U.S. Govt' Dumps G.M. Stock

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Bro. Curtis, Dec 9, 2013.

  1. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
  2. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Waited until there was a furor over two or three other things before quietly doing this, didn't they? What a buncha losers!
     
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,181
    Likes Received:
    610
    Actually, the intention to sell the remaining shares before the end of the year was well known.

    The GM bailout of $50B was nothing compared to the Obama Stimulus plan of $831B. The GM bailout will end up costing the U.S. $10.5B but it did save 2.6 million jobs. Obviously losing $10.5B is never good but in the context of saving 2.6 million jobs for $10.5B seems reasonable compared to throwing away $831B on a failed stimulus plan which produced, how many jobs?
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780
    Saved 2.6 million jobs oy Ford refused the bailout and they did just fine. Maybe next time they will stop promising such ridiculous pensions no one can afford or sustain otherwise let them fail.
     
  5. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    Not the whole story Bro. In investing you win some and you lose some. True, on GM they lost money. But overall they made money. What matters is the overall total of your investments. In that regard the Fed. and, thus, the American people came out in the black.

    Your headline is misleading. Dump is not the right word. Dump implies panic. There was no panic.



    So, overall the American people made 11 Billion. Now percentage wise that is not huge. But I will take a small gain over a small loss any day. It would be most stupid to do so and probably would adverse affect my decisions. In my personal investing I am always happy with a small gain over a small or large loss. I never expect to make a profit on every investment. My goal is to overall make more than I lose.

    I would be happy to discuss investing strategies with you any time.
     
    #5 Crabtownboy, Dec 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2013
  6. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,181
    Likes Received:
    610
    I admire Ford's refusal to take bailout money but Ford laid off about 50,000 workers in order to do "just fine."
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780
    And that is what needed to happen.
     
  8. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The fact they've been saying "we;re going to sell off the GM stock" has been well-known. The timing is what is somewhat of a surprise, and the idiots in the government literally dumped it, selling all the stock in a two-week time frame, rather than rationing out the sale over several months, which wouldn't have caused the stock price to bottom like it has since mid-November. This is yet one more good reason for the idiots in Washington not to be involved in bail-outs, because they don't know how to manage the funds in the aftermath.

    Huh?? "2.6 million jobs"??? How you figure that? GM employes 205,000 people, indirectly (through suppliers) another 300,000, and about 27,000 through dealerships. That's no where near 2.6 million.

    There's that number again, which is inaccurate.

    None of it seems reasonable to me, and the loss is more like $20 billion, given that no accounting for government management of the bailout is given, and only estimates can be made as to how much was spent administering that utter failure of a program. We would have had less loss letting GM go under.
     
  9. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,181
    Likes Received:
    610
    Got it from here, and the 2.6M figure included jobs saved by GM and Chrysler bailout:

    Although the GM and Chrysler bailouts ended with a loss for taxpayers, Treasury officials said the goal never was to turn a profit. The rescues prevented further damage to the economy and the potential loss of 1 million jobs, Lew said.
    Earlier Monday, the Center for Automotive Research, a Michigan think tank, estimated the goverment would lose $13.7 billion on the GM and Chrysler bailouts. But the center said the rescues provided a net economic gain for the country and saved about 2.6 million jobs.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/mon...-stock-20131209,0,4629861.story#ixzz2n5PTADBo
     
  10. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Times is wrong. The two companies combined employ directly or indirectly about 800,000 people, and in contemplating the situation since my last post, I'd say less than half those jobs were actually in jeopardy. Had GM and Chrysler been forced to close their doors, some other company would have swooped in and bought off the pieces, and many would have kept their jobs, though perhaps not at the pay levels to which they had become accustomed. More idiocy from the liberal media, "championing" the Great Pretender while ignoring the fact it was George W. Bush who proposed the idea in the first place. I'll give the idiot in the White House "credit" for spending far more than Bush was willing to spend, and thereby losing money, whereas the Bush plan didn't involve buying GM stock or putting the U.S. in the car business. Way to go, Pretender!! Hoo-ahh!
     
    #10 thisnumbersdisconnected, Dec 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2013
  11. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,181
    Likes Received:
    610
    Actually it was the Center for Automotive Research that the Times was quoting, but yeah, it appears the 2.6M number the Times quoted was wrong. Other news outlets are saying the number is 1.2 Million jobs.

    The Center for Automotive Research Monday confirmed Lew's statement that the GM bailout saved about 1.2 million jobs.

    Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/20...eral-Motors/UPI-30091386621353/#ixzz2n5TbPeBu


    News of the government's sale of all remaining shares of General Motors followed the release earlier today of a report from a respected industry researcher that the federal bailout and bankruptcy restructuring of GM saved 1.2 million jobs and preserved $34.9 billion in tax revenue.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/12/09/gm-treasury-bailout-jobs-saved/3928767/


    The 2.6M jobs saved figure encompasses all the bailouts and stimulus programs:

    Including jobs related to the auto industry, the federal bailout preserved 2.6 million jobs in the U.S. economy in 2009 alone
    [ibid]
     
    #11 InTheLight, Dec 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2013
  12. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Pound sand. You still have questions to answer, hypocrite. Why would I take advice from a person who treats us like you do ?

    You and I will discuss nothing until you retract your blatant untruths about the Tea Party. I've been asking you to do this for too long. If you truly want to discuss anything, you will retract your slander.
     
    #12 Bro. Curtis, Dec 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2013
  13. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Excellent. I'm sure team zero doesn't want us to think about a 10.5 billion dollar loss, and the union pensions the bailout went to fund. If an industry needs that kind of cash injection, the business is not being run right.
     
  14. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    As I said in an earlier post, overall the bailout has turned a profit.


    Also ....

    Add 11 billion in profit to 34.9 billion in tax revenue saved and you see that 45.9 billion was saved. Nothing to sneeze at.
     
    #14 Crabtownboy, Dec 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2013
  15. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Post proof or shut up.
     
  16. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    Ford disagrees with you ....

     
  17. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    Easily done and I will accept an apology for you potty mouth language ...

    And much worse was avoided ....

     
  18. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    No Ford does not. Mulally nowhere expresses regret Ford didn't take federal money. Interestingly, your same article (not surprisingly) fails to tell the rest of the narrative from Mulally.

    That wouldn't have been the case had Ford joined in glomming onto taxpayer-funded handouts. Once again, you deliberately misrepresent the facts trying to prove your lies as truth.
     
  19. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    You missed the point entirely that Mullaly testified approving the bailout for others. Ford did not need the money, others did. Ford recognized this and testified in their behalf.[

     
  20. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't miss the point. You did. The U.S. lost money in this bailout. If the idiot in the White House had left the Bush proposal alone and simply followed through, that wouldn't have happened. But the Great Pretender/Naked Emperor/Big Zero/Empty Suit took it upon himself to put the U.S. in the car business. Now, four and a half years later, here we are, net loss of $10.5 billion, GM smaller and less productive that it was -- but probably right where it would have been had it simply been allowed to go into bankruptcy.

    And whether Mulally thought GM and Chrysler -- his biggest competitors -- ought to be bailed out or not, one has to wonder why he didn't think it was a good idea for Ford? He instead arranged bank financing and a fresh stock offering to raise the money Ford needed. And as a result, his brand rises to the top of the heap among automakers? Do you see some gamesmanship there, CTB?

    Oh, never mind, of course you're don't. You're a socialist. You don't understand corporate intrigue.
     

Share This Page

Loading...