Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3
Actually no. The U.S. Treasury holds a less than 40% stake in GM. The loans, however, were all repaid IN FULL.
|
The government put in $49.5 billion, and got out $15.8 billion so far. $49.5B-$15.8B=$33.7B left to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3
I simply ask if you paid me the $500 back, even if it was my own money, how in the world do you think I didn't pay you back? Do you somehow think you should get ANOTHER $500????
|
Yes, because ANOTHER $500 was borrowed. If you paid back the loan by simply handing back $500 to the creditor, the debt is paid. BUT, if you paid back the original $500 loan by refinancing (borrowing a second $500 at a better interest rate to pay off the first $500), you still owe $500. You "paid" the first loan back, but now you have the second. If you refinance your mortgage to a lower interest rate, do you not still have a mortgage? This is what GM did. They paid off the "bailout" loan with a refinance loan, and have yet to pay back the refinance loan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_Username
Yes, but imposing tariffs, devaluing the currency, outright banning free trade, or dabbling in a little state capitalism is not the way to "stay competitive"; these policies actually lead to the opposite of what you want to happen. Not saying you specifically proposed or even implied these views, but it was just a general implication that I got from reading a few replies to this thread.
|
I disagree. Our nation's industrial revolution happened at a time of protective tariffs, and that history is repeating itself with China, India, etc. What we have now is anything but free trade. It is "managed" trade at best, and the managers are not us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3
But to address what you mentioned ... you're saying that its better for global companies to have their home market be 100% free and open, meanwhile their international competitors enjoy a home field advantage (due to the various methods you mentioned)? Sounds like its great for making everyone else competitive, but not so much for the domestic companies. What I personally endorse are mirroring the trade practices of other nations, at least whats practical. If they want free trade, good for them. But if they try and protect their market so they can sell to you without you selling to them ... that doesn't sit well with me.
|
Amen. Give reciprocity or get nothing. That should be the fundamental demand of any trade agreement. Otherwise, it won't work (at least not for us).