1 (edited by Little Paul 16-Dec-2010 12:49:48)

Topic: Obama's Company rescue policy-poll

Do you think its a good thing Obama "saved" companies like general motors? Or do you think its a disaster like me?
We will discuss financial institutions in another forum.
Fill in the poll first, we debate later.

1. its a good thing
2. its more good then bad
3. undecided
4. its more bad then good
5. its a complete disaster
6. time will tell
7. Generally i think it was not good to bail out companys who had been troublesome before just to let them not die.
But! The goverment spending money to support companies in general to survive the crisis may have been not a bad thing. (by Schniepel)
8. ...

for me that is a 5 or worse. If you have a different opinion as one of these 6, make a new nr and I'll add your opinion to the list.

Once every active member has given his opinion, about 4 persons, then we debate the issue.

Re: Obama's Company rescue policy-poll

7.
Generally i think it was not good to bail out companys who had been troublesome before just to let them not die.
But! The goverment spending money to support companies in general to survive the crisis may have been not a bad thing. I

Re: Obama's Company rescue policy-poll

1. its a good thing
(excluding Banks)

That's how fast it takes for a guy to get whacked

Re: Obama's Company rescue policy-poll

7.
Obama messed that up bad.  I am with Schniepel on this one.  I think it was a bad idea to bail out like GM when there were other companies that struggled, but stayed afloat.  I appluad those companies and frown on those that feel the government should always bail out.  I understand there are times when it is needed.  I did not feel this was one.

5 (edited by [Bullet] 15-Dec-2010 21:19:15)

Re: Obama's Company rescue policy-poll

6. I'm doing an economics degree, so I'm looking at it from that perspective - from a pure POV without going into detail, bail outs like that are never good as they subvert the free market and let uncompetitive companies survive. However, at the same time, it kept however many thousands of people in work, either from GM itself, or supporting industries, and the impact from the wages earned by these people, and the multiplier effect from their consumption would have had a beneficial effect throughout the economy as a whole. Obviously it is very hard to put a tangible value on this and thus compare it with the cost of the bail out, but it's worth bearing in mind when considering this question. As such, I think only time will tell whether it was a good idea or not.

<Mizzle> ive been in a jailcel for the first time of my life during this night lol
<Mizzle> new experience big_smile

Re: Obama's Company rescue policy-poll

1.  I'm also doing an economics degree, so I'm looking at it from that perspective.  Normally, I wouldn't like bailout programs.  However, we must note that in this case, it's not a bailout.  Banks are largely working to repay TARP, in part out of personal well-being (TARP debtors are banned from giving big bonuses to executives until they repay the loan).  As a result, this does manage to chew out the fat within these companies, as Bullet would like.  At the same time, it highlights a giant red flag in economic practices, encouraging banks to restructure their systems.

Bankruptcy is only a "good" thing for an economy if we assume that a business did something inefficiently, and will never reform to become efficient.  The banks were given a temporary loan, and are thus given time to restructure themselves in order to become more efficient.

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

Re: Obama's Company rescue policy-poll

bail out product companies=yes, bail out banks= absolutely f'n not... but that damage is done.... sad

don't touch me i am contagious........;p

Re: Obama's Company rescue policy-poll

5. Just as Bullet I'm in an economics degree. I think it's more bad than good. The problem is they have competion from low loan countries. If they want to compete with those they'll have to increase their effiency. In this case it's quite hard to do this, no? Do note, i'm only pure economical .... LONG TERM. They are not healthy and therefore they will not be a help for the global economy. Helping them out will just stall the problems.

9 (edited by Little Paul 16-Dec-2010 22:57:50)

Re: Obama's Company rescue policy-poll

For now that makes
option 1 : 2 votes
option 5 : 3 votes
option 7 : 2 votes

@all mind you this is not about financial institutions like banks.

Re: Obama's Company rescue policy-poll

5.   And it was Bush who started it.

people risk money, buying stuff they can't afford to own, and sell it for more money.
they plow the profits back into buying stuff they can't afford to own, and sell it before the ownership costs come due, and make money.
It hits them that if they started with more money, they could buy more stuff and sell more stuff.
They borrow money to buy stuff they can't afford to own, and sell it before the ownership costs come due, and pay off the financing and still make a profit.
Now the bank wants to see more of this and it encourages such deals.
Meanwhile more people are buying stuff they can't afford to own, and financing the purchase, and paying off the purchase and the financing with a higher resale.  The cost of stuff starts shooting up.
By now the banks are concerned that they are putting a lot of money and just trusting some guy to sell in a smart way, so they start buying insurance on the loan from other banks.
If that goes on long enough some eggheads declare it is the new Yellow Brick Road to Paradise and it's impossible to fail, because so many people need to succeed.

Then some day the price of stuff doesn't rise fast enough.  It doesn't SINK, mind you, it just doesn't rise fast enough.
A certain percentage of wheeler-dealer who bought 50 stuff to sell at a higher price can't sell at that higher price before the ownership costs come due.  He never planned to pay them anyhow.  He's hit with ownership costs--certainly taxes, which have priority and can put liens on his stuff-- and the financing.  So he goes belly up.  A certain percentage of operators fail.  Now their stuff is in bankruptcy, and the government agent selling his stuff is just lookign to sell it.

This doesn't help the price of stuff keep rising.  Operators know they can buy stuff cheaper.   This means a greater percentage of operators goes bankrupt.  This lowers the price of stuff.  This means banks start taking losses on financing.  This means their insurers are up shit creek; they haven't been paying out on bank insurance so they sold policies like flapjacks.  they dont' actually have the assets to cover them.

This would be a perfect time for operators, bankers and insurers to go out of business, since they are farkin idiots.

BUT NO, now USA will step in and bail them all out!  Because we want the Yellow Brick Road to paradise.

Stuff happens.  Housing, undeveloped land (remember Whitewater?)  stocks bonds whatever.  There's always something to inflate into a bubble.  Govt should not guarantee the markets because govt has less money than the private sector unless they print it like monopoly money.

And we are now on the hook as often as it happens.  Which will be about once a decade.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.