Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

While the profits are privatised, the costs are very far from privatised.  Huh?

In the sense that the bailouts relied on taxpayer money and the returns pretty much went into CEO bonuses. Is your argument that the bailouts shouldn't have happened and that banks should've just been allowed to fail and just have the government stay-out? The argument against that is the short-term consequences of such a move may have led to disastrous outcomes.

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Lol but 2008 does come into it doesn't it? And corporations are anything but democratic, is general electric democratic? Is GM? Aren't those corporations? AIG? 

Where their democratic elements? Each shareholder votes once for each share owned. No own-no vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

In the sense that the bailouts relied on taxpayer money and the returns pretty much went into CEO bonuses. Is your argument that the bailouts shouldn't have happened and that banks should've just been allowed to fail and just have the government stay-out? The argument against that is the short-term consequences of such a move may have led to disastrous outcomes.

That was voted on by the 'democratic' Congress, not the taxpayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Where their democratic elements? Each shareholder votes once for each share owned. No own-no vote.

It's not democratic in the sense that the shareholders bear the responsibility of irresponsible decisions made by the corporation, but the taxpayer bears the burden of bailing them out when they do so. 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

It's not democratic in the sense that the shareholders bear the responsibility of irresponsible decisions made by the corporation, but the taxpayer bears the burden of bailing them out when they do so. 

You have it backwards. A corporation is limited liability for the shareholder: dividend loss; decline in stock price; insolvency; etc That happen to me twice with Bethlehem and Kodak. Then there was a closed-end fund that was run as a scheme and the price crash from $14 at open to $2 by the time l got it unloaded. l didn't get any taxpayer monies, tax-supported compensation or anything of the kind. So where is there a bailout?

 

Addendum: The money appropriated by Pelosi's Congress was put on the national credit card.

Edited by hasanhh
Addendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

So where is there a bailout?

Not talking about you specifically or small businesses for that matter, but GM did get bailed out, as did numerous companies in the financial crisis. http://time.com/82953/general-motors-bailout-cost-taxpayers-11-2-billion/

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Not talking about you specifically or small businesses for that matter, but GM did get bailed out, as did numerous companies in the financial crisis. http://time.com/82953/general-motors-bailout-cost-taxpayers-11-2-billion/

Correct. GM and Chrysler, but not Ford :clap:BUT you forgot to mention this was all paid back as required -- and ahead of schedule.

Edited by hasanhh
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Correct. GM and Chrysler, but not Ford :clap:BUT you forgot to mention this was all paid back as required -- and ahead of schedule.

Not quite, On Chrysler the taxpayer lost $1.2 billion dollars and on GM, $11.2 billion. Not all of it was paid back. The moral hazard issue remains, you can't defend capitalism and talk about how well we can't have single-payer or funded state college education and then have the government step in to bail out huge companies justifying it as saying well the money will come back (even though it doesn't all come back), because you could make the same argument for a well educated and healthy workforce, not being in so much debt. If the argument is if these companies fail it would devastate the workforce and the economy, then maybe the policies we have that allow companies to get to this stage need to be evaluated. Because besides giving them these bailout assurances, you're also in many ways deterring other smaller startups because they don't have the shield these bigger companies do.

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Not quite, On Chrysler the taxpayer lost $1.23 billion dollars and on GM, $11.2 billion. Not all of it was paid back. The moral hazard issue remains, you can't defend capitalism and talk about how well we can't have single-payer or funded state college education and then have the government step in to bail out huge companies justifying it as saying well the money will come back (even though it doesn't all come back), because you could make the same argument for a well educated and healthy workforce, not being in so much debt. If the argument is if these companies fail it would devastate the workforce and the economy, then maybe the policies we have that allow companies to get to this stage need to be evaluated. Because besides giving them these bailout assurances, you're also in many ways deterring other smaller startups because they don't have the shield these bigger companies do.

You didn't cite your source(dated 16Feb18):  https://www.thebalence.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chrysler-3305670 where the Fed made $2.4 Billions on GMAC. The price sold in Dec 2013 is nearly equal to todays price --down from the Oct 2017 high. Plus GM also pays a 4% dividend. (Gov't sold too early)

Bailout money also went to pay business related taxes -state, local, county...

Ford was under the Student Loan program group with other things.

So, in observation, by willfully denying GM and Chrysler(forced into Fiat) otherwise unavailable credit (because the banks collapsed from gov't allowed overleverage)  you are perfectly willing to implode local gov'ts and school systems on the pretense of "democracy" to advance a socialist agenda.

Ugh

Edited by hasanhh
Article Date: plus sold date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasanhh said:

So, in observation, by willfully denying GM and Chrysler(forced into Fiat) otherwise unavailable credit (because the banks collapsed from gov't allowed overleverage)  you are perfectly willing to implode local gov'ts and school systems on the pretense of "democracy" to advance a socialist agenda.

 

Well, there is an unfair advantage there which completely goes against what free-market capitalism endorses, the idea that everyone can make it if they work hard enough, but that doesn't happen, because bailouts are an insurance policy that allows giant corporations to make risky decisions, earn higher profits even at the cost of higher risk, because that risk is insured. So, your argument is that these companies could not get credit from banks, but the question is why did they allow themselves to get to a stage where they had to be reliant on credit in the first place? They engaged in risky transactions because of an insurance policy that was inherently there. Does a regular startup have such an option? If you or me decided to start a business today, would we able to engage in shady transactions and say if that goes well, we're rich, and if not, the government will step in and rescue us anyway? No. 

Btw your link doesn't open. Even if the argument is the stock of the company is not doing too badly now, who does that benefit really? The same shareholders that gave themselves the bonuses and then really are in no real need of acting any differently than they did in the past. 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yarrabi !

6 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Well, there is an unfair advantage there which completely goes against what free-market capitalism endorses, the idea that everyone can make it if ... 

:ko:

Just what you wrote, "...the idea that everyone can..." is not the same as "everyone does".

Not what is "unfair"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Just what you wrote, "...the idea that everyone can..." is not the same as "everyone does".

 

No it is about can, because the playing field isn't even for everyone. If you're goldman sachs, you have privileges that a startup small bank does not have. This is not just in terms of bailouts but also in terms of public subsidies, the bailouts are in fact a very small percentage.

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 11:45 PM, Mohamed1993 said:

No it is about can, because the playing field isn't even for everyone. If you're goldman sachs, you have privileges that a startup small bank does not have. This is not just in terms of bailouts but also in terms of public subsidies, the bailouts are in fact a very small percentage.

Goldman-Sachs wasn't built in a day. The same is said about Rome.

G-S is the last investment bank left. lt is also involved with fraud, such as laundering Greece's books so it could join the EU and then again to join the Euro.

1] ^^^This is not a privilege.

2] There is not a lot of demand for investment banking anymore.

3] Start-up banks are still required to meet state and federal regulations. This ain't crypto-banking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Goldman-Sachs wasn't built in a day. The same is said about Rome.

G-S is the last investment bank left. lt is also involved with fraud, such as laundering Greece's books so it could join the EU and then again to join the Euro.

1] ^^^This is not a privilege.

2] There is not a lot of demand for investment banking anymore.

3] Start-up banks are still required to meet state and federal regulations. This ain't crypto-banking.

I know it wasn't built in a day but my point is the government provides subsidies to large wealthy corporations, and in true capitalism, it is only competition that determines who survives and who does not, but there is government intervention here with subsidies, bailouts, etc. If you're a small guy, heavily in debt, and don't have a large lobbying presence in DC, I don't think you'll get much help if any at all. I support banking regulations, but bigger banks can find ways around it and because they have significant clout over the state, they have that as a insurance policy. I remember during the crisis, the Obama administration to show it did something, it punished some small Asian bank (I believe it was a Japanese bank), but the big guys were left unpunished. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

@Mohamed1993   Happy First Day of Sprung--2018

Since you initiated mention of Goldman Sachs l thought you'd like to peruse this:  http://www.dw.com/en/goldman-sachs-appointment-to-german-finance-ministry-sparks-outcry/a-43045014 

Ah what's that thing called? Democracy? Of the banks, for the banks and by the banks. I say this against my own interest btw, I studied economics and I work in the field. 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I know it wasn't built in a day but my point is the government provides subsidies to large wealthy corporations, and in true capitalism, it is only competition that determines who survives and who does not, but there is government intervention here with subsidies, bailouts, etc. If you're a small guy, heavily in debt, and don't have a large lobbying presence in DC, I don't think you'll get much help if any at all. I support banking regulations, but bigger banks can find ways around it and because they have significant clout over the state, they have that as a insurance policy. I remember during the crisis, the Obama administration to show it did something, it punished some small Asian bank (I believe it was a Japanese bank), but the big guys were left unpunished. 

 

Offhand, l remember the 4 figure tax rebates people got in 2008 or 2009. Then a temporary tax reduction. The first of these is definitely a "subsidy".

"Heavily in debt" is most often your-own-fault. Plus it violates the sunnah.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasanhh said:

"Heavily in debt" is most often your-own-fault.

Sure, if you are rich.

And then there are people who go into debt due to medical bills or job loss. Those are the actual majority, not poor stupid yuppies with too many iPhones and a too nice car. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×