Hmm...
Less than two years after entering bankruptcy, General Motors will extend millions of dollars in bonuses to most of its 48,000 hourly workers as a reward for the company's rapid turnaround after it was rescued by the government.
So, perhaps those nine words aren't so terrifying after all.
The company made $4.2 billion in the first nine months of 2010 and is expected to announce a fourth-quarter profit soon.
Another quarter with a profit...hey, that's pretty great!
Anyone out there care to retract their statements on how "Government Motors" was a giant mistake?
20 comments:
The right wing of this country will never admit that the GM bailout was a success for two reasons. The first is that it would be an admittance the government can help out in situations like this. A big no-no. The second reason is the unions. The unions are always to blame for all problems related to manufacturing and the GM situation is no exception. If the bailout was a success, that translates into approval of unions in their minds.
GM still owes $26.4 Billion to the government which is locked into stock that needs to increase in value by 50% to be worth what the government sunk into it.
But other than sinking a bunch of public money into GM and still having them go through a 'bankruptcy' that threw established bankruptcy law out the window, what the real question should be is if GM could have went through standard bankruptcy and ended up in essentially the same or better position. Without the potential loss of billions of public dollars.
It's only a loss until they pay it all back, Guard Duck. I'm thinking that they will. If they do, will you or anyone else here admit that it was a success?
This post deserves a big LOL. It's a glorious instance of standard response #10 - the monsters get close, Mark runs away, then he comes back and acts like it never happened.
To speed this up, I refer everyone to this thread:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10123622&postID=602540213223791908&isPopup=true
Hey Mark - have you figured out your measure of interconnected-ness yet? Surely, it's right on the tip of your tongue..
daniel! Good to see you bud. You left a comment in that thread about GM, and were asked some questions. You never answered. I'm sure you just forgot and weren't running away though. Hows about giving it a go?
Better link as it includes the post as well, not just the comments:
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/11/epic-success.html
Never give in, eh Hap? I would expect nothing less:)
:) Uh huh. You're usually pretty bad at actually addressing questions, but that thread was exceptional for the amount that you avoided, ignored, or just tried to distract from questions. But yeah - I too expect that level of dishonesty from you. Alas.
It's only a loss until they pay it all back, Guard Duck. I'm thinking that they will. If they do, will you or anyone else here admit that it was a success?
Even the government doesn't expect it to all be paid back - ever.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11227/03-17-TARP.pdf
And no, just paying it back does not make it a success. There are established bankruptcy laws in this country that GM could have submitted to. That's the way you handle business. Now we have precedent that there are industries that are 'too big to fail'. Being the CEO of a business that is 'too big to fail' is like being in a no-score kids soccer league. There isn't any reason to even try, as no score is being kept, and the coaches still take you out for milkshakes after the game.
Meanwhile I have lost money because idiots in the government can't manage it. Mark hates rich people because they somehow cost him money that he can't actually point to, here is actual lost money but Mark praises the culprits.
that thread was exceptional for the amount that you avoided, ignored, or just tried to distract from questions.
Which roughly translates as Mark saying a bunch of things you didn't like and detailing facts that bother you. Mark has nailed it on the head when he said that this is what you resort to when things are sucky for you. You turn the whole argument on him and obsess about all the things he says-picking them over and looking for any little hint of something you can pounce on to distract from any sort of liberal success. It's pathetic, Haplo9. Really pathetic.
>You turn the whole argument on him and obsess about all the things he says-picking them over and looking for any little hint of something you can pounce on to distract from any sort of liberal success. It's pathetic, Haplo9. Really pathetic.
It's pretty funny how you guys really don't like to answer questions about your beliefs and statements. It's like you want the pure unvarnished truthiness of your positions to not have to be muddied up by mucky things like reality and unintended consequences. For example:
Mark says: bailing out GM was good. I ask: should we bail out all companies that are in trouble?
Mark says: no, GM is special.
I ask: why is GM special?
Mark says: because it is really interconnected.
I ask: how do you tell when a company is interconnected versus not interconnected? Do you have a measurement?
Mark says: I do have a measurement.
I ask: what is it?
Mark says: I have a measurement.
I ask: what is it?
Mark says: ...
You see sasquatch, it isn't complicated. Even and adolescent like you can comprehend it. Hows about you give it a shot? If you are unable to figure out the larger context behind the questions, let me give you a hint: how might the behavior of companies change if they know they can depend on taxpayers to bail them out? What consequences might arise from making that incentive exist?
You're usually pretty bad at actually addressing questions
Mark says: bailing out GM was good. I ask: should we bail out all companies that are in trouble?
Mark says: no, GM is special.
I ask: why is GM special?
Mark says: because it is really interconnected.
I ask: how do you tell when a company is interconnected versus not interconnected? Do you have a measurement?
Mark says: I do have a measurement.
I ask: what is it?
Mark says: I have a measurement.
So he didn't address any questions? Looks to me that, in your own words, he did. Words which are, incidentally, in no way accurate to the actual exchange. Why don't you copy the text instead of putting it through your butt hole filter? And you want to be my latex salesman...
This is a perfect example of the games you play, Haplo9. You seem like you are a smart enough person. I think you know very well how interconnected GM is and the symbol that it represents in our country. Rather than admit that they are an exception, you attack Mark personally. Why? In the childish attempt to win the argument. Mark=correct. Once again.
You insulting Haplo does not mean Mark is automatically correct.
(I guess you're going to take a pass on picking up where Mark left off then?)
>So he didn't address any questions?
Did I say he didn't address any questions? He definitely answered some questions - just none of the questions that would allow him to actually clarify (and strengthen) his position.
> I think you know very well how interconnected GM is and the symbol that it represents in our country.
No, actually, I don't. That is the rub to the entire thing. I see no reason GM can't enter bankruptcy like any other company and restructure. If GM can claim to be hugely interconnected and a symbol of our country, every company will claim that when they hit trouble - how you will decide which companies should be bailed out and which should not? Ie, what measurement would you use? Weird huh? It's almost like my series of questions had an overarching purpose to it, which was to either get Mark to explain his position better, or actually do some thinking. He did neither. Once again, I invite you to help him.
>Rather than admit that they are an exception,
There it is again. Why are they the exception? By what logic? And how would that logic not apply to a bunch of other companies?
>you attack Mark personally.
Eh. I get sick of trying to get Mark to explain the assumptions underlying his positions without dodging, doing irrelevant blather, or ascribing false motives to those that question him. I wouldn't claim to speak for any conservative-ish people here, but I think I'm on solid ground in saying that just about all of us get extremely tired of that. In short, arguing with someone who argues in bad faith tends to be extremely exasperating. Guilty as charged.
>Why? In the childish attempt to win the argument.
I don't know why you guys think this is some kind of trump card. Winning an argument with Mark would be like winning a game of tiddlywinks; it just doesn't matter. What is interesting is trying to understand how he thinks, how he comes to conclusions he does, as a lot of people seem to think just like him. How else would one do this except by asking questions about his statements?
@Haplo9, I have to imagine that as with most of the other things that M and his merry little band project, the need to win is vital to their sense of self; but too difficult to actually own up to. So they insist on how pervasive and nasty this is amongst the great unwashed who oppose them.
Howler monkeys defending their turf.
check the stock price today, down below the ipo level. what a winner.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110224/ap_on_re_us/us_earns_gm
Hmmm...
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/02/cnn-.html
Let's see, Taxpayers losing out on billions in taxes thanks to a sweet (and unique) deal by the Government. Nice...we taxpayers get screwed multiple ways all facilitated by this joke of an administration.
When is that NOT the case with you guys? It's the one note samba over and over again.
Post a Comment