The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

This was posted on Facebook by the husband of a friend of mine. He kind of has a point here:

Leaders of the Catholic Church (and the other faiths). If you really stand by your principals and oppose abortion and the contraception mandate. Excommunicate the Catholic Reps and Senators that support them. Otherwise, your arguments are just show.

 

I don't think the Catholic Church has a policy of excommunicating everyone who has theological differences.

[Balta1701]

Yahoo! Autos reporter Justin Hyde: “Romney’s take just doesn’t square with the facts as I lived them. … Had the government not intervened as Romney suggests, GM and Chrysler likely would have been liquidated by their Wall Street bondholders. … One auto industry think tank estimated doing so would have led to 1.3 million job losses and threatened Ford, Toyota and other automakers.”

 

Reuters columnist Paul Ingrassia: “The government bailout was the only way to save GM and Chrysler, and thus was a critical element in preventing the Great Recession from morphing into Great Depression II. … The only alternative to a government bailout was the outright liquidation of both companies. Maybe the U.S. economy could have survived that blow, but maybe not. What’s clear is that it would have been foolhardy to find out.”

 

The Economist: "Free-marketeers that we are, The Economist agreed with Mr Romney at the time. But we later apologised for that position. "Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk", we said. But "given the panic that gripped private purse-strings...it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." Even Ford, which avoided bankruptcy, feared the industry would collapse if GM went down. At the time that seemed like a real possibility. The credit markets were bone-dry, making the privately financed bankruptcy that Mr Romney favoured improbable. He conveniently ignores this bit of history in claiming to have been right all along."

[StrangeSox]

More dips*** koolaid propaganda from liberals and auto industry apologists.

 

 

The Market be with you. All: And also with you.

Lift up your hearts. All: We lift them up to the Market.

Let us give thanks to the Invisible Hand, our Market. All: It is right to give It thanks and praise.

[StrangeSox]

Mitt Romney's Bank-Friendly Plan to Save Detriot

 

Today, though, Steve Benen directs my attention to a piece by Tom Walsh in the Detroit Free Press. Romney swung by to talk to their editorial board and Walsh took notes:

 

To be specific about the editorial board discussion, Romney feigned surprise and outrage that anyone might conclude from his November, 2008 op-ed article in the New York Times, entitled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” that he would have allowed GM and Chrysler to be liquidated if he were president. “That is so absurd,” he said.

 

Rather, Romney insisted, citing the second-to-last sentence in his 2008 op-ed essay, he would have steered the companies into managed bankruptcy — but with loan and warranty guarantees, not tens of billions of dollars in bailout cash. [i think Romney is right on this point. He didn't write the headline for that NYT op-ed. –ed.]

 

And who would have made the big loans that Romney would have federally guaranteed? The private credit markets were frozen in the financial panic of late 2008 and early 2009, leading many experts to conclude that no private lender would have stepped up to finance bankruptcies as huge and risky as those of GM and Chrysler.

 

When I pressed Romney on this point, he insisted that if the U.S. Treasury issued bonds or guarantees, plenty of private lenders would have surfaced.

 

That's probably not true. But leave that aside for the moment. Why does Romney favor loan guarantees instead of direct federal loans in the first place? The way this works, taxpayers don't just risk taking a loss, they're practically guaranteed to take a loss. If the loans perform well, private lenders get all the profit. If they tank, Treasury pays the bill. And in the meantime, billions of dollars in scarce private loans are directed toward GM and Chrysler, making it even harder for other businesses to access the credit markets.

 

In what way is this a better deal than just making the loans directly? As with college loan guarantees, it's really nothing more than a way of ensuring private banks a surefire profit with no risk. Republicans need to find a new wheeze. This one is getting long in the tooth.

 

If we accept that private lenders would have lined up if the government offered loan guarantees, why the hell should anyone but the banks prefer that setup?

[Steve9347]

Which "one?" I made three separate points there.

 

You've asserted that the market simply would have found a way, that an unstructured liquidation of GM and Chrysler was impossible. There's no contemporaneous support for this position. They wouldn't have gotten any terms from anyone else.

[StrangeSox]

lol

[Steve9347]

lol

See, I can make contributions.

[southsider2k5]

More dips*** koolaid propaganda from liberals and auto industry apologists.

 

 

The Market be with you. All: And also with you.

Lift up your hearts. All: We lift them up to the Market.

Let us give thanks to the Invisible Hand, our Market. All: It is right to give It thanks and praise.

 

Yep. The government fixes all. Who needs freedom? Speaking of dips*** ass propaganda, I should have taken the hint from Steve and quit obliging my stalker days ago.

[StrangeSox]

A conversation on whether unsupported assertions that The Market (pbui) would have magicked up tens of billions of dollars in credit in late 2008/early 2009 contrary to just about everyone is really a discussion about "freedom," who knew?

 

Will you ever bother to actually address any of what's been posted?

[southsider2k5]

A conversation on whether unsupported assertions that The Market (pbui) would have magicked up tens of billions of dollars in credit in late 2008/early 2009 contrary to just about everyone is really a discussion about "freedom," who knew?

 

Will you ever bother to actually address any of what's been posted?

 

I was playing your game of turning this into a hyperbole laden cesspool of nonsensical statements, or is that just for you to do? Because I sure didn't see any relative value on the who market pledge.

[StrangeSox]

I was playing your game of turning this into a hyperbole laden cesspool of nonsensical statements, or is that just for you to do? Because I sure didn't see any relative value on the who market pledge.

 

It was a joke post. Feel free to make similar sarcastic remarks! But try to do so in between posts that actually engage what others are saying.

 

You've dismissed anyone in the auto industry as inherently biased and incapable of objective analysis. This doesn't really make sense, since the only reason for Ford to lobby aggressively for GM and Chrysler to get what they got is if Ford had very legitimate fears of those companies being liquidated otherwise and taking down the entire US auto supply chain with them. The same for the former CEO of MB-USA and current CEO of Autonation. What vested interest does he have in pointing out how Romney's scenario is "fantasy," as he is a libertarian-leaning Republican who generally espouses free-market capitalism?

 

Can you start by explaining the motive of two UofC professors to plainly state that there was not private capital available for a managed bankruptcy, even if we went with the poor policy of government-backed loans for private capital? What was their motive?

 

Can you point to any contemporaneous articles, papers, statements etc. that there really was capital available? That anyone was really interested in managing GM's and Chrysler's bankruptcies?

[southsider2k5]

It was a joke post. Feel free to make similar sarcastic remarks! But try to do so in between posts that actually engage what others are saying.

 

You've dismissed anyone in the auto industry as inherently biased and incapable of objective analysis. This doesn't really make sense, since the only reason for Ford to lobby aggressively for GM and Chrysler to get what they got is if Ford had very legitimate fears of those companies being liquidated otherwise and taking down the entire US auto supply chain with them. The same for the former CEO of MB-USA and current CEO of Autonation. What vested interest does he have in pointing out how Romney's scenario is "fantasy," as he is a libertarian-leaning Republican who generally espouses free-market capitalism?

 

Can you start by explaining the motive of two UofC professors to plainly state that there was not private capital available for a managed bankruptcy, even if we went with the poor policy of government-backed loans for private capital? What was their motive?

 

Can you point to any contemporaneous articles, papers, statements etc. that there really was capital available? That anyone was really interested in managing GM's and Chrysler's bankruptcies?

 

I have been engaging others, you just don't agree with it, so you dismiss it out of hand, just like you accuse me of. But double-standard on.

 

And seriously, I have to explain every single opinion that agrees with you, otherwise mine is invalid, while you can just dismiss anyone on my side for pretty much no reason?

 

You get to stereotype and dismiss, and I get to explain. Yeah, great "discussion", but par for the course.

[StrangeSox]

You have not. You still aren't, as you didn't address a word of that post.

 

Your first post was to hand-wave away anything stating that funding wasn't available as propaganda. You haven't done anything to actually address the substance of what Balta and I have posted aside from plainly asserting that funding would have been available. You haven't provided a single source to back up what you've been saying. Unsupported assertions deserve to be dismissed out of hand, but they've been dismissed with cites to others in the industry, to economists, to people in finance. But you refuse to address any of that, instead focusing on one line in a given post, saying "I've addressed that" and then ignoring everything else.

 

You don't have to "explain every single opinion that agrees with [me]," but, if you're going to discount Ford lobbying for GM bailouts, you need to present a logical case. If you're going to dismiss Autonation saying you're engaged in a fantasy, you need to present a logical argument. Instead, you've merely claimed that they're defending "auto industry" bailouts, as if they're all part of a monolithic entity. If they weren't legitimately concerned that GM would fall apart and destroy the auto industry with it without the baliout, why wouldn't Ford be more than happy to let a competitor fail? What interest does Autonation's CEO have in claiming that private equity wasn't available in 2009 right now?

[southsider2k5]

You have not. You still aren't, as you didn't address a word of that post.

 

Your first post was to hand-wave away anything stating that funding wasn't available as propaganda. You haven't done anything to actually address the substance of what Balta and I have posted aside from plainly asserting that funding would have been available. You haven't provided a single source to back up what you've been saying. Unsupported assertions deserve to be dismissed out of hand, but they've been dismissed with cites to others in the industry, to economists, to people in finance. But you refuse to address any of that, instead focusing on one line in a given post, saying "I've addressed that" and then ignoring everything else.

 

You don't have to "explain every single opinion that agrees with [me]," but, if you're going to discount Ford lobbying for GM bailouts, you need to present a logical case. If you're going to dismiss Autonation saying you're engaged in a fantasy, you need to present a logical argument. Instead, you've merely claimed that they're defending "auto industry" bailouts, as if they're all part of a monolithic entity. If they weren't legitimately concerned that GM would fall apart and destroy the auto industry with it without the baliout, why wouldn't Ford be more than happy to let a competitor fail? What interest does Autonation's CEO have in claiming that private equity wasn't available in 2009 right now?

 

Which is exactly what you have done by dismissing anyone who doesn't as some sort of right winger lunatic. You are doing exactly what you are b****ing about, and not even seeing it.

[StrangeSox]

I've actually yet to see you cite anyone. I've looked around myself a little, which is actually how I found that UofC paper.

 

But, please, any time you feel like addressing the majority of my posts instead of picking one line and ignoring the rest...

[southsider2k5]

I've actually yet to see you cite anyone. I've looked around myself a little, which is actually how I found that UofC paper.

 

But, please, any time you feel like addressing the majority of my posts instead of picking one line and ignoring the rest...

 

This whole "discussion" started with people being quoted on exactly this topic. But you hand-waved them away, narrowing the standards to people you approved of. When I did the same thing using the same general non-standard, you had a problem with it. Go figure.

[StrangeSox]

There would have been a source of funding. The idea there wouldn't have is just propaganda.

 

Is this "propaganda" from The Economist? What makes it propaganda instead of an honest evaluation of the realities of the credit markets in early 2009?

 

Free-marketeers that we are, The Economist agreed with Mr Romney at the time. But we later apologised for that position. "Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk", we said. But "given the panic that gripped private purse-strings...it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." Even Ford, which avoided bankruptcy, feared the industry would collapse if GM went down. At the time that seemed like a real possibility. The credit markets were bone-dry, making the privately financed bankruptcy that Mr Romney favoured improbable. He conveniently ignores this bit of history in claiming to have been right all along."

[southsider2k5]

Is this "propaganda" from The Economist? What makes it propaganda instead of an honest evaluation of the realities of the credit markets in early 2009?

 

If things were so bad, why didn't Ford's 2006 credit line get cancelled or capped?

[StrangeSox]

This whole "discussion" started with people being quoted on exactly this topic. But you hand-waved them away, narrowing the standards to people you approved of. When I did the same thing using the same general non-standard, you had a problem with it. Go figure.

 

This is an interesting perspective on the events.

 

It started with a TPM link talking about Romney's editorial. I will openly state that I do not consider Romney to be a reliable, impartial commentator on this issue. He's running a political campaign against Obama and is using this as a political issue. I do not put any weight into his unsupported assertions that private capital was available.

 

You immediately started with the hyperbole, stating that anything saying that private capital wasn't available is "propaganda." You follow this up with unsupported assertions that everything would have been just fine without government intervention and that private capital would have stepped in. Noticeably absent is any support for this claim.

 

Balta responds by pointing out that the credit markets weren't exactly in good shape post-Lehman. Your response is to continue to claim that private capital was available and any claims to the contrary were propaganda. In your first two posts, you've entirely dismissed any possible contrary evidence to your ideologically driven belief.

[Balta1701]

If things were so bad, why didn't Ford's 2006 credit line get cancelled or capped?

You're smart enough to know that the fact they had been approved for a government loan if necessary meant that the risk of them going to chapter 13 went away. They were able to get private financing to roll over that 2006 debt because the government approved the loan if necessary.

Ford is asking for access to up to $9 billion in bridge financing, but reiterated that it hopes to complete its transformation without accessing the loan should Congress agree to make the funds available.

 

Despite the serious global economic downturn, Ford said it does not anticipate a liquidity crisis in 2009 – barring a bankruptcy by one of its domestic competitors or a more severe economic downturn that would further cripple automotive sales and create additional cash challenges.

 

“For Ford, government loans would serve as a critical backstop or safeguard against worsening conditions, as we drive transformational change in our company,” said Ford President and CEO Alan Mulally, who will testify before Congress this week.

This is of course in addition to the FDIC guarantee of the corporate debt market and various other debt guarantees that Ford has negotiated for worldwide since 2008.

 

Edit: oh, and the fact that GM and Chrysler could get similar government guarantees and still couldn't raise enough private funds to cover their debt without going into bankruptcy ought to tell how bad their situations truly were. A number of other firms were able to survive because of similar types of guarantees (Citibank, BofA are the biggest).

 

Edit2: Oh, and this also belies the silly notion stated previously that the heads of GM and Chrysler were thrilled to be bailed out by the government, because Ford had the offer and chose not to take it so as to avoid government interference.

[SOXOBAMA]

A few great videos from 2008

 

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Not that there was much doubt before, but Heritage has admitted that it strives not to accurate, objective analysis but to ideological conformity.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012...r-business.html

[southsider2k5]

You're smart enough to know that the fact they had been approved for a government loan if necessary meant that the risk of them going to chapter 13 went away. They were able to get private financing to roll over that 2006 debt because the government approved the loan if necessary.

This is of course in addition to the FDIC guarantee of the corporate debt market and various other debt guarantees that Ford has negotiated for worldwide since 2008.

 

Edit: oh, and the fact that GM and Chrysler could get similar government guarantees and still couldn't raise enough private funds to cover their debt without going into bankruptcy ought to tell how bad their situations truly were. A number of other firms were able to survive because of similar types of guarantees (Citibank, BofA are the biggest).

 

Edit2: Oh, and this also belies the silly notion stated previously that the heads of GM and Chrysler were thrilled to be bailed out by the government, because Ford had the offer and chose not to take it so as to avoid government interference.

 

None of that protects them in the case of the private funds that were supposedly non-existant. Ford still kept their private funding, rendering this whole song and dance pointless

 

[StrangeSox]

Why did the two economists from UofC strongly disagree with your assertions that private capital was available?

[StrangeSox]

The kicker is that this whole thing that started this, Romney's original op. ed., still called for government interference in the form of loan guarantees. So even he didn't seem to believe that a government-free structured, orderly bankruptcy was possible.