Anyone buying GM Stock in IPO?

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by AZCamaroFan

Did you see the story a couple days ago that contributions from GM are being made to the Congressional Black Caucus, and other congressmen?
Tax money, given to GM, kickbacked to Congress for campaign use.

Leftlanenews even covered it. I didn't see it on TV. Only stuff about Lindsay Lohan and some trips to Spain and a birthday party.

[formare]

I dumped all mine into ford as a reward for excellent senior management.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by jrc1122

You and I would get along great!

If you are ever down in Austin, give me a shout. There are a few good car shows around town every Sat night too.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Please, tell me which ones came from the government. As in, which ones were employed by the government prior to their appointment to GM's board of directors. I keep hearing "they were appointed by the Obama administration" (which, as majority shareholder I believe they are entitled to do) yet I haven't seen anyone that is actually a former government employee that has been placed there to run GM. If the government is running GM, wouldn't they have to have their own employees.... ya know... running GM? Not someone from elsewhere that they deem suitable, their own people. One from the EPA, another from Department of Transportation, and so on. I do not see any such people.


Which ones are the government bureaucrats on GM's board of directors? The one from Coca Cola? The Dean of Economics from the University of Western Ontario? The former CEO of AT&T? The co-founder of an investment firm? Please clarify which individuals you are talking about.

You're creating a straw man by saying unless the people appointed by the Obama Administration actually came from a government agency, then the government can't possibly be controlling the company.

Why you're making that silly argument, I have no idea.

That's like saying when Obama appoints the Secretary of Defense, unless he came from the military, he doesn't really control the military.

Complete nonsense.

The bottom line is Obama, through the Treasury Dept., appointed people who agree with his policies and will carry out his vision of what GM should be. If you don't think so, you're either kidding yourself or being willfully ignorant.

[ljstella]

Thought I'd leave this here

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/05/r...ly-7-000-jobs/

[jrc1122]

Originally Posted by ljstella

Thought I'd leave this here

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/05/r...ly-7-000-jobs/

Don't flame me.. because I honestly don't know the answer...

But is that a Net job growth.. Because if you layoff lets say 20,000 people, and then rehire 7000.. well....

You actually still cut 13K jobs in the recent months (12-24)

Also, does that include all the jobs lost by a direct result of the GM bankrupsty/ government agreement to drop Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer, Sabb and close tons of dealerships.

[calbert1999]

Probably, a better idea to pickup some cheap properties. Americans are lucky, propery values seem to fluctuate there, unlike here in Canada where property values keep going up 3-5% every year due to inflated home values created by bidding wars by Asians thinking in comparison house values are substantially less than in Asia, not realizing the market isn't the same. Also, when the markets are not doing well, everyone here invests in property, so again creates bidding wars and inflated values. So, eventually the housing market will bust (personally can't wait so I can get in on some deals), but so far no decline in inflated values.
Personally, real estate is the best way to go, especially when times are tough. Unless of course you get some insider trading secret, and that' illegal (for everyday people). I wish our banks would go bust due to overselling homes, with high interest rates. Here they just sell the house at market split the diff between former owner and mortgage company, and the cycle goes on. There, the banks take a loss on the mortgage and the home get's sold at an auction at city hall. Wow, ya'll lucky folks. Screww the markets, let me pick-up a few 300k homes for 100k. LOL

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Berean

You're creating a straw man by saying unless the people appointed by the Obama Administration actually came from a government agency, then the government can't possibly be controlling the company.

Why you're making that silly argument, I have no idea.

That's like saying when Obama appoints the Secretary of Defense, unless he came from the military, he doesn't really control the military.

Complete nonsense.

The bottom line is Obama, through the Treasury Dept., appointed people who agree with his policies and will carry out his vision of what GM should be. If you don't think so, you're either kidding yourself or being willfully ignorant.

Obama controls the US military because he is the Commander in Chief, not because of his selection for Sec Def. There is a chain of command, and he is at the top. Obama's involvement with the selection of the board of directors is based on the fact that the US government is the majority stakeholder of General Motors Company. If you were the majority owner, I'm pretty you could do the same thing. Additionally, so many were replaced in a short period the board of directors for General Motors Corporation were at the helm when it went bankrupt. Replacing them seems to be a reasonable decision.

Now, back to the whole 'control' issue. As I look at the situation, I see a group of people from outside the government at the helm of GM. All of them seem to be capable and competent individuals from their respective ares. None of them have to answer to the personal whims of the people in government. They have a reponsibility to their shareholders (which include 3 governments), but essentially all that means is they have to try and make GM a good investment for the shareholders. It doesn't mean they have to listen to their recommendations.

I mean, doesn't it seem odd to any of you that claim the government is controlling GM that Obama didn't appoint a single person from his administration to the board of directors? Thats what I'd do if I were trying to run them. Heck, I'd probably give myself a seat if I could. On the other hand, if I were the POTUS and had no interest in controlling the GM I'd just select a group that I think could handle the job. Afterall, it would have to be run successfully in order to pay back the loans given to them, as well have a successful IPO, and I don't trust any of my own people to run a business ... they're government bureaucrats!

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by Berean

You're creating a straw man by saying unless the people appointed by the Obama Administration actually came from a government agency, then the government can't possibly be controlling the company.

Why you're making that silly argument, I have no idea.

That's like saying when Obama appoints the Secretary of Defense, unless he came from the military, he doesn't really control the military.

Complete nonsense.

The bottom line is Obama, through the Treasury Dept., appointed people who agree with his policies and will carry out his vision of what GM should be. If you don't think so, you're either kidding yourself or being willfully ignorant.

Thank you. But even well put like this he just keeps going on and on and on like a broken Energizer Bunny.

Lets try it another way. The CEO runs the company. The CEO is Appointed by the Board of Directors. The entire Board of Directors was appointed by the Government. So in short, the power structure at GM looks like this: CEO<Board<Government

So the Government is running/controlling GM. Get it now?

[Berean]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Thank you. But even well put like this he just keeps going on and on and on like a broken Energizer Bunny.

Lets try it another way. The CEO runs the company. The CEO is Appointed by the Board of Directors. The entire Board of Directors was appointed by the Government. So in short, the power structure at GM looks like this: CEO<Board<Government

So the Government is running/controlling GM. Get it now?

He's not going to get it, because he doesn't want to.

Even if his argument was as simple as - I know the Obama administration appointed the board of directors, but I believe they are all acting independently and Obama has zero oversight or influence on the directors, - The argument still has zero credibility in light of the fact that Obama forced GM to keep their headquarters in Detroit for political reasons, rather than in the best interest of the business.

Obama may not be writing marching orders and handing them to the directors, but make no mistake, everyone on the board is politically aligned with the Obama administration, and will shape the company as he wants it shaped, rather than deciding what's best for GM as a first priority.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Berean

Obama may not be writing marching orders and handing them to the directors, but make no mistake, everyone on the board is politically aligned with the Obama administration, and will shape the company as he wants it shaped, rather than deciding what's best for GM as a first priority.

I stayed out of this for a while because DG was handling himself quite well...

But here's the facts, and I challenge you to prove me otherwise:

The government has not directly effected any of GM's vehicle plans.
The government has no interest in controlling GM, in the short or long term.
The treasury owns 60% of the company, so they have a right to appoint seats on the board...but make no mistake, they only want to see the balance sheets and care nothing for the product side of things.

Whitacre, right now, is leading the push to do things that are RIGHT for the company. Doing ONLY what's its best interests. What do you have to dispute that?

I'm really frustrated reading all the "I'm right, you're wrong" messages in here, because all I've read to support it so far is menial points that provide a foundation for what a person WANTS to believe...not what's actually happening.

[Camaro_Corvette]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I stayed out of this for a while because DG was handling himself quite well...

But here's the facts, and I challenge you to prove me otherwise:

The government has not directly effected any of GM's vehicle plans.
The government has no interest in controlling GM, in the short or long term.
The treasury owns 60% of the company, so they have a right to appoint seats on the board...but make no mistake, they only want to see the balance sheets and care nothing for the product side of things.

Whitacre, right now, is leading the push to do things that are RIGHT for the company. Doing ONLY what's its best interests. What do you have to dispute that?

WORD!

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I'm really frustrated reading all the "I'm right, you're wrong" messages in here, because all I've read to support it so far is menial points that provide a foundation for what a person WANTS to believe...not what's actually happening.

WORD!

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I stayed out of this for a while because DG was handling himself quite well...

But here's the facts, and I challenge you to prove me otherwise:

The government has not directly effected any of GM's vehicle plans.
The government has no interest in controlling GM, in the short or long term.
The treasury owns 60% of the company, so they have a right to appoint seats on the board...but make no mistake, they only want to see the balance sheets and care nothing for the product side of things.

Whitacre, right now, is leading the push to do things that are RIGHT for the company. Doing ONLY what's its best interests. What do you have to dispute that?

I'm really frustrated reading all the "I'm right, you're wrong" messages in here, because all I've read to support it so far is menial points that provide a foundation for what a person WANTS to believe...not what's actually happening.

Interesting claim because yours is also an "I'm right, you're wrong" perspective.

In every one of your "facts", I could say the exact opposite and challenge you to prove otherwise, and you couldn't because you have already decided what you're going to believe.

I'll answer your questions more directly though than setting up straw men like DG.

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

The government has not directly effected any of GM's vehicle plans.

I noticed you qualified that with "vehicle" to avoid explaining why Obama personally forced GM to keep their headquarters in Detroit.

That aside, on the "vehicle" issue, do you think the EPA's unprecedented decision to award the Volt a 230MPG rating wasn't politically motivated? I guess not, because I can't produce the email from Obama to the EPA telling them to hype the Volt.

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

The government has no interest in controlling GM, in the short or long term.

You can't prove a negative, but it's the same issue as above. The burden is on you to explain how someone who isn't controlling the company can personally decide where the headquarters of the company will be located. Also, explain why the union contracts weren't voided during bankruptcy like they would have been in any normal corporate bankruptcy case. You need to effectively explain those two FACTS before I can buy the Obama administration isn't controlling the company even though the Government owns it.

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

The treasury owns 60% of the company, so they have a right to appoint seats on the board...but make no mistake, they only want to see the balance sheets and care nothing for the product side of things.

As to the product, see my Volt comment above. As to the ownership, that in itself is a statement of control. You said they "own" 60% of the company, and "appointed" the board of directors, but somehow, they don't control it. It's simply an absence of logic to believe that.

If Warren Buffet appointed everyone to the board of directors of a company, you would get laughed out of the room to suggest that despite that, he doesn't control the company. But somehow, because it's a political issue and Obama said he isn't running the company (which he HAS to say to maintain political decorum), logic is checked at the door and one's political belief system takes over.

Look, I bought a Camaro, so I obviously don't care enough about the issue to make a purchase decision based on that, but I'm also not going to drink the cool-aid and pretend that the decisions made by the GM board aren't going to be politically based, considering they were in essence, political appointments.

[ViperTomcat]

Anyone remember this?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html