• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Clint Eastwood Superbowl ad

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Because I don't agree with you? LOL Please crawl back in your bombproof bunker.
No. Because you are so devoid of reason and logic.

Like when you missed the fact that an article you posted, directly contradicted your point.

Or how you are arguing that one bad bailout was good, but another one bad just because you think one industry is 'greedy'.

There are plenty of other reasons.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
No. Because you are so devoid of reason and logic.

Like when you missed the fact that an article you posted, directly contradicted your point.

Or how you are arguing that one bad bailout was good, but another one bad just because you think one industry is 'greedy'.

There are plenty of other reasons.
You mean because you can only think like a right winger?
 
Last edited:

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
Sure there would. GM could have went into bankruptcy and had a leaner meaner auto manufacturer emerge. Now we have one that still has no way to pay future pension/healthcare liabilities. And one that still operates under the slow to adapt union mentality.
Leaner and meaner is code for low paid workers. Yes, everybody gets it, you want to gut the middle class even further. Give it up. The automakers are doing great, paying most of their workers well, and all are getting at least a living wage, and the union made big concessions.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
0
76
Leaner and meaner is code for low paid workers. Yes, everybody gets it, you want to gut the middle class even further. Give it up. The automakers are doing great, paying most of their workers well, and all are getting at least a living wage, and the union made big concessions.
Can you give examples of the unions making big concessions?

I can summarize them quickly. GM union pensioners and employees, were given a stake in the new company. Much different than what happens in a normal bankruptcy, where the pension ends up in PBGC. The maximum benefit amount for PBGC is significantly less, for many, than what they would have gotten from a government backed GM, under the risk based scenario. The union employees/pensioners now have risk in the new GM, similar to what you see around the rest of the world, where unions are either on corporate boards or are active in the profitability of the firm.
 
Last edited:

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Can you give examples of the unions making big concessions?

I can summarize them quickly. GM union pensioners and employees, were given a stake in the new company. Much different than what happens in a normal bankruptcy, where the pension ends up in PBGC. The maximum benefit amount for PBGC is significantly less, for many, than what they would have gotten from a government backed GM, under the risk based scenario. The union employees/pensioners now have risk in the new GM, similar to what you see around the rest of the world, where unions are either on corporate boards or are active in the profitability of the firm.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/wisconsin_02-21.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7379741n

http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2011/Nov/29/ar_news_112911_story2.asp?d=112911_story2,2011,Nov,29&c=n

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19760415&id=fXMjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=M2cEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6946,6508310

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199212277414188.html
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
I guess I am not really sure how any of this relates to GM...

Did you post the wrong links?
No you asked about showing Union concessions show I am illustrating that Unions engage in concessions all the time but I could list all of the from the UAW if you like.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
0
76
No you asked about showing Union concessions show I am illustrating that Unions engage in concessions all the time.
It was abundantly obvious, based on the quotation this was about GM and automakers and yes list the UAW.

Attempt to prove what I said was wrong.

The union and their pension would have been the biggest loser in a GM bankruptcy.

Pensions would have gone to PBGC and early retirement health care would have been in terrible shape.
 
Last edited:

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
It was abundantly obvious, based on the quotation this was about GM and automakers and yes list the UAW.

Attempt to prove what I said was wrong.

The union and their pension would have been the biggest loser in a GM bankruptcy.

Pensions would have gone to PBGC.
Touchy aren't we? I don't have to prove Jack shit to you....

I am illustrating that Unions in general engage in concession talks all the time.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
Can you give examples of the unions making big concessions?

I can summarize them quickly. GM union pensioners and employees, were given a stake in the new company. Much different than what happens in a normal bankruptcy, where the pension ends up in PBGC. The maximum benefit amount for PBGC is significantly less, for many, than what they would have gotten from a government backed GM, under the risk based scenario. The union employees/pensioners now have risk in the new GM, similar to what you see around the rest of the world, where unions are either on corporate boards or are active in the profitability of the firm.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/05/29/UAW-approves-GM-concessions/UPI-15171243611752/
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,083
490
126
And what? If you want to get into Bush's brain E-mail the turd blossom.
You posted a link showing Bush would support the auto bailout again. I am asking you and?????? Meaning what about it? Do you have a point to make by posting that link?

I am still waiting for a reply from my previous post about you supporting one bailout because of collateral damage over another with bigger collateral damage.
 

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,894
0
0
There's only a profit to taking out debt if the investment has a multiplier that is equal to the savings rate of inflated debt (using 5x5 inflation expectations with a savings of 55bps a year that number is .9467). Most government projects unfortunately have a multiplier less than one, meaning that even with negative real rates the investment costs more than the fundamental value. This is known as the overhead effect in economics. Projects must generate positive NPV including all the costs of administration and fees associated with the project.

Simple example. If the Federal government decides to send out $1 to every citizen, it costs more than $1 to accomplish this. There is the cost of postage, the cost of making the decision, etc. The same takes place in a business. That is how you get a multiplier less than one. i.e. 1/real cost so will use .7 as the example. The project would cost 1.42 to get every dollar into the economy, meaning the multiplier is .7.

Even though we are paying economic rent (interest) that is less than the inflation rate on borrowed principal, the difference must equal the real rate differential as well as the multiplier difference in the project.

In the above example, assuming inflation runs at 55bps more than the 10 year nominal rate (using 5x5 inflation breakevens) the above project still costs ~3.0% per annum in real economic cost the savings.

The major problem is that many government projects don't generate positive multipliers. Real interest rate differentials can't fix this.

So no, we aren't doing ourselves a favor in borrowing as it is cheaper than 5x5 inflation breakevens.

(And again, don't take this as me making a position either way on the large fiscal deficits, just more or less trying to state facts as I like to watch you guys argue.)
You're spot on. I was (perhaps naively) speaking of government spending as a closed system. In other words, if we have to choose between spending now and austerity later, or austerity now and spending later, the interest rates make the former quite attractive.

The advantage of spending borrowed (or stockpiled) money now is that it leeches a bit of the productivity from another era (in this case the future) to shore up the present, with the cost being the real interest on debt divided by the overhead multiplier.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
0
76
We would have lost more in total tax revenues had GM gone under. Read your own article.
That was another part of the GM non-bankruptcy that is a point of contention. Due to the fact that GM did not actually go bankrupt, it is able to keep its carryforward losses and other tax credits, thus not paying taxes into the future. Had GM gone through bankruptcy these are one of the first things that go. GM actually listed the tax credits as a special circumstance in their IPO (meaning a positive).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html
 
Last edited:

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
You posted a link showing Bush would support the auto bailout again. I am asking you and?????? Meaning what about it? Do you have a point to make by posting that link?

I am still waiting for a reply from my previous post about you supporting one bailout because of collateral damage over another with bigger collateral damage.
Simply posting the news in regard to this thread...wtf is wrong with that??

Where did I pick and choose which bailout I condoned? I missed that memo. What the fuck does it matter anyway because it wouldn't have stopped either bailout from occurring.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,083
490
126
Simply posting the news in regard to this thread...wtf is wrong with that??

Where did I pick and choose which bailout I condoned? I missed that memo. What the fuck does it matter anyway because it wouldn't have stopped either bailout from occurring.
So you had no point to posting a link showing Bush would support the auto bailouts again?

Sure you picked one over the other. You clearly dont believe the banks should have been bailed out while supporting the auto companies bailout. I am asking why, since you are so worried about collateral damage would you pick one over the other?
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,466
422
126
If it were up to us there would be a balanced budget. The US government would not be picking winners and losers on the backs of the US tax payers. US auto makers would live or die on their own merits lending to free market principles where Ford would have reigned supreme.

The ashes of the failed companies would give rise to new opportunity.
If the the automobile producing corporations that accepted government help have paid back the loans with interest or in the process of doing so then it's a good result.

I'm kind of surprised that people just thing that this would have affected only the autoworkers... what about people who work for Car dealers, people who service the cars, and the companies who are contracted to make parts for those cars?

Here's an interesting point. Many other governments help their manufacturing industries compete. If our government just allows our manufacturing industry to just fail, because their foreign competition has an unfair advantage then we're shooting ourselves in the foot...

relevant link below

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/home/Articles/Entries/2012/1/26_The_Case_for_Making_It_in_the_USA.html
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,466
422
126
So?

His tune changed when money was changing hands. not 3 months ago he was against the bailouts, now he's all supportive of them?

Thats integrity? LOL
Or maybe that's being able to re-evaluate one's position based on new evidence...

Something that hardcore ideologues of every stripe are just unable to do...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY