to an already well written argument that makes the Exact Same Points and already links to established facts somehow invalid.
Or put another way, you claim…
A) Argument written by 6Kings with supporting data = Valid
B) Exact Same argument on "right wing blog" with same supporting data = Invalid
What, PRECISELY causes (A) to be valid, but not (B)? That imaginary difference is known as the Genetic Fallacy.
The only actual difference I can spot is you trying to waste 6Kings' time.
Tess,
Incorrect. Here, I've fixed them for you:
a. Consistently (99.999% of the time) running away from an argument when questioned about details means he's afraid.
b. When he runs away from the exact same question (or gives the exact same wrong answers) year after year after year, it means he doesn't know the answer, which means he's stupid. (Ignorance can be fixed by adding knowledge. What do you call it when knowledge is refused? Oh right… see my handle.)
c. Because of (a) and (b) he's a stupid idiot who doesn't anything about anything. (Hey, you got this one [almost] right! Actually I would say that he knows a whole lot… that just isn't so.)
Apparently, 6Kings wrote a longer comment and google ate it so he (or she) is certainly not at fault for that. Since that is the case, my comment was out of line. All apologies to 6Kings.
Hap, I'm not sure we can have any sort of substantive discussion. I'm not seeing any sort of indication that you will budge from your position that any sort of government interference is always bad. Your mind was set on this GM thing right from the start and it's been my experience that it's pretty much impossible to move away from that when someone has the ideology that you have.
My answer to your question, of course, is no. GM is in a category by itself. It's standing is tied to the perception of the American economy and has been for quite some time. Letting it fail would have made it worse on that count alone. Further, the amount of jobs lost from letting it fail would've been catastrophic given all the other businesses that are connected to it. It's interconnectivity makes it unique in that regard as well.
My prediction is that you (and others who are as pathological as you) will continue to find anything negative that you can about GM. No amount of success will ever be enough and, as it is with everything else, perception of failure (regardless of facts) will reign.
Tess, yes, all the time. For the most part, my commenters here remind quite a bit of the 14-16 year old boys I see in school or coaching. Perhaps with a dash of 8 year old temper thrown it at times.
ST,
a. We essentially have the same argument with each new post I put up so how I am running away exactly? As has been said here lately, I put up a new post nearly every day (or Nikto does) in defense of my thinking and beliefs. If you call that running away, that's certainly an odd definition.
b. I've come to the conclusion that when I am called stupid on here it really means "I don't like what he said and I don't like the fact that he knows more about this than I do." See Tess's comment about adolescence above for additional meaning.
c. see b.
I think they have been mostly talking about the comment section of your blog, where you folks fail to address counterpoints brought up. Sure you put up a new post every day but you (until 2 days ago) rarely would ever address points or just dismiss them as "the rove!" or "confirmation bias!". Nikto never responds to anyone - just drives by, paints some words on the blog, and moves on to the next outrage. Is it beneath him to further discuss what he types on here?
Mark,
It isn't at all that I don't 'like' your argument. I just can't understand how you define it as a success, epic no less, when there isn't much I and others see that fit our definition of success.
What I am getting from your posts is that you feel that because GM is so big and interconnected and a supposed icon in the US economy, doing something justified it as a success because it didn't go under. Even in spite of:
Stakeholders were screwed over in the bailout. Circumventing Bankruptcy laws in this case sets a horrible precedent for future government intervention. Restructuring GM really didn't take place so they have the same structural problems that led to their problems. Just released a joke of a vehicle (Volt) as their flagship which costs a fortune and has little applicable mainstream use. Still reliant on trucks. Selling IPO shares at a loss to the taxpayer - $10 Billion or so. IPO share offerings only rising 3-6 percent when a normal IPO hits 10-20 percent rise - seems a bit tepid. Still hemorrhaging in some areas of the company like Opel. Market share still sliding. Unions adamant about no more concessions.
The hits go on and on. So, these are facts and some opinions that ultimately stack against your perceived success. So is your definition of success of government intervention based on the hypothetical 'it saved jobs' or something more concrete? Because normal bankruptcy procedures usually don't shut companies down, they just alleviate debt load until the company can restructure to operate more favorably. Exactly what the government tried to do clumsily, more expensively, and much more damaging in my opinion.
GM Reminds me of a big container ship filled to the top with containers representing debt and sinking from multiple holes. Another ship (govt) comes along and offloads a number of containers which make the ship ride higher in the water but ultimately still sinking. Nothing was repaired, just made to look a bit better temporarily.
Maybe a bad metaphor but whatever.
Letting it fail would have made it worse on that count alone
Mark, you do understand that going into bankruptcy or getting a govt bailout are both perceived as the same failure - don't you?
You do understand that going into bankruptcy doesn't mean the company disappears - don't you?
You do understand that if GM entered bankruptcy they would come out of it with reduced or vastly lowered debt load, be more efficient, restructured and with operating capital in hand from the sale of unneeded holdings. That in doing so they would be a better competitor in the market - don't you?
You do understand that 'letting it fail' doesn't mean closing it down - don't you?
So understanding all of that, I can't understand why you still think the govt bailout - whatever the results - was a good thing. It was unnecessary in the best case scenario, and in the worst case does nothing more that pour tax dollars into a broken business model.
I think it's pretty obvious what he meant.
He used the proper dog whistle and you obediently sat.
Got it.
> Tarp worked, dude. Sorry to inform you otherwise.
You have a funny definition of "worked". I***t.
>It's standing is tied to the perception of the American economy and has been for quite some time.
Letting it fail would have made it worse on that count alone. Further, the amount of jobs lost from letting it fail would've been catastrophic given all the other businesses that are connected to it. It's interconnectivity makes it unique in that regard as well.
Do you have some way to measure this interconnectivity? Some way to say, company A is x connected and company B is y connected, therefore company A can't be allowed to fail?
I ask because if you were to ask any company on the verge of bankruptcy whether they are "interconnected" or "important to the American economy", they will of course say yes and they should be bailed out. So how do you meaningfully separate out companies that are deserving of bailouts versus those that aren't? You've got some kind of number, some kind of measurement, right? You aren't just basing it entirely on your feelings, right?
>Mark, I wouldn't answer Haplo9's taunts. It's all just a part of that winning the argument game.
I'm curious why you say that - Mark put forth the statement that the GM bailout was an epic success. Are questions I asked him irrelevant to his statement? Why? The first (which he has yet to answer) is whether he thinks there are any drawbacks to the government's actions when doing what it did in the GM case. The second is how one decides whether to bail out one company versus another. Both questions are highly on topic and relevant to the discussion. Asking Mark to expand and back up his statements is apparently just the "winning the argument" game, eh?
Hap, take a few minutes to look at the structure of GM. There are plenty of sites to research how much water flows out into various rivers from the lake that is GM as far as measuring goes.
For example, did you know that GM was one of the early innovators of vehicle safety information and security with OnStar? Think about all the various industries that GM supports...just for a few minutes. It's really overwhelming if you begin to think about all the parts, the steel, the global sales, the dealers...it's quite extensive.
And if it failed, what would happen given their reach?
Mark,
And if it failed, what would happen given their reach?
I and Guard Duck just explained to you very simply how bankruptcy works and you just completely disregarded reality to go off on some fantasy about GM vanishing. Do you really not understand anything about this country's business environment?
Your Onstar example is not relevant. Did you know that there are companies out there competing already with Onstar?
Even further, business owners who bet the farm on one customer are taking a huge risk and they know it. They are betting their business on it. You know what happens if the GM ecosystem dies in your worst case scenario? It adapts, gets absorbed by others, or dies. That is capitalism - moving capital to productive areas and away from unproductive ones. Only government meddling screws that up.
There are plenty of sites to research how much water flows out into various rivers from the lake that is GM as far as measuring goes.
LMAO, that is pure Chauncey Gardner!
Why would it have been so difficult to just say "you're right, I don't actually have a measure - but I really feel this is right"?
Why? It seriously couldn't be less embarrassing than putting up the tripe you just did.
Further, the amount of jobs lost from letting it fail would've been catastrophic given all the other businesses that are connected to it. It's interconnectivity makes it unique in that regard as well.
Horse hockey.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
Interconnectivity is the nature of market economics. That essay was first published in 1958. And that's just a pencil.
All business are interconnected that way. GM is not unique in that regard at all.
You're just picking winners and losers, that's all. I notice you don't seem concerned by the jobs being permanently killed by Obama's drilling moratorium, nor his overall trend toward permanently killing the US fossil fuels industry.
Maybe, JURIS, he's trying to get Haplo9 to think for himself. That is the very definition of critical thinking, correct? Quite a little game you guys play with Mark. I wonder if he is wise enough to ignore your antics.
That is the very definition of critical thinking, correct?
Is it? So far as I can tell, the difference between "critical" thinking and "analytical" thinking is that "critical" thinking requires you to treat prejudices as facts.
From Wikipedia:
Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and fairness.
"Relevance", "significance" and "fairness" are not defined standards, so if the 'critical' thinker decides something isn't relevant or significant, it isn't. Same goes with "fairness". "Depth" and "breadth" can mean pretty much whatever you like.
The problem here seems to be that you guys are treating critical thinking and analytical thinking as identical, when in fact critical thinking requires a refusal to think analytically.
>Maybe, JURIS, he's trying to get Haplo9 to think for himself. That is the very definition of critical thinking, correct?
Why does "think for yourself" and "critical thinking" always seem to amount to "jump into the hazy miasma that Mark calls thinking"?
Mark put forth his position - I'm asking him to support it with something other than vague hand waving. So far, all he's got are "well, it's interconnected!" and "you figure it out for me." I'll say it again:
You've got some kind of number, some kind of measurement, right?
To help you out, I'll note that this is a yes or no question. So there are two possible answers - yes or no Mark?
"Only government meddling screws that up."
In this case, it clearly hasn't. It's been a success. An epic one considering how awful they were to start. You refuse to accept that because of the belief you have summed up so eloquently in the quote above. We can't have any sort of serious or critical discussion until you can look past this bias.
Juris, I do have a measure. Spend a few minutes and research the various connections GM has all over the world. You're not thinking. Start, please.
DT, logic indeed. Can you think logically about government involvement in any sort of private industry? How about the logic in letting such an influential company (in a myriad of ways) fail?
I am going to cut and paste you definition of critical thinking, though, and see how you and others here stand up to it.
I see you are still stuck on your false understanding of 'fail'.
Get back to us when you can explain the alternatives to tax-payer cash infusion.
Additionally - just because something is 'better' than it was doesn't make it such a success that we can't discuss what it could be if alternatives were used.
Juris, I do have a measure. Spend a few minutes and research the various connections GM has all over the world. You're not thinking. Start, please.
I see, I have to google around to find something that might be your measure because you won't tell me.
Riiiiiiiiiight.
I wonder what it is like to live with no sense of shame? You probably didn't even catch the Chauncey Gardner reference, and NO I'm not going to tell you.
>Juris, I do have a measure. Spend a few minutes and research the various connections GM has all over the world. You're not thinking. Start, please.
Mark, all you have to do is put aside your ego and be honest here. If you have a measure, tell us what it is. Vaguly handwaving towards google and saying "figure it out for me" just tells us you are full of shit. If you don't have a measure, it's ok to say "I don't have a measure, I'm just using my gut." At least then we can agree to disagree.
Your certainty implies that you have something concrete to base your conclusion off of - something reasonably objective that can be observed by someone else that does not share your biases. (Psst, the scientific method works kind of like that too - being a teacher, you're an expert there, right?)
Hah! Juris, I've never heard of Chauncey Gardner, the reference applies well. The Pink Panther strikes again.
Post a Comment