GM posts its highest profit ever: $7.6 billion

[Danzig]

the news about GM is very disheartening at least. i know when they decided to perform the bailout, that the cost of doing so was felt to be far less than the eventual cost of NOT doing a bailout. whether that will ultimately prove to be the case, i don't know. yet another example of banking issues-in this case, very, very low interest rates are killing these pension plans. they are unable to perform at what was guaranteed, so here we are.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the news about GM is very disheartening at least. i know when they decided to perform the bailout, that the cost of doing so was felt to be far less than the eventual cost of NOT doing a bailout. whether that will ultimately prove to be the case, i don't know. yet another example of banking issues-in this case, very, very low interest rates are killing these pension plans. they are unable to perform at what was guaranteed, so here we are.

No company, whether it be automotive, banking, or whatever, should be deemed too big to fail. If they are that big than they should be broken up by antitrust laws to encourage competition, but other than that, the government should stay out of it and let the free market and bankruptcy courts deal with the failure.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by pointman

No company, whether it be automotive, banking, or whatever, should be deemed too big to fail. If they are that big than they should be broken up by antitrust laws to encourage competition, but other than that, the government should stay out of it and let the free market and bankruptcy courts deal with the failure.

Corporations are people. PEOPLE, are you heartless?

Unless, of course, you do not think that corporations are in fact people...

[dellinger63]

As Paul Harvey would say 'and now the rest of the story.'

$10 billion loss on a $55 billion investment, Government Motors reneging on promises because the Treasury said it was OK? And now the last of the Detroit jobs going to China?

All while we bail the city out.

Anyway the Obama's can host Susie Orman for a few weeks?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/examin...rticle/2537323

[dellinger63]

We're officially out with a $10.5 billion dollar loss. (120,689 times more than 1% of McDonalds' CEO's pay) and what's $500,000,000 when we're talking billions.

According to a 2012 Forbes article GM employed just under 75K in the U.S. and that comes to $133,333 per job.

For those insisting GM would have gone completely under if allowed to file bankruptcy, I challenge you to find a grocery store not selling Hostess ho-ho's or twinkies despite Hostess' bankruptcy.

Meanwhile McDonalds' CEO is criticized.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...5_billion.html

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

We're officially out with a $10.5 billion dollar loss. (120,689 times more than 1% of McDonalds' CEO's pay) and what's $500,000,000 when we're talking billions.

According to a 2012 Forbes article GM employed just under 75K in the U.S. and that comes to $133,333 per job.

For those insisting GM would have gone completely under if allowed to file bankruptcy, I challenge you to find a grocery store not selling Hostess ho-ho's or twinkies despite Hostess' bankruptcy.

Meanwhile McDonalds' CEO is criticized.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...5_billion.html

Yes. They lost 10 billion or 10 million a day over the 3 years they held this stock … BUT … they saved 1 million immediate jobs and countless related jobs (parts suppliers, driver and other services) and kept a huge crater from developing in the economy at a time when we could least absorb it. Those million jobs also bought goods and services of other companies no doubt saving additional jobs. It is unbalanced to say they/we lost 10 billion. The revenue from those jobs and sales that were saved went to the Fed via taxes.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

Yes. They lost 10 billion or 10 million a day over the 3 years they held this stock … BUT … they saved 1 million immediate jobs and countless related jobs (parts suppliers, driver and other services) and kept a huge crater from developing in the economy at a time when we could least absorb it. Those million jobs also bought goods and services of other companies no doubt saving additional jobs. It is unbalanced to say they/we lost 10 billion. The revenue from those jobs and sales that were saved went to the Fed via taxes.

It's also unbalanced to say 1 million jobs would have been lost. America still needs cars/trucks. Whether they be GM or some other make, they all need part suppliers delivery drivers, and other services.

Demand remains the same whether there is a GM or not.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Yes. They lost 10 billion or 10 million a day over the 3 years they held this stock … BUT … they saved 1 million immediate jobs and countless related jobs (parts suppliers, driver and other services) and kept a huge crater from developing in the economy at a time when we could least absorb it. Those million jobs also bought goods and services of other companies no doubt saving additional jobs. It is unbalanced to say they/we lost 10 billion. The revenue from those jobs and sales that were saved went to the Fed via taxes.

i wonder tho if someone else would have bought them. that's typically what happens when a company can't right the ship. there's demand for those vehicles, that demand wouldn't have dried up.

it's just too bad that what was essentially a loan was handled like it was, which cost taxpayers plenty.