BMW Receives U.S. Federal Support During Economic Crisis

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by HeHasReturned

And we owe China $1 Trillion..and we owe Japan quite a bit too. What's your point?

Eff CHINA.. and EFF Japan.

I often laugh at the fear mongering that people have in regards to China, a country that would shrivel up like a grape in the sun if American business pulled out. If President Obama put a tax on all imported goods from China, killing incentive for American corporations, America's jobless rate would drop like metal ball off the Empire States,

So what's your point?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Despite the fact I can barely understand what you're trying to get at because of your unbelievably poor english, I think you are trying to insinuate that these loans to BMW aren't loans. . . or something along those lines. They are, and they will be paid back in full, with interest. From an economic standpoint, these loans are far, FAR less risky than the majority position in GM and likely to generate profit rather than loss. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

........

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Eff CHINA.. and EFF Japan.

I often laugh at the fear mongering that people have in regards to China, a country that would shrivel up like a grape in the sun if American business pulled out. If President Obama put a tax on all imported goods from China, killing incentive for American corporations, America's jobless rate would drop like metal ball off the Empire States,

So what's your point?

I'm sure that's what Smoot and Hawley thought, too.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

at the insult. Dude... I type the way I want... Deal wit it.

As for what I was attempting to say... My issue has never been the fact that these foreign companies received loans from the U.S. My issue is the fact that these companies got none of the flack that GM and Chrysler got. I understand that these loan just came to light, but even now, when we kno the truth, so many IDIOTS IMPORT LOVERS are jumping to their defense.

Point blank... People like this make me hate this country. Americans who are so quick to throw their own under the bus are the reason why I fear for this country's future. I once fought in a war for this country... voluntarily; but based on just the ignorant notions of moronic Subaru driving fools... I would have sooner went AWOL.

Like I said, there's a reason the bail-out is so controversial. Loans and loans with warrant trade incentives from the fed have happened many times in multiple industries in the past. The problem many people, including myself, have with the way the GM bail-out was handled, is the fed became the majority shareholder of a huge corporation in what will likely result in a loss. In my opinion, it was a terrible short-term patch to a deeper underlying problem in our economy and that's the unions. It's not a stab at GM, it's a stab at the economists and bankers that guaranteed their own futures, but IMO screwed everyone in the long run. I'd like to remind you that I lived in Detroit for 20 years, most of my family works in the automotive industry, and when I bought my sti, the biggest holder in Fuji Heavy Industries, the owner of Subaru of America, was General Motors.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Despite the fact I can barely understand what you're trying to get at because of your unbelievably poor english, I think you are trying to insinuate that these loans to BMW aren't loans. . . or something along those lines. They are, and they will be paid back in full, with interest. From an economic standpoint, these loans are far, FAR less risky than the majority position in GM and likely to generate profit rather than loss. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Risk wasn't a factor for the Fed for any of the loans. Lol @ the last sentence.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by a_Username

I'm sure that's what Smoot and Hawley thought, too.

LOL... Damn good point... but we both know that there still remains a great deal of debate about the effects of their legislation.

The fear of doing something is insane when one considers the known result of doing nothing. America certainly cannot shut down all trade, but at least re-create a fair playing field where the protector of the world is not constantly guilt-ed into destroying itself. The new Korean trade agreement is a great example. Funny how S. Korea returned to the table once N. Korea started shooting missiles at it. Of course for 29K U.S. troops, and the saving of their ass in the Korean War.. I'd say they should be adding a few hundred Billion in cash each year to make it sweeter

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

LOL... Damn good point... but we both know that there still remains a great deal of debate about the effects of their legislation.

The tariff is a pretty commonly cited reason for the Great Depression, but it wasn't just it more than the retaliatory tariffs enacted by other countries, who were all looking to one-up each other in a good ole trade war.

The fear of doing something is insane when one considers the known result of doing nothing. America certainly cannot shut down all trade, but at least re-create a fair playing field where the protector of the world is not constantly guilt-ed into destroying itself. The new Korean trade agreement is a great example. Funny how S. Korea returned to the table once N. Korea started shooting missiles at it. Of course for 29K U.S. troops, and the saving of their ass in the Korean War.. I'd say they should be adding a few hundred Billion in cash each year to make it sweeter

I do not buy mercantile fallacies such as the notion that trade benefits one country at the expense of another. Moreover, who believes that markets "do nothing?"

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Actually, some are already going around boasting that "taxpayers have profited." Even if we ignore TARP as a whole, which is what some economists are doing in regards to how they can conclude taxpayers have profited on certain categories, it will still make you wonder how can we profit in anyway? I don't recall anyone getting their dividend check from the $7 Billion profit that Yglesias proudly proclaimed. As I said before, they're not helping our economy in the least.

Oh ya, I know some are making claims that are premature. I respect what you are saying. I think the problem is that you it's difficult to prove a negative. The Gov't stepped in and made some loans and propped some companies up at the time that it was 50/50 on whether some of them would have failed (BMW isn't one of those). So because the companies failed to fail- you can only get speculation that they definitely would have failed and then those people affected would stagnate.

Besides, TARP is a drop in the US's over-extended budget.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by bigearl

Oh ya, I know some are making claims that are premature. I respect what you are saying. I think the problem is that you it's difficult to prove a negative. The Gov't stepped in and made some loans and propped some companies up at the time that it was 50/50 on whether some of them would have failed (BMW isn't one of those). So because the companies failed to fail- you can only get speculation that they definitely would have failed and then those people affected would stagnate.

Besides, TARP is a drop in the US's over-extended budget.

Not that I disagree with you... but that bucket keeps filling up.... we need it to be empty. drops at a time if need be....

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by GTAHVIT

Not that I disagree with you... but that bucket keeps filling up.... we need it to be empty. drops at a time if need be....

I agree with this too. I guess I have fewer problems personally with money spent as part of a 'solution to a crisis' (I won't argue whether that was a good solution, just action vs inaction), then I do with the programs that are intended to last forever.

If the financial house was in order then spending a little extra during recessions and pulling it back hard when times are good seems to not be unreasonable. WTF do I know though, I'm just another internet troll with too much freetime to ponder this crap.

I shant say more for fear of closing the thread.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by bigearl

I agree with this too. I guess I have fewer problems personally with money spent as part of a 'solution to a crisis' (I won't argue whether that was a good solution, just action vs inaction), then I do with the programs that are intended to last forever.

If the financial house was in order then spending a little extra during recessions and pulling it back hard when times are good seems to not be unreasonable. WTF do I know though, I'm just another internet troll with too much freetime to ponder this crap.

I shant say more for fear of closing the thread.

Seriously, how do people come up with the market "not acting?" The bust is the solution not the problem.

[bigearl]

You are misunderstanding what I wrote. That's the gov't acting vs not acting, not the market. And the market didn't fluctuate on it's own. This was a reaction to commodities speculation and housing finance practices. Not just another black friday tailspin that never pulled up. This is no longer a market correction.

[speedbrds]

That's not cool. So that means not only do we all own a piece of GM and Chrysler, but now BMW. We are owed three cars. I want another Camaro (SS/RS), Fiat 500 Abarth (since they are now with Chry), and a M5 Touring. Gimme gimme, gimme!!!

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by speedbrds

That's not cool. So that means not only do we all own a piece of GM and Chrysler, but now BMW. We are owed three cars. I want another Camaro (SS/RS), Fiat 500 Abarth (since they are now with Chry), and a M5 Touring. Gimme gimme, gimme!!!

Issuing a loan does not mean you've bought a piece of the company