The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

Just to put specific, comparable numbers on things...if we assume that the numbers are correct and it takes a market cap of $120 billion-ish for the government's investment in GM to turn a modest profit, and we expect a P/E ratio of ~15 (reasonable based on the graphs posted above, bubble-time sales could potentially beat that) GM would need a year profit of $8 billion a year as a car company to produce that level of market cap.

 

Is that unreasonable for a car company? This version of GM perhaps, although as shown above those numbers were not unreasonable for GM 5 years go.

 

How does that compare to the dominator, Toyota? Well, as recently as 2007, Toyota was pulling in profit of $5.7 billion a quarter. In other words, with reasonable numbers, for the government to get a return on its investment in GM, the company needs to get itself to a position where it is as profitable in a full year as Toyota was in a period of about 4 months at the peak of the market.

[Balta1701]

Except that legacy costs were the biggest single determining factor in the direction that management felt that had to go to maintain profitability. Instead of anticipating changes, they were pretty much stuck into staying with the most profitable lines to maintain their existence. They couldn't afford to get into lines of product that didn't afford them those same margins.

The other thing you're doing is defining legacy costs in a certain way to ignore the reality. First, the unions have been broken repeatedly over the last decade and you know that.

 

Second, legit health care reform would eliminate a large portion of the difference also, but that's socialist.

 

Third, personnel costs can be defined in other ways. For example, to sell roughly the same number of vehicles as Toyota, GM was operating at the time of the government seizure something like 4x the total number of dealerships. Including sales, service, management staff, there's hundreds of millions in additional salary solely because Toyota is outperforming GM on a dealer by dealer basis. In other words, those legacy costs you refer to also directly relate to the desirability of their vehicles.

 

Finally, there's the fact that GM's cars were so undesirable that the profit margins on the average Toyota sale were much, much larger, by upwards of $800/unit, than those recorded at GM. In other words, their vehicles were undesirable to the point that Toyota could sell the same vehicle for a higher price because no one believed in GM.

 

Improve the actual vehicles and it's entirely plausible for the government to at least break even.

[southsider2k5]

The other thing you're doing is defining legacy costs in a certain way to ignore the reality. First, the unions have been broken repeatedly over the last decade and you know that.

 

Second, legit health care reform would eliminate a large portion of the difference also, but that's socialist.

 

Third, personnel costs can be defined in other ways. For example, to sell roughly the same number of vehicles as Toyota, GM was operating at the time of the government seizure something like 4x the total number of dealerships. Including sales, service, management staff, there's hundreds of millions in additional salary solely because Toyota is outperforming GM on a dealer by dealer basis. In other words, those legacy costs you refer to also directly relate to the desirability of their vehicles.

 

Finally, there's the fact that GM's cars were so undesirable that the profit margins on the average Toyota sale were much, much larger, by upwards of $800/unit, than those recorded at GM. In other words, their vehicles were undesirable to the point that Toyota could sell the same vehicle for a higher price because no one believed in GM.

 

Improve the actual vehicles and it's entirely plausible for the government to at least break even.

 

The legacy costs can't be denied as a factor here, even if you change the subject to another talking point. Simply put the collapse of GM would have happened sooner if they had quit making their most profitable lines while they were still popular, for lines that no one wanted at the time, in hopes that eventually they would be wanted.

 

Don't forget also that a big problem with US autos being undesirable has a large part to do with how they were being built. That all goes back to a workforce that didn't have to care about the quality of what they were building, because the workers were guaranteed their money, no matter what. Toyota came in here with a better product, and a more dependable one, and they did it for a whole lot less than the US workers did.

[GoSox05]

The legacy costs can't be denied as a factor here, even if you change the subject to another talking point. Simply put the collapse of GM would have happened sooner if they had quit making their most profitable lines while they were still popular, for lines that no one wanted at the time, in hopes that eventually they would be wanted.

 

Don't forget also that a big problem with US autos being undesirable has a large part to do with how they were being built. That all goes back to a workforce that didn't have to care about the quality of what they were building, because the workers were guaranteed their money, no matter what. Toyota came in here with a better product, and a more dependable one, and they did it for a whole lot less than the US workers did.

 

 

Ah yes it was all the workers fault. Those goddamn unions. Where is the Pinkerton National Detective Agency when you need them!

[jasonxctf]

Don't forget also that a big problem with US autos being undesirable has a large part to do with how they were being built. That all goes back to a workforce that didn't have to care about the quality of what they were building, because the workers were guaranteed their money, no matter what. Toyota came in here with a better product, and a more dependable one, and they did it for a whole lot less than the US workers did.

 

I'm going to take issue with that comment. A guy on the assembly line stamping bumpers, can't be held accountable for poor engineering and design work.

 

It all boils down to upper management. The US automakers built cars and tried to sell consumers on what they thought they wanted. The Foreign automakers asked consumers what they wanted, and then built it.

 

How long did it take any US automaker to come up with Hybrid Cars? Prius, Insights? Even the Civic, while not a hybrid was a fuel efficient car, with an excellent track record and outstanding resale value.

 

My wife and I just bought a Clean Diesel Car. We wanted a quality car, with great gas mileage and a "clean car" tax credit?

 

How many US automakers are making clean diesel vehicles?

 

The correct answer? Zero.

 

Audi, VW, Mercedes and BMW.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxLeanBurn.shtml

[Balta1701]

Let's also note 1 specific thing here, and that's what you and CK are arguing. CK is arguing that it is 100% impossible under any circumstances for the government to recoup its investment of $60 billion in GM because its market cap has never been high enough for that to happen. The point I made in response is yes, its market cap has never been that high, but the problem nearly vanishes when you adjust for inflation, and furthermore other automakers have reached profitability levels in recent years that would be above what it would take for the government to recoup its investment.

 

You responded by noting difficulties. Legacy costs because GM's plants are built in the US and not in Canada where they'd save 50% on their health care bills, whatever. Yes, these could be issues. However, your argument, IMO, rises no where near the level of demonstrating that it's 100% impossible for the government to recoup its investment. If all GM does is reach the point where it is 25% as profitable as Toyota was in 2007, then the government will have at least nearly recouped its investment. Basically, your argument implies that it is 100% impossible under any circumstances for a U.S. automaker, which has to deal with paying US health care bills, to turn a reasonable profit.

 

I don't think that saying "but their legacy costs are higher" comes close to meeting the standard of the argument you need to make here.

[southsider2k5]

Let's also note 1 specific thing here, and that's what you and CK are arguing. CK is arguing that it is 100% impossible under any circumstances for the government to recoup its investment of $60 billion in GM because its market cap has never been high enough for that to happen. The point I made in response is yes, its market cap has never been that high, but the problem nearly vanishes when you adjust for inflation, and furthermore other automakers have reached profitability levels in recent years that would be above what it would take for the government to recoup its investment.

 

You responded by noting difficulties. Legacy costs because GM's plants are built in the US and not in Canada where they'd save 50% on their health care bills, whatever. Yes, these could be issues. However, your argument, IMO, rises no where near the level of demonstrating that it's 100% impossible for the government to recoup its investment. If all GM does is reach the point where it is 25% as profitable as Toyota was in 2007, then the government will have at least nearly recouped its investment. Basically, your argument implies that it is 100% impossible under any circumstances for a U.S. automaker, which has to deal with paying US health care bills, to turn a reasonable profit.

 

I don't think that saying "but their legacy costs are higher" comes close to meeting the standard of the argument you need to make here.

 

As usual, you've turned the argument into exactly what you wanted to. It is impossible to have any kind of intelligent conversation with you. This is exactly why people give up and start throwing talking points around. Anything else is a waste of time.

[Balta1701]

As usual, you've turned the argument into exactly what you wanted to. It is impossible to have any kind of intelligent conversation with you. This is exactly why people give up and start throwing talking points around. Anything else is a waste of time.

What question did you think we were discussing? The specific claim I was challenging was pretty simple; the government is guaranteed to take a big loss on the GM bailout because GM's market cap has never been high enough to make up the difference.

[NorthSideSox72]

What question did you think we were discussing? The specific claim I was challenging was pretty simple; the government is guaranteed to take a big loss on the GM bailout because GM's market cap has never been high enough to make up the difference.

I think he was originally pointing out that you are using an inflation adjustment for market cap, but not using one for the natural increases in fixed and employee costs.

 

[bmags]

This is exactly why people give up and start throwing talking points around.

 

riight that's the reason.

[StrangeSox]

I think he was originally pointing out that you are using an inflation adjustment for market cap, but not using one for the natural increases in fixed and employee costs.

 

And also not counting opportunity costs of "what else could that $60B have done?"

[Balta1701]

And also not counting opportunity costs of "what else could that $60B have done?"

Frankly, with how bad the employment situation in this country would have been had the entire auto manufacturing industry and all its supports gone down, and thus everyone would have been stuck buying Toyotas and dying...that's probably as good of a jobs program as we've had anywhere outside of the renewable energy parts of the stimulus. And there's a real decent, logical shot that in the long term, the government could at least come close to breaking even on the thing.

[bmags]

And also not counting opportunity costs of "what else could that $60B have done?"

 

give me a break

[BigSqwert]

Gotta love how Mavericky he is.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Teabaggers upset Marvel Comics turned them into ’supervillains’

 

It seems there's a new third rail in American politics -- don't mess with the Tea Partiers -- and Marvel Comics has inadvertently grabbed it with both hands. And even though members of the Tea Party movement have extracted a half-hearted apology and a promised retraction from Marvel, their anger has barely abated.

 

In a recent issue of Captain America, the long-time superhero and his African-American partner The Falcon travel to Idaho to investigate a white supremacist militia group, the Watchdogs, who are long-time villains in the Marvel Universe. On the way, they pass an anti-tax rally where the protesters are holding up signs bearing familiar Tea Party slogans, such as "Stop the Socialists!" and "Tea Bag the Libs Before They Tea Bag You."

 

This implied mockery of the Tea Partiers quickly aroused a firestorm of indignation on conservative blogs and message boards, made even worse by the implied association between the protesters and the local racist militia.

 

One particularly angry blogger, Warner Todd Huston, wrote, "So, there you have it, America. Tea Party protesters just 'hate the government,' they are racists, they are all white folks, they are angry, and they associate with secretive white supremacist groups that want to over throw the U.S. government."

 

Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada has reacted with an apology of sorts, telling an interviewer, "I can absolutely see how some people are upset about this," but also insisting that in the story as originally written "there was no connection to the Tea Party movement, that's a screw up that happened after the fact and exactly what some people are getting upset about."

[lostfan]

Yeah I can see why they'd be pissed off about that, but honestly, there is a lot of gray area between the general "anti-government" undercurrent and groups/militias that cross into white supremacist territory and it isn't always clear unless it's blatant, like the National Socialist Movement. White supremacist groups do have some legitimate political views and they just happen to overlap with the views of right-wing protester types sometimes. That's something you don't bring up in polite company and bringing it up will ALWAYS start something because people like to jump to the conclusion they're being called a racist (saying there is some overlap with legitimate political views is not even close to the same thing as saying all conservatives are racist, but people read what they want to read, and you don't see people talking about it on TV because it's easily diluted).

 

Has anyone ever read literature from the modern KKK? Different chapters do different things but for the most part they aren't into extremist violence and inciting race riots and s*** like that anymore, they leave that to the neo-nazis, skinheads, NSM, etc. at least from what I can see. I mean they still don't care much for non-whites, but besides that they more or less see themselves as a legitimate political movement. And, well, their views on things like welfare, immigration, affirmative action, etc. actually sound an awful lot like listening to Sean Hannity or Pat Buchanan. I'm not really trying to make a point, just saying.

[Balta1701]

This image makes me seethe with anger.

[bmags]

And THAT my friends, is progress!

[HuskyCaucasian]

This image makes me seethe with anger.

Could have been worse, they could have been praying for him to die.

[BigSqwert]

Man Charged With Stockpiling Weapons Was Tea Partier, Palin Fan

 

Gregory Girard, a Manchester technology consultant, was found with a stash of military grade weapons, explosive devices including tear gas and pepper ball canisters, camouflage clothing, knives, handcuffs, bulletproof vests and helmets, and night vision goggles, say police. They believe Girard, who pleaded not guilty at his arraignment, was "preparing for domestic and political turmoil," and feared martial law would soon be imposed.

 

Girard's wife said her husband had recently told her: "Don't talk to people, shoot them instead," and "it's fine to shoot people in the head because traitors deserve it."

 

Here's some things he wrote on the "Patriots of America" online network, a popular site affiliated with the Tea Party movement:

 

Federal efforts to take away guns during emergencies were outlowed (sic) after the Katrina incident. And at all times, the Constitution would prohibit such a thing. So, one can know that any such effort is against the Constitution and against specific laws regarding states of emergency, and thus the effort, if it involved breaking into your home, would be no different than any felonious breaking and entry by one or more armed assailants. The Castle law in one's state, or simply the common law of the right to self defense, would ensure that close range discharge of double-ought buck from a 12 ga at the assailant's face (from behind cover!), would be a perfectly legal defense in response to an attack of armed assailants tearing the door from your home and threatening with deadly force, in the form of loaded rifles pointed in your direction. The hard part is not preventing the confiscation, but surviving the murderous rampage of the state and Federal gangsta's (sic) that would almost certainly be very enthusiastic about gunning the defending homeowner down.

 

I have studied the "National Security Force," which is Obama's name for the secret police force he is creating. I have read the new law that gives them the right to operate as an extension of the DoD, carrying firearms, and executing search warrants, executing arrest warrants, and the like. Needless to say, it's a secret police force of some kind, and it appears likely to be created from inner city youths.

 

I believe that the ONLY ----- ONLY ------ potential presidental (sic) candidate I have seen with the sheer force of will and God-insprined (sic) rightous (sic) determination to bringdown (sic) this "War Powers" evil is Sarah Palin.

[Soxy]

Man Charged With Stockpiling Weapons Was Tea Partier, Palin Fan

 

Here's some things he wrote on the "Patriots of America" online network, a popular site affiliated with the Tea Party movement:

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

 

 

[lostfan]

lol at the "National Security Force." That was basically an e-mail forward that picked up traction in lunatic circles. I had a friend forward that to me and I cursed him out and in nicer words told him that he was stupid and explained why.

 

Basically that started when Obama gave an answer in a debate, or a town hall, something like that where he said we need to strengthen our "civilian national security force" (words used in that order) in response to a question about counterterrorism policy. Someone on the internet gave that phrase capital letters... voila! Now it looks official... National Security Force or Civilian National Security Force, and you can compare it to SS and the Hitler Youth! And now a lot of people think it's some real secret plan, the fact that it obviously would never get past Congress (just like these crazyassed gun confiscation measures they're talking about) notwithstanding.

 

It's for this reason, among many others, that I can't bother with right-wing blogs and information sources. If I tried to come in the discussion and be level-headed and explain what's wrong with it I am one of the traitors that needs a bullet in my head.

Edited February 12, 2010 by lostfan

[bmags]

job creation for (sic)

[StrangeSox]

This image makes me seethe with anger.

 

Why?

[mr_genius]

Mort Zuckerman poised to buy NY Senate seat

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/nyregion/13mort.html?hp