Auto bailout

Users who are viewing this thread

GoldDust Woman

Active Member
Messages
3,687
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Sorry but it's this type of attitude that allows me to short like a mad man and come out smelling like a rose. You, Wino, Alien, Paq, Eggy and the like....you know the gloom and doom type are what drive the market, its fantastic to sit back, watch and pounce when an opportunity presents itself. One day you will all awake as if from a stupor and realize that the fundamentals of the economy are very sound and humming right along. Then all will be right with the world. In the mean time, there is money to be made. Moan and groan some more please......I mean about the stock market. :D ;)

You know I love you, right? Compare me to the Mod Squad one more time-- and it's divorce court! :24:
 
  • 176
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Strauss

Active Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
If the economy is so sound then it would not have allowed the following:


Social Security that is a ponzi scheme destined to fail. It will run out of money unless it is dramatically changed which means people paying in longer and people getting less in benefits. The longer congress waits to act the worse it will be.

A banking system that failed due to greed on the part of bankers and the public.

A national debt that is increasing in greater numbers every year by leaps and bounds.​

Manufacturing that has left the country leaving us reliant on others to supply goods.

Food being imported in greater numbers than ever each year with inferior products that are posing health risks. I bet 40 years ago we imported hardly any food.

Govt on state and federal levels that has a labor force that is far too great as a result of an expanded federal govt. that has done a power grab from the states.

A bloated auto business that is poised to collapse due to the credit crunch and poor management.

A tax system that unfairly rewards some businesses by giving them incentives to bring them into a state while existing businesses get no such relief.

Every one of these is crap. I have neither the time nor the patience to explain why. You're beginning to sound like linsky or Xico. Get a grip.
 

kelvin070

Active Member
Messages
3,854
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.13z
The US doesn't depend on handouts and bailouts. I think you need to restate what you actually mean.

Singapore apparently paid Citi more when China refused




By MarketWatch
Last update: 9:25 a.m. EST Jan. 15, 2008
comments.pngComments: 1






The Singapore government's main investment vehicle agreed to increase the amount it planned to inject into Citigroup (C: Citigroup, Inc
News, chart, profile, more
Last: 3.77-0.94-19.96%
4:01pm 11/21/2008loading-chart.gif
Delayed quote data
bullet_black_5x5.gif
Add to portfolio
bullet_black_5x5.gif
Analyst
bullet_black_5x5.gif
Create alert
bullet_black_5x5.gif
Insider
bullet_black_5x5.gif
Discuss
bullet_black_5x5.gif
Financials

Sponsored by:


<IMG class=pixelTracking height=1 width=1 border=0>C 3.77, -0.94, -20.0%) "apparently to cover" the approximately $2 billion Citi had unsuccessfully sought from the government of China, a person familiar with the situation said Tuesday.
During most of the day, Government of Singapore Investment Corp. (GIC) was committed to invest about $4.8 billion to $5 billion in Citigroup, but later in the day apparently told Citi it would "cover" the amount of money ($1.8 billion to $2 billion) the bank had hoped to raise from the Chinese government, the person said.
GIC's decision partly reflected GIC's long-standing relationship with the new CEO of Citi, Vikram Pandit, the person said. GIC was an original investor in Old Lane Partners, a hedge fund Pandit co-founded; it was later bought by Citigroup.
China Development Bank's rejection of Citi's request emerged Monday night.
The Singapore government would consider additional investments in Citigroup "if the opportunity and the need arises," the person said.
Singapore has two sovereign wealth funds - GIC and Temasek Holdings Pte. - which have taken stakes in troubled financial institutions in recent months.
The terms of GIC's purchase of $6.88 billion in Citi convertible bonds reflect the cash-strapped bank's lack of leverage: GIC said the instruments will earn a hefty 7% non-cumulative interest, payable quarterly.
The conversion premium is a fairly low 20% and is "subject to adjustment in certain limited circumstances." However, GIC noted these instruments give "appropriate downside protection."
The press release didn't give further details.
All told, GIC will own 4% of Citi as a result of the transaction; it already held 0.3% of the bank. GIC said it won't "take" a board seat at Citi. Indeed, political sensitivities have prompted sovereign wealth funds providing financial infusions to U.S. and European banks to emphasize their intended roles as passive investors.
 

Strauss

Active Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Its trying to rescue troubled companies be it by govt or Soverign Wealth Funds

There is nothing in that article which suggests the US government is attempting to have anyone buy into Citigroup. BTW, Citi isn't a "troubled" company. Very little of what happens in the business world has anything to do with the previous US government actions.
 

kelvin070

Active Member
Messages
3,854
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.13z
Citi bank after cutting 53,000 jobs is in talks with the government for some form of rescue after a crisis in confidence erased half its stock-market in three days
 

Strauss

Active Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Citi bank after cutting 53,000 jobs is in talks with the government for some form of rescue after a crisis in confidence erased half its stock-market in three days

Please make up your mind. You post an article about investment from Hong Kong then you talk about bailout, which is it? BTW, everyone is attempting to get a piece of the pie, its one of the reasons this is so stupid. Insurance companies that have no reason to seek any form of relief are buying little mom and pop banks so they can tap the fund. Its ridiculous.
 

GoldDust Woman

Active Member
Messages
3,687
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Can we have some fun making up? Maybe a little slap and tickle?
;)

I'll slap yours while you tickle mine. :willy_nilly: :24:



But, let's have a little foreplay first... :nod:


...tell me, love, who are you buying into, and why? I've been looking at a few stock investments (for the long haul) but I'm skeered. :ninja
 

Strauss

Active Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I'll slap yours while you tickle mine. :willy_nilly: :24:



But, let's have a little foreplay first... :nod:


...tell me, love, who are you buying into, and why? I've been looking at a few stock investments (for the long haul) but I'm skeered. :ninja

Ford for the long haul (which for me is two to five years). I keep thinking back to Buffet and GEICO. What happened was GEICO went Chapter 11 and Buffet bought up the stock at around $.05 cents per share. Several splits later and Buffet made several billion on that move alone. He still owns the company. Ford is a well run company and fundamentally sound, in my opinion. Its small enough that it can change direction much quicker then GM and from a management standpoint with the differing class of stocks the Ford family can make and implement decisions much quicker.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
Every one of these is crap. I have neither the time nor the patience to explain why. You're beginning to sound like linsky or Xico. Get a grip.

If........ you....... say....... so :D

They are not crap at all. They are signs of problems. You may think not. But I bet I am in the vast majority on the left and right that thinks we are not on firm ground. This is not like early 80's.


Anyway here is another comment from one of the local pundits. I rarely agree with Albom. He is a flaming liberal but he makes some interesting points.

MITCH ALBOM

If I had the floor at the auto rescue talks

BY MITCH ALBOM • FREE PRESS COLUMNIST • November 23, 2008


OK. It's a fantasy. But if I had five minutes in front of Congress last week, here's what I would've said:
adlabel_horz.gif



Good morning. First of all, before you ask, I flew commercial. Northwest Airlines. Had a bag of peanuts for breakfast. Of course, that's Northwest, which just merged with Delta, a merger you, our government, approved -- and one which, inevitably, will lead to big bonuses for their executives and higher costs for us. You seem to be OK with that kind of business.
Which makes me wonder why you're so against our kind of business? The kind we do in Detroit. The kind that gets your fingernails dirty. The kind where people use hammers and drills, not keystrokes. The kind where you get paid for making something, not moving money around a board and skimming a percentage.
You've already given hundreds of billions to banking and finance companies -- and hardly demanded anything. Yet you balk at the very idea of giving $25 billion to the Detroit Three. Heck, you shoveled that exact amount to Citigroup -- $25 billion -- just weeks ago, and that place is about to crumble anyhow.
Does the word "hypocrisy" ring a bell?
Protecting the home turf?

Sen. Shelby. Yes. You. From Alabama. You've been awfully vocal. You called the Detroit Three's leaders "failures." You said loans to them would be "wasted money." You said they should go bankrupt and "let the market work."
Why weren't you equally vocal when your state handed out hundreds of millions in tax breaks to Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, Honda and others to open plants there? Why not "let the market work"? Or is it better for Alabama if the Detroit Three fold so that the foreign companies -- in your state -- can produce more?
Way to think of the nation first, senator.
And you, Sen. Kyl of Arizona. You told reporters: "There's no reason to throw money at a problem that's not going to get solved."
That's funny, coming from such an avid supporter of the Iraq war. You've been gung ho on that for years. So how could you just sit there when, according to the New York Times, an Iraqi former chief investigator told Congress that $13 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds "had been lost to fraud, embezzlement, theft and waste" by the Iraqi government?
That's 13 billion, senator. More than half of what the auto industry is asking for. Thirteen billion? Gone? Wasted?
Where was your "throwing money at a problem that's not going to get solved" speech then?
Watching over the bankers?

And the rest of you lawmakers. The ones who insist the auto companies show you a plan before you help them. You've already handed over $150 billion of our tax money to AIG. How come you never demanded a plan from it? How come when AIG blew through its first $85 billion, you quickly gave it more? The car companies may be losing money, but they can explain it: They're paying workers too much and selling cars for too little.
AIG lost hundred of billions in credit default swaps -- which no one can explain and which make nothing, produce nothing, employ no one and are essentially bets on failure.
And you don't demand a paragraph from it?
Look. Nobody is saying the auto business is healthy. Its unions need to adjust more. Its models and dealerships need to shrink. Its top executives have to downsize their own importance.
But this is a business that has been around for more than a century. And some of its problems are because of that, because people get used to certain wages, manufacturers get used to certain business models. It's easy to point to foreign carmakers with tax breaks, no union costs and a cleaner slate -- not to mention help from their home countries -- and say "be more like them."
But if you let us die, you let our national spine collapse. America can't be a country of lawyers and financial analysts. We have to manufacture. We need that infrastructure. We need those jobs. We need that security. Have you forgotten who built equipment during the world wars?
Besides, let's be honest. When it comes to blowing budgets, being grossly inefficient and wallowing in debt, who's better than Congress?
So who are you to lecture anyone on how to run a business?
Ask fair questions. Demand accountability. But knock it off with the holier than thou crap, OK? You got us into this mess with greed, a bad Fed policy and too little regulation. Don't kick our tires to make yourselves look better.
Contact MITCH ALBOM at 313-223-4581 or malbom@freepress.com. Catch "The Mitch Albom Show" 5-7 p.m. weekdays on WJR-AM (760).


adlabel_horz.gif
 

GoldDust Woman

Active Member
Messages
3,687
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Ford for the long haul (which for me is two to five years). I keep thinking back to Buffet and GEICO. What happened was GEICO went Chapter 11 and Buffet bought up the stock at around $.05 cents per share. Several splits later and Buffet made several billion on that move alone. He still owns the company. Ford is a well run company and fundamentally sound, in my opinion. Its small enough that it can change direction much quicker then GM and from a management standpoint with the differing class of stocks the Ford family can make and implement decisions much quicker.

Ford. Alrighty then. Make me wealthy, G. How many shares should I buy? :willy_nilly: What did you buy in at, and how many? Inquiring minds wanna know. ;)

In five years, my grandson will be 16 (can you believe that?!). I've got his college fund put aside, so whatever Ford stock can make for me... well... you wanna go to Figi for the rest of our lives? :D
 

kelvin070

Active Member
Messages
3,854
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.13z
There is nothing in that article which suggests the US government is attempting to have anyone buy into Citigroup. BTW, Citi isn't a "troubled" company. Very little of what happens in the business world has anything to do with the previous US government actions.
The federal government stepped in sunday night to bail out Citigroup and restore confidence in the financial system, promising to protect the banking giant against losses on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of troubled assets
 

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
I learned something new the other day. All the wages in the UAW contracts with the auto makers aren't written as straight money, it's multiples off the minimum wage. So instead of saying "A new assembly worker will make $13 an hour" it says "A new assembly worker will make 2x the prevailing minimum wage" (examples only, I don't know what they actually make). So can you imagine how much of a hit they take every time the minimum wage goes up? :willy_nilly:
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
If the economy is so sound then it would not have allowed the following:​






Social Security that is a ponzi scheme destined to fail. It will run out of money unless it is dramatically changed which means people paying in longer and people getting less in benefits. The longer congress waits to act the worse it will be.​

A banking system that failed due to greed on the part of bankers and the public.​

A national debt that is increasing in greater numbers every year by leaps and bounds.​

Manufacturing that has left the country leaving us reliant on others to supply goods.

Food being imported in greater numbers than ever each year with inferior products that are posing health risks. I bet 40 years ago we imported hardly any food.

Govt on state and federal levels that has a labor force that is far too great as a result of an expanded federal govt. that has done a power grab from the states.

A bloated auto business that is poised to collapse due to the credit crunch and poor management.

A tax system that unfairly rewards some businesses by giving them incentives to bring them into a state while existing businesses get no such relief.
For claiming conservativism, I'm surprised you said those things.

- Social Security failure is because of the government and the way it is set up, NOT the economy.
- Banking system would have been fine after a year or two if the government hadn't touched things... it became out of balance, yes, but I'm relatively certain they could have made it through the subprime mess.
- National debt again isn't the fault of the economy, but the government.
- Manufacturing has left the country because the liberals decided to raise the minimum wage so much. If we could still pay people $2/hr, you can guarantee there'd be a lot more manufacturing here in the US (and a lot more jobs).
- So what if food is being imported? Has nothing to do with the economy...
- I agree with you that state/federal government is far too bloated - blame the liberals for that as well.
- Auto business became bloated out of their own stupidity. They didn't pay attention to what consumers wanted, and continued expanding even though it was forseeable that demand would shrink.
- I agree with you about the unfair tax rewards system, but again, it's not the fault of the economy - it's the fault of stupid liberals in government. They love to take money away from taxpayers and give it to whomever for whatever reason they can find.

I don't see anything in those things you said that points to the economy being at fault. Everything that is happening is a result of CEOs' stupidity, consumers' stupidity, or the government's stupidity. Everything that you listed was preventable.

Despite the things that are happening, I believe the economy is fundamentally sound. I think consumers are just scared right now (thanks to the media for that), but really, we're going to get through it just fine, with or without the government's assistance.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
I don't see anything in those things you said that points to the economy being at fault. Everything that is happening is a result of CEOs' stupidity, consumers' stupidity, or the government's stupidity. Everything that you listed was preventable.
I get your point but it seems all those things make up the economy.

I do not see anything that is going to make CEO's and Big Business be more accountable and making better decisions. Greed is what drives most of them.

I do not see consumers being smarter. There is a reason that lenders used to be very careful when giving loans. Which was proven when greedy people took out loans on houses they could not afford and ran up massive credit card balances.

And there is no way in hell the govt is going to suddenly get smart. The only way that happens is if people become more involved. If anything we are more apathetic than ever.
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top