posted
I have installed a lot of closed circuit monitors, starting about eight years ago. No, the tv was on at the time. Only for the game though. And yes everyone was very busy working. Just another one of those things that no one ever reads about. I have lots of story's but nobody really wants to here them.
I agree, the $81 is the highest I have ever seen and I don't believe it either.
Not an easy topic to find reliable data on.
No one ever gets to take full advantage of their benifits but the cost is still there for the employer. The insurance companyees get a good percentage of the "wage package" also.
IP: Logged |
posted
Print Back to story Chrysler lenders offer to swap $2.5B for equity Lenders offer to swap $2.5B of Chrysler's debt for equity, but won't give up all they're owed Tom Krisher and Dan Strumpf, AP Auto Writers Tuesday April 21, 2009, 11:58 pm EDT
DETROIT (AP) -- Banks and hedge funds that hold $6.9 billion in Chrysler LLC debt have proposed forgiving $2.5 billion of it in exchange for about a 40 percent stake in a Chrysler-Fiat alliance, according to two people briefed on the proposal.
One of the people said the lenders delivered their counterproposal to Chrysler and the U.S. Treasury Department late Monday night. Neither person wanted to be identified because the negotiations are private.
The lenders also want Fiat to invest $1 billion cash in Chrysler, and they want to appoint one person to the company's board, according to term sheets obtained by The Associated Press.
The counteroffer comes as Chrysler races to meet a government-imposed April 30 deadline to swap debt for equity, cut labor costs and negotiate an alliance with Italy's Fiat Group SpA. If it misses the deadline, government aid will end and Chrysler likely faces liquidation.
Last week, creditors rejected a Treasury Department offer to reduce the debt to $1 billion, absolving Chrysler of about 85 percent of its secured loans. The counteroffer, which would swap about 35 percent of the debt for equity, falls short of government restructuring goals that called for Chrysler to retire at least two-thirds of its debt.
Spokeswomen for the Treasury Department and Chrysler declined to comment.
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm criticized the creditors Tuesday night for failing to relieve Chrysler of more of its debt even as they benefit from federal bank bailout aid.
"Our economy is in turmoil as a result of Wall Street's irresponsible actions, and now some of the very institutions that received $90 billion in federal support are turning their backs on a company that employs tens of thousands of American workers," Granholm said in a statement.
After the counteroffer was made public Tuesday, Moody's Investors Service lowered its rating of Chrysler's corporate family of debt one notch from "Ca" to the lowest possible rating, "C," indicating "the certainty that Chrysler ... will file for bankruptcy" or restructure its debt in a way that would be considered a default for ratings purposes. The ratings agency also lowered its estimated rate at which creditors would recover their debt to 20 percent from 50 percent.
The company also affirmed General Motors Corp.'s "Ca" family debt rating but reduced its estimated recovery rate to 30 percent from 50 percent. As part of its own government-managed restructuring, GM is trying to persuade its bondholders to take company stock in exchange for much of the company's $28 billion in bond debt.
Chrysler is living on $4 billion in federal loans and could get another $500 million to survive through April, but without massive restructuring and a Fiat deal, Chrysler won't get any more aid, government officials have said.
GM has received $13.4 billion and could get up to another $5 billion to survive until its June 1 deadline, according to a government report released Tuesday.
The counteroffer from a steering committee of Chrysler creditors would give the equity stake to first-lien lenders including Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and several smaller banks, plus some hedge funds. Chrysler has about 45 first-lien lenders who would be first in line to get money if the company's assets were liquidated.
"The goal is something close to 40 percent of the equity" in the revamped company, according to one of the people briefed on the lenders' proposal. "Taking equity is a risky proposition," the person said.
U.S. Rep. Gary Peters, a Democrat whose district includes Chrysler's Auburn Hills headquarters, said the lenders aren't negotiating in good faith.
"These debtholders were offered fair market value for their debt and the banks have responded by asking for a windfall," he said in a written statement. "It is extremely disappointing that while other stakeholders have agreed to work with President Obama to advance Chrysler's restructuring, financial institutions that have already taken billions of dollars in taxpayer support are refusing to do the same."
When the Bush administration agreed to give Chrysler and GM loans last year, it set targets for their creditors to swap two-thirds of their debt for equity. The Obama administration has been less clear about how much debt must be exchanged, saying in a March 30 statement that Chrysler must have a "sustainable debt burden."
"This at a minimum will require extinguishing the vast majority of Chrysler's outstanding secured debt and all of its unsecured debt and equity, other than trade creditors providing normal trade terms," the statement said.
One of the people briefed on the counteroffer said the debtholders are aware that it doesn't meet the two-thirds debt-for-equity swap required by the Bush administration, but it would be a piece of an overall plan to wipe out most of Chrysler's debt.
Including the secured debt and government loans, Chrysler owes about $23.5 billion, including $10.6 billion to a United Auto Workers trust fund that will take over retiree health care costs starting next year. It also owes $1 billion each to its owners, Cerberus Capital Management LP and Daimler AG.
The company is negotiating with the UAW to take equity for part of the trust fund obligation, as well as other concessions.
Bankruptcy experts have said the secured debtholders would be less likely to settle for pennies on the dollar because their loans are secured by Chrysler's physical assets and because they likely purchased credit default insurance that would repay them if Chrysler defaults.
Chrysler and Fiat have been discussing a deal in which Fiat would take a 20 percent stake in the company in exchange for Fiat's small-car technology, but Fiat didn't intend to invest any cash. Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne spent Tuesday in Washington talking to the government's auto task force about the deal.
AP Auto Writer Dan Strumpf reported from New York.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Fiat denies Chrysler deal close at hand Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:27pm EDT By Gilles Castonguay
MILAN (Reuters) - Italy's Fiat SpA denied on Wednesday a reported comment by an Italian union official that it was close to a deal to form a partnership with U.S. car maker Chrysler LLC.
Even the official, Bruno Vitali of the Fim-Cisl metal workers union, later toned down his comments about the talks when he spoke to Reuters by phone, saying a deal had yet to be reached.
Earlier in the day, Vitali was quoted by Italy's ANSA news agency as saying that a deal was close at hand.
"The agreement between Fiat and Chrysler is ready and even this evening, at 90 percent, it could be finalized," he was quoted as saying. "Then the chief executive of (Fiat) Sergio Marchionne could present it tomorrow to Fiat's board."
Fiat's board meets on Thursday ahead of the publication of the group's first-quarter results and it is expected to get an update on the Chrysler talks from Marchionne.
Fiat and Chrysler are trying to get the support of the U.S. car maker's creditors and unions in order to close a deal by an April 30 deadline imposed by the U.S. government.
If they fail, the government has threatened to let Chrysler go bankrupt.
In a brief statement, Fiat said it was "surprised" by Vitali's comments to ANSA, saying no agreement had been concluded between Chrysler and the U.S. and Canadian unions.
"The assertion that the overall agreement has been 90 percent defined is untrue," it said. "The talks remain completely open and it is not currently possible to predict the timing or the outcome."
Vitali told Reuters the U.S. union was strongly motivated to reach a deal ahead of the deadline.
"There is a strong push on the part of the American union to close this negotiation in a positive way," he said. "Keep in mind that we are in talks and that it could all fall apart."
He was quoted by ANSA as saying that Ron Gettelfinger, head of the United Auto Workers (UAW), had told him that the Chrysler workers union in Canada was also willing to make a deal and the "(U.S.) federal government is determined to put pressure on Chrysler's creditor banks."
Both the creditors and the Canadian union have been holding out for better terms in their talks with Chrysler and Fiat.
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Raybond...the "left" IS who is going to force them into BK...
The "left," the "right"...
Conservatives, liberals...
lol, who was the left and the right when Gramm's commodity act slid over Clinton's desk?
What is it that conservatives conserve? If it's the environment, how come so many bodies of water are off-limits for fishing?
What is it that liberals liberate? If it's the health-care system, then why are so many peeps going without adequate health care?
I'll tell you what I think: you'd be "right" if you say both conservatives and liberals "left" us out to dry on the line.
Tex...
Go back and read some of my posts...the left and the right are one in the same IMO...
My point to raybond was that the current administration which is labeled "left" are the ones forcing GM into BK...
It doesn't really matter who is in charge...the results are always the same...the people get screwed!
No need to re-read...
You could re-read some of my earliest posts on Allstocks and see that I said then that there's not a dime's width of difference, when it comes down to the working (wo)man.
Now--what changed that? Cheney/Bush--that's a whole new animal. They colored w-a-y outside the lines.
Obama's doing OK, so far...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Raybond...the "left" IS who is going to force them into BK...
The "left," the "right"...
Conservatives, liberals...
lol, who was the left and the right when Gramm's commodity act slid over Clinton's desk?
What is it that conservatives conserve? If it's the environment, how come so many bodies of water are off-limits for fishing?
What is it that liberals liberate? If it's the health-care system, then why are so many peeps going without adequate health care?
I'll tell you what I think: you'd be "right" if you say both conservatives and liberals "left" us out to dry on the line.
Tex...
Go back and read some of my posts...the left and the right are one in the same IMO...
My point to raybond was that the current administration which is labeled "left" are the ones forcing GM into BK...
It doesn't really matter who is in charge...the results are always the same...the people get screwed!
No need to re-read...
You could re-read some of my earliest posts on Allstocks and see that I said then that there's not a dime's width of difference, when it comes down to the working (wo)man.
Now--what changed that? Cheney/Bush--that's a whole new animal. They colored w-a-y outside the lines.
Obama's doing OK, so far...
To get back to retired's original post. Blaming the left for the possible GM BK is non-sense at best. The potential BK is due to their business practices. No 2 ways about it. Blaming the government for GM's BK is ridiculous. The govt tried to bail them out. Just utter nonsense to even say the govt is causing GM's possible BK.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
IP: Logged |
posted
(CBS/AP) General Motors Corp. is planning to temporarily close most of its U.S. factories for up to nine weeks this summer because of slumping sales and growing inventories of unsold vehicles, two people briefed on the plan said Wednesday.
The exact dates of the closures were not known, but both people said they will occur around the normal two-week shutdown in July to change from one model year to the next. Neither person wanted to be identified because workers have not been told of the shutdowns.
GM spokesman Chris Lee would not comment other than to say the company notifies employees before making any production cuts public.
The automaker is living on $13.4 billion in government loans and faces a June 1 deadline to cut its debt, reduce labor costs and take other restructuring steps. If it doesn't meet the deadline, the company's CEO has said it will enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
United Auto Workers officials at several factories said they have meetings scheduled Thursday and Friday with plant managers and GM human resource officials to discuss production changes.
The automaker's sales were down 49 percent in the first quarter compared with the same period last year, and GM had a 123-day supply of cars and trucks at the end of March, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank. GM already has more than a six-month supply of several models.
On Monday, GM announced about 1,600 white-collar workers would lose their jobs as the troubled automaker accelerates cost cuts in order to qualify for more government aid.
GM North America President Troy Clarke said Monday in an e-mail to employees that the layoffs are needed to ensure the company's long-term viability.
"In these unprecedented times, GM is reinventing every aspect of our business, including our organizational size and structure, to create a lean and agile company," Clarke wrote in the e-mail obtained by The Associated Press.
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Raybond...the "left" IS who is going to force them into BK...
The "left," the "right"...
Conservatives, liberals...
lol, who was the left and the right when Gramm's commodity act slid over Clinton's desk?
What is it that conservatives conserve? If it's the environment, how come so many bodies of water are off-limits for fishing?
What is it that liberals liberate? If it's the health-care system, then why are so many peeps going without adequate health care?
I'll tell you what I think: you'd be "right" if you say both conservatives and liberals "left" us out to dry on the line.
Tex...
Go back and read some of my posts...the left and the right are one in the same IMO...
My point to raybond was that the current administration which is labeled "left" are the ones forcing GM into BK...
It doesn't really matter who is in charge...the results are always the same...the people get screwed!
No need to re-read...
You could re-read some of my earliest posts on Allstocks and see that I said then that there's not a dime's width of difference, when it comes down to the working (wo)man.
Now--what changed that? Cheney/Bush--that's a whole new animal. They colored w-a-y outside the lines.
Obama's doing OK, so far...
To get back to retired's original post. Blaming the left for the possible GM BK is non-sense at best. The potential BK is due to their business practices. No 2 ways about it. Blaming the government for GM's BK is ridiculous. The govt tried to bail them out. Just utter nonsense to even say the govt is causing GM's possible BK.
i hate these "stacked" posts. however in this case i think it's apropo.
the right and the left bear fairly equal blame IMO.
America forgot something. It took ten-twenty years for the forgetting to show up.
"Gloabalisation" is a POS. Thru and thru there is only one thing it's good for and that is exploitation of the poor. By poor i mean the lower 95% in terms of Capital. The right and the left have both catered to their elitists instead of their CONSTITUENTS. Kerry was one; the Clintons BECAME a pair or trio of them.
Globalisation wastes natural resoucres shipping stuff all over the world to the cheapest LABOR. The (extra) profits are ONLY from unrealistically cheap fuel. Theres a dream of massive riches available for anybody yet the truth is that once yuo make those riches you have to "trust" them with somebody. Lately we see the error in that thought process.
What did we forget? We forgot that a society, just like a chain, is no stronger than it's weakest links. We have not strengthened our weakest links. We have broken them. We created a safety net after the great depression, not because we are socialist, but because in order for everybody to "make money", everybody has to have some to spend. As soon as there is less to spend? People begin to make choices about how to spend it.
Obama is a "breath of fresh air" but i caution that his unwillingness to find justice is a symptom of somehting being for sale, and that something has no value to anybody once it is sold.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: [QUOTE]Originally posted by T e x: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by retiredat49: [qb] Raybond...the "left" IS who is going to force them into BK...
To get back to retired's original post. Blaming the left for the possible GM BK is non-sense at best. The potential BK is due to their business practices. No 2 ways about it. Blaming the government for GM's BK is ridiculous. The govt tried to bail them out. Just utter nonsense to even say the govt is causing GM's possible BK.
First off Pagan...tell me exactly WHAT business practices have caused GM's woes.
Secondly...I SAID...the left is FORCING them into BK...
The govt. COULD continue to LEND them money to keep them afloat (similar to what they did with the banks & similar to what every other government has done with their auto companies) but nooooo OUR government is going to force them to "restructure" aka BANKRUPTCY...which, by the way, does NOTHING except allows them to default on their debt. and their contracts, a.k.a. f*cking their lenders, workers, and retirees...
posted
NYT: Chrysler could file bankruptcy next week Alliance with Italian automaker Fiat would happen under protection By Micheline Maynard and Michael J. de la Merced The New York Times updated 4:06 p.m. PT, Thurs., April 23, 2009 DETROIT - The Treasury Department is preparing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing for Chrysler that could come as soon as next week, people with direct knowledge of the action said Thursday.
The Treasury has an agreement in principle with the United Automobile Workers union, whose members’ pensions and retiree health care benefits would be protected as a condition of the bankruptcy filing, said these people, who asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.
Moreover, Fiat of Italy would complete its alliance with Chrysler while the company is under bankruptcy protection.
The only major question that remains unresolved is what happens to Chrysler’s lenders, who hold $6.9 billion in company debt. The government’s most recent offer, presented Wednesday, would give the company’s lenders about 22 cents on the dollar, or $1.5 billion, and a 5 percent equity stake in a reorganized Chrysler. Earlier this week, a steering committee of the lenders proposed that they receive 65 cents on the dollar, or $4.5 billion, and a 40 percent equity stake.
If no agreement is reached between the government and Chrysler’s lenders, a nasty legal fight could emerge in bankruptcy. The creditors’ claims are backed by most of the company’s collateral, including plants, brands and equipment, and the senior lenders will argue that they have first claim on those assets — even over and above the government’s debt.
"In a negotiation like this, everything is speculation until there’s a deal,” said an administration official who did not want to be named because the talks are private. “It should surprise no one that the administration is planning on contingencies, but we remain focused on the goal and engaged with all stakeholders to bring Chrysler and Fiat to a working partnership.”
A Treasury spokeswoman declined to comment.
A bankruptcy filing by Chrysler would be the first among Detroit’s troubled automakers, who have been mired in a devastating sales slump since last fall. Treasury is also working with General Motors to prepare a possible bankruptcy case, and the terms of a Chrysler filing might offer a glimpse into the shape of G.M.’s own filing.
Some analysts questioned whether the Treasury’s steps to prepare a bankruptcy case were an effort to put more pressure on lenders, with which it has exchanged proposals meant to reduce Chrysler’s debt. Chrysler faces an April 30 deadline from the Treasury, while G.M. faces a June 1 deadline in its own efforts to draft a new restructuring plan.
Under the most likely assumptions, Treasury will provide the financing that Chrysler needs to operate while under bankruptcy protection. The Canadian government is also expected to participate in backing the company.
The Globe and Mail of Toronto reported the Canadian government’s role on Thursday.
Last month, the Obama administration told Chrysler it would provide up to $6 billion in financing if Chrysler and Fiat could complete a deal by the end of this month. Fiat originally agreed to take 35 percent of Chrysler, but the stake was subsequently reduced to 20 percent. The administration said it would provide up to $6 billion in financing if the two companies agreed, on top of $4 billion in federal assistance that Chrysler has already received.
Although the two companies have been holding discussions on an out-of-court agreement, a bankruptcy case would allow Fiat to more easily select the assets of Chrysler that it wants to preserve, such as dealerships, factories and the company’s product development operations, these people said. The approach, which relies upon Section 363 of the federal bankruptcy code, is somewhat similar to what the government is planning in the case of G,M..
Then, Chrysler could sell or jettison any assets it does not want to keep, and cancel franchise agreements with superfluous car dealers.
“Chrysler has consistently said that its viability will be enhanced through an alliance with Fiat, as it represents a change in the company’s business model that expands its global competitiveness,” said Lori McTavish, Chrysler’s vice president of communications. “As we move forward in this process, we believe it’s important to keep all options open.”
Ms. McTavish said Chrysler would continue to work through the end of the month, based on direction given by the President’s auto task force, “to secure the support of the necessary stakeholders and reach a successful conclusion that the administration and U.S. Treasury deems appropriate.”
The U.A.W., Chrysler and Treasury have reached agreements in principle that would protect workers’ benefits, people with knowledge of the negotiations said, and a similar agreement is expected to be reached as soon as this weekend with the Canadian Auto Workers union.
Once Chrysler emerges from bankruptcy protection, it would largely be owned by Fiat, the U.A.W., the Treasury and its lenders, these people said. A bankruptcy filing would likely wipe out existing equity stakeholders, notably Cerberus Capital Management, which took over the carmaker from Daimler in 2007.
Ron Gettelfinger, the U.A.W.’s president, issued a statement on Wednesday saying that the union was “continuing to work toward an agreement that will be in the best interest of Chrysler workers, retirees and the communities where the company does business.”
People close to the talks said Wednesday that the U.A.W. had tentatively agreed to accept Chrysler stock to finance half of the company’s $10.6 billion obligation to the health care trust. The balance would be paid in cash over the next decade. That money presumably could come from either the Treasury, or from Chrysler’s profits, once it emerges from bankruptcy protection.
Chrysler has a $9.3 billion pension shortfall, or 34 percent of its total liability, according to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The agency said earlier this month that it would assume $2 billion of the shortfall in the event Chrysler terminates its pension plans.
If that happened, retirees would receive sharply lower benefits than they normally would expect. But Chrysler is not obligated to terminate its pension plans while in bankruptcy, particularly if it received federal assistance to fund them.
It was not clear Thursday where Chrysler would file its bankruptcy case. On Wednesday, Mike Cox, the attorney general of Michigan, urged General Motors and Chrysler to consider filing in the state, rather than Delaware or New York. He said a locally administered case would be more convenient for creditors in Michigan.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: First off Pagan...tell me exactly WHAT business practices have caused GM's woes.
Secondly...I SAID...the left is FORCING them into BK...
The govt. COULD continue to LEND them money to keep them afloat (similar to what they did with the banks & similar to what every other government has done with their auto companies) but nooooo OUR government is going to force them to "restructure" aka BANKRUPTCY...which, by the way, does NOTHING except allows them to default on their debt. and their contracts, a.k.a. f*cking their lenders, workers, and retirees...
Keep lending them money does nothing but keep them in more debt. It will not turn them around. Turning them around starts first with turning the banks and credit markets around. Thereby turning the economy around & people starting to buy vehicles again. Bankruptcy at this point seems to be the only solution right now for Chrysler & GM. Ford imo are doing fine in slowly turn themselves around. Perhaps C and GM should study what Ford is doing
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Raybond...the "left" IS who is going to force them into BK...
The "left," the "right"...
Conservatives, liberals...
lol, who was the left and the right when Gramm's commodity act slid over Clinton's desk?
What is it that conservatives conserve? If it's the environment, how come so many bodies of water are off-limits for fishing?
What is it that liberals liberate? If it's the health-care system, then why are so many peeps going without adequate health care?
I'll tell you what I think: you'd be "right" if you say both conservatives and liberals "left" us out to dry on the line.
Tex...
Go back and read some of my posts...the left and the right are one in the same IMO...
My point to raybond was that the current administration which is labeled "left" are the ones forcing GM into BK...
It doesn't really matter who is in charge...the results are always the same...the people get screwed!
No need to re-read...
You could re-read some of my earliest posts on Allstocks and see that I said then that there's not a dime's width of difference, when it comes down to the working (wo)man.
Now--what changed that? Cheney/Bush--that's a whole new animal. They colored w-a-y outside the lines.
Obama's doing OK, so far...
To get back to retired's original post. Blaming the left for the possible GM BK is non-sense at best. The potential BK is due to their business practices. No 2 ways about it. Blaming the government for GM's BK is ridiculous. The govt tried to bail them out. Just utter nonsense to even say the govt is causing GM's possible BK.
i hate these "stacked" posts. however in this case i think it's apropo.
the right and the left bear fairly equal blame IMO.
America forgot something. It took ten-twenty years for the forgetting to show up.
"Gloabalisation" is a POS. Thru and thru there is only one thing it's good for and that is exploitation of the poor. By poor i mean the lower 95% in terms of Capital. The right and the left have both catered to their elitists instead of their CONSTITUENTS. Kerry was one; the Clintons BECAME a pair or trio of them.
Globalisation wastes natural resoucres shipping stuff all over the world to the cheapest LABOR. The (extra) profits are ONLY from unrealistically cheap fuel. Theres a dream of massive riches available for anybody yet the truth is that once yuo make those riches you have to "trust" them with somebody. Lately we see the error in that thought process.
What did we forget? We forgot that a society, just like a chain, is no stronger than it's weakest links. We have not strengthened our weakest links. We have broken them. We created a safety net after the great depression, not because we are socialist, but because in order for everybody to "make money", everybody has to have some to spend. As soon as there is less to spend? People begin to make choices about how to spend it.
Obama is a "breath of fresh air" but i caution that his unwillingness to find justice is a symptom of somehting being for sale, and that something has no value to anybody once it is sold.
still stacking...
As posted elsewhen, recently, globalization can be a good thing for the ever-evolving planet-brain.
For example, if you're the rich guy in town, owning most of the slums, with hella plenty insurance? You don't care if they burn each other down.
Insurance? check
Rebuild? check, this time without so much rif-raf, cuz they killed each other in da riot...
Wait it out, rebuild or sell vacant lots later? check--cash flow from settlement sees you through.
BUT...
if you invested heavily, let's say in marginal part of town...to keep purchase-price down but also to reduce insurance premiums...
NOW, you're not quite so eager to let the savages have at it...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pagan: To get back to retired's original post. Blaming the left for the possible GM BK is non-sense at best. The potential BK is due to their business practices. No 2 ways about it. Blaming the government for GM's BK is ridiculous. The govt tried to bail them out. Just utter nonsense to even say the govt is causing GM's possible BK.
Exactly. Does not matter if the Left or Right are in power it was GM's practices and the economy as a whole that did their undoing not the Gov't.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by T e x: still stacking...
As posted elsewhen, recently, globalization can be a good thing for the ever-evolving planet-brain.
For example, if you're the rich guy in town, owning most of the slums, with hella plenty insurance? You don't care if they burn each other down.
Insurance? check
Rebuild? check, this time without so much rif-raf, cuz they killed each other in da riot...
Wait it out, rebuild or sell vacant lots later? check--cash flow from settlement sees you through.
BUT...
if you invested heavily, let's say in marginal part of town...to keep purchase-price down but also to reduce insurance premiums...
NOW, you're not quite so eager to let the savages have at it...
Me no stacking ... it's getting annoying and i have a habit of stacking lol Anyways thanks for proving in a way that Greed can be good for someone but can be bad as well if done differently regardless of "definition".
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by Pagan: To get back to retired's original post. Blaming the left for the possible GM BK is non-sense at best. The potential BK is due to their business practices. No 2 ways about it. Blaming the government for GM's BK is ridiculous. The govt tried to bail them out. Just utter nonsense to even say the govt is causing GM's possible BK.
Exactly. Does not matter if the Left or Right are in power it was GM's practices and the economy as a whole that did their undoing not the Gov't.
Tell me O wise one...what business "practices" is causing GM's undoing?
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i wasn't suggesting you didn't know about he Conquistadors, that's why i chose that example. within the Americas it is likely there was much more social diverstiy than there was in Europe or Asia.
The only thing I didn't agree with him is violent revolution to achieve his views.
violence is, in the end, the only power that is recognised by the animals.
to expect all of humanity to be "civilised" is totally unrealistic.
I guess I wasn't making myself clear. I believe in political,economic, social evolution vs doing it violently like Marx and others (Mao, Che, Castro, Mingh, Lenin etc.) advocated. The only difference between evolution and revolution is revolution gets faster results for the impatient ones. That's not to say the violent thinkers were not correct just that I prefer the non violence approach.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: By the way...
Globalization DOESN"T work...and
Greed is NEVER good...
If it wasn't for Globalization GM (or whatever company you work for or worked for) wouldn't be the auto behemoth it is today and will continue being after this crisis is over.
And Greed is good for the perpretator of which the U.S. is one of many countries in this world. It benefitted from it's Greed throughout it's history to become a Global economic superpower. The U.S. benefitted and us as American citizens therefor benefitted in terms of better lives then elsewhere in this world. Whether we like to admit it or not this country was built on Greed and Greed is Good for the U.S. just bad for the ones we did the Greed on regardless of "definition".
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
No this country was built with "hard work" and "ambition"...greed is what brought us to where we are at right now...and where we are at right now is NOT GOOD...
And how about those business practices that created GM's woes? Haven't you looked them up yet?
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: By the way...
Globalization DOESN"T work...and
Greed is NEVER good...
Good God man! If a certain level of greed is not good, then why the hell are you posting on a stock oriented MB? Are we all not out to MAKE money? That's greed dude.
And as far as GM's failed business practices? Way overpaying employees. Not developing cars wanted by consumers. Sketchy lending practices thru GMAC. Producing way to many cars for the demand that was there. Ridiculous executive compensation. Not producing energy efficient vehicles. Etc, etc, etc.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Tell me O wise one...what business "practices" is causing GM's undoing?
Starting or not getting rid of the Hummer(as well as other gas guzzlers) and Saturn divisions when the writing was on the wall.
I admire your conviction for standing up for your industry especially the Unions but I have to wonder if your conviction for this cause would be the same if you had never worked in the industry. Would your opinions be the same or be like ours who are impartial because we do not work in the industry?
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: No this country was built with "hard work" and "ambition"...greed is what brought us to where we are at right now...and where we are at right now is NOT GOOD...
And how about those business practices that created GM's woes? Haven't you looked them up yet?
Who said people or countries who are Greedy do not work hard or are ambitious? You would have to be if you want to be successful in your Greed and quest for money, wealth, power etc.
As for business practices, Pagan beat me to it. I only named Hummer/Saturn as an obvious example.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
I can't think how greed is good in any situtation since greed means taking extreme excess from other people by any means wich results in the lowering the standards of the many for a few to live in heaven.If greed has its good points,I don't see them,they are very out done by there by product.
some of the results of greed are poor eductaion,health care,food. Unpleasant things like war the best example of what greed can start wether a conflict or total ww. Slums,racism, It affects equality before the law and pollution of our planet and effecting the laws to let it happen. Can make a longer list but I have to run now
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
lol, you're goofyqueer over this greed thang...
greed is like murder: never good.
Just like "no crying in baseball," there's never a common good for greed, except as negative example.
btw, I hate resorting to dictionaries, but it's valid rhetoric sometimes.
For example, rampant is *supposed* to connote "rearing up, on hind legs." Yet, because dictionaries ultimately reflect popular usage, the word has been *******ized to allow connotations of rampaging.
Another one I don't like--lol, perhaps my personal history is bleeding through: gay
Bugs the chit outta me that we lost a perfectly good word to the homosexual plight.
For instance, try, "Don we now/our gay apparel..."
by substituting any other word: happy?
nah...
closest is festive. But it doesn't fit the meter, eh? well, you can rush it, and shoehorn it into the measure, but gay is much better.
Want another one? decimate is *supposed* to reference the Roman disciplinary practice of whacking every 10th wayward soldier, or even balky, recently-conquered populace. Yet, in common usage, you'll hear the word used as if it's interchangeable with devastate.
Sure, I understand one point of language is to gease social lubrication, etiquette, etc; but the main point is to provide accuracy.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: By the way...
Globalization DOESN"T work...and
Greed is NEVER good...
Good God man! If a certain level of greed is not good, then why the hell are you posting on a stock oriented MB? Are we all not out to MAKE money? That's greed dude.
And as far as GM's failed business practices? Way overpaying employees. Not developing cars wanted by consumers. Sketchy lending practices thru GMAC. Producing way to many cars for the demand that was there. Ridiculous executive compensation. Not producing energy efficient vehicles. Etc, etc, etc.
Pagan...you have proven again that all you are capable of is reading/listening to bullchit propoganda...
1. GM employees are paid no more on average than Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota workers and less than the Germans & Italians...
2. If they weren't developing cars & trucks that people didn't want...How is it that they are the no.2 automaker in the world?
3.Explain what "sketchy lending practices" you are talking about and how they hurt GM
4. GM didn't stay in business for 100 years by not knowing what the demand for their products are...(although they weren't prepared for gas prices to be artificially inflated)
5. Ridiculous executive compensation....won't get any argument from me on that point except IMO all executives in every company in this country are over compensated...
6. Fuel economy??? GM makes 17 different models that get 30+ mpg...more than any other company...
You really need to quit believing everything you hear on the alphabet cable news channels...you are clueless...
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Tell me O wise one...what business "practices" is causing GM's undoing?
Starting or not getting rid of the Hummer(as well as other gas guzzlers) and Saturn divisions when the writing was on the wall.
I admire your conviction for standing up for your industry especially the Unions but I have to wonder if your conviction for this cause would be the same if you had never worked in the industry. Would your opinions be the same or be like ours who are impartial because we do not work in the industry?
If I never spent a minute working for GM but knew what I know about the company...my stance would be the same...
Your opinions are based on what you've heard or read...and I can tell you from "experience" that what you have heard or read about GM is pure blatant bullsh!t...
Be very careful of the media...they all have an agenda, and it is NOT to report the truth...
quote:Originally posted by T e x: No, I didn't address the U.S. Was merely following up on the greed debate.
The U.S. has done lottsa bad stuff not only to foreign countries and their people but also to our country and our people, mostly from greed but sometimes from colossal blunders.
"Entering" other economies is certainly not limited to the U.S., though. Of course, in one very practical sense, intertwined economies have a wonderful benefit: governments are less likely to bomb places where they have significant investments in infrastructure and real property.
This latest crisis is all about greed: CDOs, CDSs and the ilk don't "produce" (as in, manufacture) anything. In real estate, for instance, the houses were built. Sure, some developments were spec plays fueled by easy money, just as "flippers" were lured in via greed/easy money.
The problem is the "illusion" of a free market that turns out to be an Oz-like situation, with a relative few behind the curtain, flipping switches and making thunderous proclamations...when all they're really doing is staying a jump or two ahead of "the rules." Kinda like criminals in any other field... it's greed, and it's wrong.
Ahhh so really what you mean is Greed is wrong... not bad. And if it is bad by "definition" then ever hear the saying: It is Good to be Bad.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: By the way...
Globalization DOESN"T work...and
Greed is NEVER good...
Good God man! If a certain level of greed is not good, then why the hell are you posting on a stock oriented MB? Are we all not out to MAKE money? That's greed dude.
And as far as GM's failed business practices? Way overpaying employees. Not developing cars wanted by consumers. Sketchy lending practices thru GMAC. Producing way to many cars for the demand that was there. Ridiculous executive compensation. Not producing energy efficient vehicles. Etc, etc, etc.
Pagan...you have proven again that all you are capable of is reading/listening to bullchit propoganda...
1. GM employees are paid no more on average than Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota workers and less than the Germans & Italians...
2. If they weren't developing cars & trucks that people didn't want...How is it that they are the no.2 automaker in the world?
3.Explain what "sketchy lending practices" you are talking about and how they hurt GM
4. GM didn't stay in business for 100 years by not knowing what the demand for their products are...(although they weren't prepared for gas prices to be artificially inflated)
5. Ridiculous executive compensation....won't get any argument from me on that point except IMO all executives in every company in this country are over compensated...
6. Fuel economy??? GM makes 17 different models that get 30+ mpg...more than any other company...
You really need to quit believing everything you hear on the alphabet cable news channels...you are clueless...
Oh and greed by definition is NEVER good...
3.Explain what "sketchy lending practices" you are talking about and how they hurt GM
credit derivatives...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: No, I didn't address the U.S. Was merely following up on the greed debate.
The U.S. has done lottsa bad stuff not only to foreign countries and their people but also to our country and our people, mostly from greed but sometimes from colossal blunders.
"Entering" other economies is certainly not limited to the U.S., though. Of course, in one very practical sense, intertwined economies have a wonderful benefit: governments are less likely to bomb places where they have significant investments in infrastructure and real property.
This latest crisis is all about greed: CDOs, CDSs and the ilk don't "produce" (as in, manufacture) anything. In real estate, for instance, the houses were built. Sure, some developments were spec plays fueled by easy money, just as "flippers" were lured in via greed/easy money.
The problem is the "illusion" of a free market that turns out to be an Oz-like situation, with a relative few behind the curtain, flipping switches and making thunderous proclamations...when all they're really doing is staying a jump or two ahead of "the rules." Kinda like criminals in any other field... it's greed, and it's wrong.
Ahhh so really what you mean is Greed is wrong... not bad. And if it is bad by "definition" then ever hear the saying: It is Good to be Bad.
lol, you're s-l-o-w
CATCH UP!
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
Tex..excuse my ignorance, I'm a car guy not a financial guy...I do know that GM sold a good portion of GMAC a while back...How did the derivatives hurt GM?
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Tex..excuse my ignorance, I'm a car guy not a financial guy...I do know that GM sold a good portion of GMAC a while back...How did the derivatives hurt GM?
their finance arm... you know they do mortgages and other loans, yes?
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Tex..excuse my ignorance, I'm a car guy not a financial guy...I do know that GM sold a good portion of GMAC a while back...How did the derivatives hurt GM?
their finance arm... you know they do mortgages and other loans, yes?
Yes...I'm not that ignorant LOL
I don't think it is the reason for all their woes...
quote:Originally posted by raybond: I can't think how greed is good in any situtation since greed means taking extreme excess from other people by any means wich results in the lowering the standards of the many for a few to live in heaven.If greed has its good points,I don't see them,they are very out done by there by product.
some of the results of greed are poor eductaion,health care,food. Unpleasant things like war the best example of what greed can start wether a conflict or total ww. Slums,racism, It affects equality before the law and pollution of our planet and effecting the laws to let it happen. Can make a longer list but I have to run now
Like I said Greed is bad for the ones it's being done to but not for the ones who do the Greed unless they get caught or their plans backfire of course... but if successful then Greed is good for the starter excluding "definition". In other words the Ends Justify the means... for the Greedy one...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Tex..excuse my ignorance, I'm a car guy not a financial guy...I do know that GM sold a good portion of GMAC a while back...How did the derivatives hurt GM?
their finance arm... you know they do mortgages and other loans, yes?
Yes...I'm not that ignorant LOL
I don't think it is the reason for all their woes...
not saying that... just pointing out they also dipped their toe in the pond. The poison pond...
Furthermore, they're also *the target* of CDSs working *against* them:
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
