GM Spirals the Drain (Part 2)

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Why does GM = America?

Broken Window Fallacy.

I should get angry about Washington subsidizing my car consumption...why?

Originally posted by DanS

You shouldn't.

Well good then. I won't.

Of course, there may be a deadweight loss with subsidies. But it is borne by the Chinese, who buy our bonds. There is a net benefit to everybody else.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Vanguard


Broken Window Fallacy.

Wow

[KrazyHorse]

Why do you bother reading his posts?

[Naked Gents Rut]

So when Republicans filibuster then, you're perfectly fine with the whole thing. But when Democrats filibuster it's an outrage.

No.

[Garth Vader]

So 100's of billions in bailouts to the financial industry that either went right to CEO bonuses or were completely untracked is fine, but a much smaller bailout of the auto industry where the government gets some actual control in the process is not?

[KrazyHorse]

So 100's of billions in bailouts to the financial industry that either went right to CEO bonuses

Don't be ridiculous. CEOs don't get paid in the billions of dollars. More like the low 10s of millions for the highest paid ones.

Executive pay has little or nothing to do with the financial crisis except insofar as it impacts incentives.

[KrazyHorse]

where the government gets some actual control

What makes you think that the government will be better at running GM than GM's current board has been?

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

So 100's of billions in bailouts to the financial industry that either went right to CEO bonuses

Don't be ridiculous. CEOs don't get paid in the billions of dollars. More like the low 10s of millions for the highest paid ones.

Executive pay has little or nothing to do with the financial crisis except insofar as it impacts incentives.

Not one individual but a quick search turns up some numbers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1081624/Goldman-Sachs-ready-hand-7BILLION-salary-bonus-package--6bn-bail-out.html

443 bonuses averaging 3mil pounds a pop comes out to some real money.

As for your second post, the people that run an industry or company to the ground should not be still in charge after a bailout.

[KrazyHorse]

Goldman Sachs has 443 CEOs?

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, those individuals are PARTNERS. Not executives. There is a big difference.

[Garth Vader]

So the bailout money they got should go straight into their pockets?

How is that less of a waste of your tax dollars than a GM bailout?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
So the bailout money they got should go straight into their pockets?

How is that less of a waste of your tax dollars than a GM bailout?

a) I'm not sure you understand what the bailout of financial firms involved. The US gov't got an equity stake in Goldman in return for providing needed liquidity. And there is every reason to think that an investment in Goldman at the price the Treasury paid will provide handsome returns. Warren Buffett certainly thinks so. On the other hand, the reason nobody wants to lend money to GM is that GM isn't going to pay them back.

b) Don't say "CEO" or "Executive" pay when you mean pay to partners

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Asher

Wow

Yes, it's a stupid argument. But it was a stupid argument when he made it and you didn't have any trouble with it then. What's your problem now?

[KrazyHorse]

As for your second post, the people that run an industry or company to the ground should not be still in charge after a bailout.

The company who got a real bailout in this is AIG, but even so the equity holders got trashed AND the CEO got sacked (despite the fact that he had only come on in June 2008!)

[KrazyHorse]

Oops. Wrong thread.