GM pays back US & Canadian loans way early

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

I am just saying that people could still call them "Government Motors" because they are still very much owned by the Government.

I have never used the term and never will, but it still applies.

In that respect, we could call them Green Motors for the Volt, or Gorgeous Motors for the Camaro...maybe General Masterpieces...

All are nicknames, which I think is what you're saying...but their name, on the record, is "General Motors Company"...and seriously calling them anything else (I'm not saying you are) is borderline ignorant.

Originally Posted by Unfair

If you put it like that it sounds like there was no bailout.

There wasn't. They are all LOANS that are going to be PAID BACK.

That...is called a loan, or lending. "Assistance" might even be appropriate. It's the same thing they COULD have done with banks (and no one here would have a problem with it, ironically), only the banks were all f'd up at the time, so they approached the one entity who still had stable money. And it was chump change, relatively speaking

I'm really tired of all the posturing on this issue. (And honestly suprised this debate came back to life in the first place) If some people would loosen their "principles" collars for a second they might be able to think clearly on the matter. You don't have to like it, but stop referring to it as something its not to get a vain point across.

[Revo1]

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by nova

I've still never seen a good case that being completely done and liquidated was a serious threat. Regardless of their cash situation that forced them into bankruptcy, they still had a significant amount of residual value in their brands, to make no mention of hard assets, value that was simply not going to be tossed in the trash heap by whomever ended up in control.

The "completely done" argument was based on the wierd assumption that some bond holder or someone buying from a bond holder in liquidation would end up with the Chevrolet/GMC/Buick/Caddilac nameplate and all its assets and then do nothing with it, which to me is simply ridiculous....

I don't like the idea of the government owning companies, and was against the bailout from the beginning. I think they could have gone through bankruptcy without the government taking them over, and still come out as their own independent American company IF IT WAS SET UP RIGHT.

I think what people were worried about was WHO would have ended up with GM in the end. I'm sure China would love to have a mainstream car company and dealer network so they can do to our auto industry what they've done to every other one of our industries. Look what has happened to Jaguar and Aston Martin: England's iconic car companies sold off, and now owned and operated by their former colony is flat out embarrassing, and a perfect example of what American companies need to be careful to avoid.

[Russell James]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

The government did exactly what you do when you buy stock. I really don't get why this is so hard to understand.

Not really. The stock you or I could have bought on the open market became worthless in the bankruptcy process. The equity the government obtained is still actually equity in the company.

Big difference.

The only way you could have swung a deal like that is if you had tens of billions to loan and the federal legislative ability to orchestrate a bankruptcy of that magnitude with the end result you desire. Not many priviate investors have that kind of power. Maybe Warren Buffett, Bill Gates...?

[somewhatdamaged]

Why the hell is it that all the lame Rustang "fans" have to chime in with all their BS.....go troll onto to Rustang5 or whatever the hell it's called for the love of humanity. Geeze, week by week you see more trolls than a Keebler cookie commercial. Don't go away mad, just go away..... This is great news for GM and does demonstrate they are on their way back!

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by somewhatdamaged

Why the hell is it that all the lame Rustang "fans" have to chime in with all their BS.....go troll onto to Rustang5 or whatever the hell it's called for the love of humanity. Geeze, week by week you see more trolls than a Keebler cookie commercial. Don't go away mad, just go away..... This is great news for GM and does demonstrate they are on their way back!

Does everyone that doesn't agree with everything everyone else says always have to be a troll?

I didn't know free thinking or maybe a disagreement here and there was against the rules.

disagreement = instant troll? come on now.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Unfair

disagreement = instant troll? come on now.

No, you're right....but repetative negative sentiments get wearing.....REAL fast.
And they tend to come mostly from our non-Camaro-enthusiast members....

Just an observation......

[somewhatdamaged]

Originally Posted by Unfair

Does everyone that doesn't agree with everything everyone else says always have to be a troll?

I didn't know free thinking or maybe a disagreement here and there was against the rules.

disagreement = instant troll? come on now.

Nah it doesn't = instant....but note that 99% of them are from NON gen5 Camaro owners...hmmmmm interesting ain't it? Peace

[DGthe3]

merged

[nova]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I don't like the idea of the government owning companies, and was against the bailout from the beginning. I think they could have gone through bankruptcy without the government taking them over, and still come out as their own independent American company IF IT WAS SET UP RIGHT.

I think what people were worried about was WHO would have ended up with GM in the end. I'm sure China would love to have a mainstream car company and dealer network so they can do to our auto industry what they've done to every other one of our industries. Look what has happened to Jaguar and Aston Martin: England's iconic car companies sold off, and now owned and operated by their former colony is flat out embarrassing, and a perfect example of what American companies need to be careful to avoid.

I'm not going to get really deep into it, but getting bent out of shape over the nationality of the group controlling a business if rather ridiculous. Prosperity has never been achieved by people drawing smaller and smaller geographic circles and saying "we're only going to do business with people in this circle." Ask the North Koreans just how well that sorta thing works out.

Its even screwier when you're talking about public companies that are openly traded where the "ownership" could be anybody anywhere. Take Toyota (who I'm no fan of). What's the argument you always hear? Well, the profits go back to Japan and they're not American owned. Really? Well, Toyota is traded on the NYSE and a couple mutual funds in my 401k hold Toyota stock so the profits are coming back to me, one Joe US Citizen along with a lot of others.

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

The government did exactly what you do when you buy stock. I really don't get why this is so hard to understand.

Well, no they didn't. I can't really go into it because of site rules, but lets just say they perverted the bankruptcy process more than a little. Perverted it to the point that after it was over and the court cases against the bankruptcy made it up to SCOTUS, the justices said, we agree with plaintiffs but the issue is moot, ie over and done...

[robertway]

Just to clarify my position without the half-sentences and one-liners. I am fully in favor of GM being a strong company that competes freely in the market place with product that the consumer market wants. That is evident by the 2010 2SS I have sitting in my garage. A bankruptcy procedure that was done as they historically are, i.e. without the purse strings held by the Federal Government, would have allowed GM to come out the other side with NO strings attached and probably better equipped to compete in the long term. That of course is speculation and the reality is we have the situation that exists now. I'll dare not to get into the Union component of the whole fiasco but will say I fully support every person that shows up at a GM office or plant everyday with the intention of developing product that the marketplace wants while at the same time supporting themselves, their family, and their community.

The principle I tend to not "loosen" on is Unconstitutional government intervention, it sets a very bad precedent going forward. Is this the first time it has happened, obviously no, is it the last, probably not, doesn't make it right, and the scale is broadening. When the government decides who the winners and losers are (ala bail out Merrill, Goldman, Citi, but let Leehman Bros. perish) how truly free in the private sector are we?

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by nova

I'm not going to get really deep into it, but getting bent out of shape over the nationality of the group controlling a business if rather ridiculous. Prosperity has never been achieved by people drawing smaller and smaller geographic circles and saying "we're only going to do business with people in this circle." Ask the North Koreans just how well that sorta thing works out.

Its even screwier when you're talking about public companies that are openly traded where the "ownership" could be anybody anywhere. Take Toyota (who I'm no fan of). What's the argument you always hear? Well, the profits go back to Japan and they're not American owned. Really? Well, Toyota is traded on the NYSE and a couple mutual funds in my 401k hold Toyota stock so the profits are coming back to me, one Joe US Citizen along with a lot of others.

I beg to differ. Prosperity has certainly never been achieved by people who own nothing. THAT is the reason N. Korea's is the way it is. No one there is allowed to own anything privately.

I'm all for doing business overseas, but that means selling products overseas, not selling assets overseas. Businesses like GM and the many millions of others of every size and in every industry imaginable have been the sources of wealth that we have benefited from for so long. When ownership of these companies goes overseas, the wealth they generate goes with it. And when those overseas countries regulate their markets as to effectively prevent American companies from selling into their markets, very little of that wealth will ever find its way back to us. It doesn't matter to Joe US Citizen if his 401k's Toyota stock goes up if 1) another of his 401k funds owned GM stock and 2) he has no 401k because he lost his job to a Toyota employee. Unless you can make a living off trading stocks alone, you are going to need a company here that can employ you.

[robertway]

Some interesting info as the story behind the story unfolds;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...bailout-money/

[nova]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I beg to differ. Prosperity has certainly never been achieved by people who own nothing. THAT is the reason N. Korea's is the way it is. No one there is allowed to own anything privately.

Take any country thats relatively closed to foreign commerce and you're going to see a weak economy. Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, even the red Chinese were completely stuck economically until they started trading with other countries and letting other countries do business there.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I'm all for doing business overseas, but that means selling products overseas, not selling assets overseas.

If GM had been sold to say the Chinese, name one thing that they could pack off to China that couldn't be replaced here by some industrious business and their ideas?

You think they're gonna pack up the Renaissance Center and move it to Beijing or what?

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Businesses like GM and the many millions of others of every size and in every industry imaginable have been the sources of wealth that we have benefited from for so long.

This isn't going to be a popular thing to say but it is what it is. If anything, GM has spent the last 20-30 years destroying an obscene amount of wealth. Between monetary losses, depreciation and several other factors, GM made nearly $500 billion turn into a pumpkin over that period with nothing to show for it. If you're constantly pouring money into an enterprise that you don't know how to make money with, you're not doing anyone any favors. In fact, systematically destroying wealth is how you end up in Bankruptcy.

In fact thats what makes liberal bankruptcy laws so great for an economy. People can fail and the economic assets they were squandering can be transferred to someone who just might know WTF they're doing.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

When ownership of these companies goes overseas, the wealth they generate goes with it. And when those overseas countries regulate their markets as to effectively prevent American companies from selling into their markets, very little of that wealth will ever find its way back to us.

Zero sum economics is a complete fallacy. There's not a fixed amount of wealth that flows back and forth from country to country such that when we gain $X, country Y loses $X.

That way of thinking hasn't been true since wealth was defined as gold and silver coins sitting in a chest in somebodies closet. Yeah, in 1780 when that was true, if you bought all your stuff from overseas, it was gone and not coming back but we don't operate that way and haven't in a long time.

In fact the whole value system of trade is based on the fact that wealth is created every time trade happens simply by virtue of the fact that each person is trading away something of less value than what they recieve.

We create wealth on a daily basis by the judicious use of capital to implement IDEAS. We use those ideas to find things that we do better than other people and maximize our utility and our wealth generating capability.

Thats why despite all the hand wringing about "we don't build anything anymore" we're still the largest economy in the world by far. Its not even true that "we don't build anything anymore." We're still the world leader in manufacturing both by $$$ amount and tonnage, we've simply ceded the market for cheap consumer crap that people see everyday on the shelf at Wal-Mart to people who work cheaper and focused on what we do best, namely high quality goods, precision equipment and large capital goods like industrial transformers and aircraft.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

It doesn't matter to Joe US Citizen if his 401k's Toyota stock goes up if 1) another of his 401k funds owned GM stock and 2) he has no 401k because he lost his job to a Toyota employee. Unless you can make a living off trading stocks alone, you are going to need a company here that can employ you.

You missed my point entirely. The argument is always that "well the profits are going overseas" when they're not. If I as Joe Q. Citizen are part owner in Toyota, BMW, Siemens, whoever, then the profits are going to benefit me. Thats the nature of a global economy.

If you still think that creating a corporate state, being a homer and propping up entrenched national corporations is the right way to go thats fine. But recognize that the results are not all they're cracked up to be. The Europeans have been doing it for 50 years and the result has been relative stagnation and high long term unemployment...