BF2S Forums No thanks

ATG wrote:

Obama and his goons screwed over the shareholders of GM and that stupid cronyism is how things will work.

By buying the company after it went into bankruptcy? Obama has saved GM, like it or not.

I do agree with the article however that:

Aiding small businesses could be a gamble because they have a poorer record than large corporations when repaying loans; it would be the riskiest government investment so far under the bailout plan. Officials are trying to design the program to exclude companies that are likely to fail even if they received federal aid, people with knowledge of the discussions said.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-07-11 10:06:25)

The shareholders would have nothing, absolutely nothing, had the Federal Bank not bought the new GM after the old went into voluntary bankruptcy. The shareholders took a risk and lost, that happens when you play the stock market. This way they do have a chance of getting some money back.

Care to guess the value of shares in a failed company? It's fox, but read: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457509,00.html I wonder where those stocks are now...

I'd be more concerned if the government wanted to change the direction of the company, or as a majority/minority shareholder try to influence the CEO's and directors. But other than asking for a greener company, they have not done that.

My feelings are the following...

Once government money is involved, the public should have more say in what happens.  If we as a society feel that GM is making too many SUVs and not enough fuel-efficient vehicles, we should have the power to push them in that direction.

I'm all for giving companies as much freedom as possible when they are totally private, but when socialization occurs, we should be the ones calling the shots.

Mitch wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

ATG wrote:

Obama and his goons screwed over the shareholders of GM and that stupid cronyism is how things will work.

By buying the company after it went into bankruptcy? Obama has saved GM, like it or not.

What your leaving out is how the 'fair' government then shut down any [PRIVATLY OWNED] dealerships with opposing political views.

If he shutdown primarily democratic dealerships, it would be ALL OVER THE NEWS. He would be called a crook, criminal, cheat.

It was on the news, Fox News covered it, CNN mentioned it and MSNBC debunked it. It was also on a bunch of blogs everywhere.

The idea of "why wasn't this on the news" is silly when you think about it. If you heard of it and your a are directly related to it, it must have gone through some news source at a time.

The very fact that you heard it debunks your own "why isn't this on the news"

ATG wrote:

Fact; profitable dealerships have been told that their business is no longer wanted at GM.


This country currently sucks ass.

Fact: profitable dealerships don't usually sell GM products...  lol... 

Seriously though...  if you want to make good money as a dealer, start up shop in a small, but growing town selling Toyotas or Hondas.

GM might make a lot of profit per vehicle on some models, but they've failed to understand that volume is the most important part of auto sales at this point.

Mitch wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

Fact; profitable dealerships have been told that their business is no longer wanted at GM.


This country currently sucks ass.

Fact: profitable dealerships don't usually sell GM products...  lol... 

Seriously though...  if you want to make good money as a dealer, start up shop in a small, but growing town selling Toyotas or Hondas.

GM might make a lot of profit per vehicle on some models, but they've failed to understand that volume is the most important part of auto sales at this point.

But dude. You just looked beyond how corrupt that is. Your taking the fact that ATG just told you, and spinning it into saying whats wrong with GM. We aren't talking whats wrong with GM.

What Aussie was saying earlier about GM is true.  It's also true that AIG wouldn't exist today had it not been for the bailouts.

Basically, what the government is doing is keeping large corporations like these afloat because millions of people have invested in them.  The common argument given is that these companies are "too big to fall."

What I'm suggesting is that...  if a company ever gets too big to fall, you have 2 choices:

1) break the company up into smaller pieces that are more managable in their debt

2) completely socialize the company and give the government control over it

#2 is the route we've mostly gone in, but #1 is somewhat applicable in how GM has sold off 4 of its brands.

Either way, neither party really wants to let the market clear itself on this one because of the fallout that would occur.  I'm just also saying that, as long as government money is involved, I don't mind more government control over the companies involved, because I'm being forced to pay for these guys.

As long as my tax money is in the pot, I WANT the government smack their executives around some.  They clearly need some restructuring to get things right.

ATG wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I'd be more concerned if the government wanted to change the direction of the company, or as a majority/minority shareholder try to influence the CEO's and directors. But other than asking for a greener company, they have not done that.

Wow...

I'd say the government wanted to change the direction when they fired the CEO.






And, normally when a company goes BK the assets are sold off and the creditors ( the shareholders ) are paid off. Obamas tactics reduced the shareholders stake to 10% and protected the unions that crushed the company to begin with.

Nevermind, I can see the Obama phenom continues.

http://i29.tinypic.com/2vw9ogh.gif

Of course they wanted to change direction when they fired the CEO, who bankrupted the company... You kinda forgot to mention that part.

And normally when a company goes bankrupt, the assests are sold off and the creditors are paid off, ie the banks, and the shareholders are left to pick up the scraps. The shareholders would have received nothing. GM had share values plummet with the financial crisis and GM owed banks plenty. They lost 10% of shares? So what.

ATG wrote:

So, did the gov try and change the direction or didn't they? Is this an oxymoron?

It seems like you are arguing with yourself tbh.


They do have meds for that.

Maybe you don't understand the point I'm making? They could have been influencing the company for years to come as shareholders. The govt. could do the same with the banks they have bailed out. Losing the previous CEO who failed the company, and replacing them with their own appointee, or promoting members of the govt. onto the directors table, their own staff into the CEO portfolio's, now [i]that[i/] would have been influencing the direction. They haven't done that. The previous CEO was gone either way. Who replaced him? A government official? No. Firing of the CEO =/= changing the company direction when that CEO wouldn't be there anyway.

If they wanted to change the direction of GM, or the direction of the banks, they would be within their rights to promote their own staff onto the board of directors because they are now the majority shareholders. If they ever do that, yes, that is influencing the company direction.

Do you think the ordinary shareholders would not have fired the previous CEO, the guy who bankrupted the company? You know, the brilliant marketing decisions he made I doubt would have received an A+ rating from the poor shareholders who you feel got a raw deal out of this. Maybe they would have rather kept him on, is that your belief?

Harmor wrote:

We should had let GM and Chrysler fail.  They would had had a bankruptcy and come out it better than they are now in their current state.

And the unions wouldn't own like 1/3 of them. They're the ones that had a huge impact on those companies failing.

ATG wrote:

This country currently sucks ass.

Yes yes we've known that for years.
Your country is forever indebted, Your news is censured, all the presidents who tried to abolish the FED money printing  system were killed, Your food is unhealthy, vaccines contain mercury, Florida elections are tampered with etc. etc. etc.

The thing that suck is the unbelievable amount of naivetivity in western countries which the DST threads to me is a clear example of.
When the financial crysis is over we will have a climate crysis or an energy crysis or a new war or a poor vs. rich countries crysis or maybe a revolution or a meteor or maybe a fullscale World War 3.

The world is like that. And it sucks. But how can it be a surprise?

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

ATG wrote:

Obama and his goons screwed over the shareholders of GM and that stupid cronyism is how things will work.

By buying the company after it went into bankruptcy? Obama has saved GM, like it or not.

Yes, Obama "saved" GM, but let us not forget the main reason GM needed to be "saved".  The government has been micromanaging American auto manufacturers for so long, I imagine most of us saw this coming.

well...also paying someone 40 bucks to turn a bolt or stamp some sheet metal didnt help either.

AussieReaper wrote:

ATG wrote:

So, did the gov try and change the direction or didn't they? Is this an oxymoron?

It seems like you are arguing with yourself tbh.


They do have meds for that.

Maybe you don't understand the point I'm making? They could have been influencing the company for years to come as shareholders. The govt. could do the same with the banks they have bailed out. Losing the previous CEO who failed the company, and replacing them with their own appointee, or promoting members of the govt. onto the directors table, their own staff into the CEO portfolio's, now [i]that[i/] would have been influencing the direction. They haven't done that. The previous CEO was gone either way. Who replaced him? A government official? No. Firing of the CEO =/= changing the company direction when that CEO wouldn't be there anyway.

If they wanted to change the direction of GM, or the direction of the banks, they would be within their rights to promote their own staff onto the board of directors because they are now the majority shareholders. If they ever do that, yes, that is influencing the company direction.

Do you think the ordinary shareholders would not have fired the previous CEO, the guy who bankrupted the company? You know, the brilliant marketing decisions he made I doubt would have received an A+ rating from the poor shareholders who you feel got a raw deal out of this. Maybe they would have rather kept him on, is that your belief?

Don't quote me on this, but I believe the government got preference shares which have no voting rights, making any internal intervention impossible.