Quote :

"Going into the details of what may cause such a disaster to occur would require its own thread."

Then start one. Because as I understand it, the only way to completely exterminate all forms of life on this planet would be to burn off the crust with the impact of a planetoid.

12/15/2008 1:35:34 PM

nice, now i'm seeing on the TV discussion scrutinizing legacy expenses of auto workers.

fan-fucking-tastic!

lets discuss a retired 75 year old's pension, but lets not scrutinize wall st bonuses before they get access to $700B.

this - oh ye brilliant geniuses & and incredibly compassionate folks - is why unions and other such entities exist in the first goddamn place!

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM. Reason : s]

12/15/2008 2:08:03 PM

Yes, I'm assuming you have read this article or something similar?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/could-mercury-d.html

Quote :

"So, yes it’s possible though unlikely that Mercury will one day give Earth another moon or so annihilating all life in the process, but it certainly won’t happen anytime soon. If the unpopular scenario turns out to be the case, it would make an asteroid impact sound almost pleasant. In fact, it’s doubtful that any form of life on planet Earth would survive the impact. Humans would for sure be goners, but even hardy extremeophile organisms would have a tough time surviving"

Far-fetched indeed... but not impossible. The original question was, is Earth too big to fail, and I'm saying, no it is not. Life could vanish from the face of the Earth. Yes, it is possible. However, that does not mean that life could not return eventually or that an event like this would ever occur over the course of human existence.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 2:22 PM. Reason : -]

12/15/2008 2:19:48 PM

^^ I didn't realize AIG was going under because it was paying its employees wages above that they would receive from other companies in the industry.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 2:25 PM. Reason : ss]

12/15/2008 2:24:12 PM

^ you want to look up comparable pay rates and get back to me?

12/15/2008 2:57:42 PM

Hold up, gimme one right here

You don't give money to the bums
On the corner with a sign, bleeding from their gums
Talking about you don't support a crackhead
What you think happens to the money from yo' taxes

Shit the governments an addict
With a billion dollar a week kill brown people habit
And even if you aint on the front line
When the master yell crunch time you right back at it

You aint look at how you hustling backwards
And the end of the year add up what they subtracted
3 outta twelve months your salary
Paid for that madness, man that's sadness

12/16/2008 1:30:51 AM

Never thought I'd see Brother Ali lyrics in a Soap Box thread.

12/16/2008 10:29:06 AM

CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHY CHRYSLER GETS A BAILOUT IN A SUM LESS THAN CERBERUS HAS IN THEIR HOLDINGS?

Cerberus doesn't want to put money into it's privately held loss maker so the government will? This just blows my mind.

12/19/2008 9:49:10 AM

The entire country is corrupt and rotten to the core.

I don't see how we survive this quagmire without completely erasing everyone's life savings.

Welcome to hell where you're either a multimillionaire making $$$ off of stolen money or a bottom feeder shopping at Food Lion and Walmart.

12/19/2008 11:06:16 AM

WHAT IS WRONG WITH FOOD LION?????!!!!!!!!!!

12/19/2008 11:16:07 AM

Cerberus is actually quite butthurt that Congress demanded they open up their [private] financial books to public scrutiny before even being eligible for a bailout.

In all honesty, Chrysler needs to fail. Its a smaller company, traditionally weak, and doesn't have any compelling products in the pipeline.

12/19/2008 12:03:30 PM

^
Dint chylser announce entire line up of electric models including jeep version?

12/19/2008 12:11:56 PM

^yes they did, don't listen to SandSanta.

Quote :

"CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHY CHRYSLER GETS A BAILOUT IN A SUM LESS THAN CERBERUS HAS IN THEIR HOLDINGS? Cerberus doesn't want to put money into it's privately held loss maker so the government will? This just blows my mind."

Maybe b/c its against their bylaws to put more than a certain amount of their capital into one fund. This is private investors' money, and when they accept the money from these investors they spell out what they can and can't do. They can't just go back on that now, the lawsuits would be ridiculous.

12/19/2008 1:39:58 PM

Whatever Is The Most Important to You, We Are Cutting That First

Quote :

"The very essence of business decision-making is prioritization and trade-offs. The same is true in the government, its just that the objective function is reversed: "GM is warming up the propaganda engine for the next run at Congress. 'Look, the first thing we had to cut was our electric car program!'." And here I thought that because GM has still, after 30 years, failed to realize their business model needs to change that maybe management there were slow learners. But they seem to be very, very adept at learning the government game. When I was in the corporate world, if I wanted extra funds for my projects, I would have to go in and say “Here are all my projects. I have ranked them from 1-30 from the most to least valuable. Right now I have enough money for the first 12. I would like funding for number 13. Here is my case.” But the government works differently. When your local government is out of money, and wants a tax increase, what do they threaten to cut? In Seattle, it was always emergency services. “Sorry, we are out of money, we have to shut down the fire department and ambulances.” I kid you not — the city probably has a thirty person massage therapist licensing organization and they cut ambulances first. In California it is the parks. “Sorry, we are out of money. To meet our budget, we are going to have to close down our 10 most popular parks that get the most visitation.” The essence of government budgeting brinkmanship is not to cut project 13 when you only have money for 12 projects, but to cut project #1. I can just see me going to Chuck Knight at Emerson Electric and saying “Chuck, I don’t have enough money. If you don’t give me more, we are going to have to cut the funds for the government-mandated frequency modification on our transmitters, which means we won’t have any product to sell next month.” I would be out on my ass in five minutes. It just floors me that this seems to keep working in the government. Part of it is that the media is just so credulous when it comes to this kind of thing, in part because scare stories of cut services fit so well into their business model. So of course, with billions of dollars of waste, absurdly high labor costs, stupid-large executive compensation, etc., GM chooses to cut funding the project that is most important to Congressional Democrats and the new Obama administration."

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/12/whatever-is-the-most-important-to-you-we-are-cutting-that-first.html

[Edited on December 19, 2008 at 1:52 PM. Reason : quotes]

12/19/2008 1:51:20 PM

^Except that they aren't doing that at all.

From the horse's mouth:

Quote :

"It is true that, due to our current liquidity situation among other things, we have temporarily suspended some construction activities at the new engine plant in Flint. This has no impact on our production timing for the Volt or the Chevy Cruze. Moreover, our global manufacturing process is flexible enough to construct this plant within a year, and the planning activities that require less cash upfront are continuing in Flint. I realize some of you will remain skeptical of the Volt program and its timing, that’s just human nature; but I ask you to reserve judgment until 2010. Until then, know that work on the Volt remains on schedule."

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/12/gm-volt-is-on-s.html

12/19/2008 1:59:40 PM

And Seattle never actually shut down emergency services and Los Angeles never actually closed the parks.

That said, I do disagree with the post I quoted. I would rank GMs electric car program somewhat low on the list of importance, especially now that gasoline prices have crashed.

12/19/2008 4:09:30 PM

I wouldn't. It's an important halo vehicle to demonstrate GM's ability to put out a first-rate, cutting edge vehicle. If they are going to survive, they have to repair their brand image first and foremost.

12/19/2008 4:13:43 PM

Btw, who was it saying that giving the autos bailout money was the doing of the liberals. Has Bush suddenly out democrated the democrats with this maneuver?

12/19/2008 5:35:59 PM

He's abandoning his free-market principles in order to save the free market system, duh

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/16/bush-free-market/

[Edited on December 19, 2008 at 5:45 PM. Reason : 2]

12/19/2008 5:43:56 PM

Regardless of what is right and wrong as far as bailout money and who should get it, there is something seriously fucked up with the system that we forked over so much money to the "banks" in record time and with barely any debate, then turned around and held hearings for nearly a week, had the legislation die in the senate, then have a Republican President fork over taxpayer money to companies that haven't turned a profit in decades, with one of them being a privately held company.

It's like, if you were going to do it anyway, what was all the dog and pony show shit that was put on for a week in congress? We're they afraid if they just forked it over that the voters would boot them out of office so they had to make it all look good? And the senate actually did nearly the right thing I suppose. And the $15 billion isn't even enough. They'll restructure a little and be back in congress in March proclaiming how they have tried so very hard to fix their balance sheet but they are going to need another 15 billion and THIS time it will be enough for them to survive.

For awhile I was of the position that we might as well give them some if were going to pour it into the banks, but these days, not so much anymore.

12/19/2008 5:49:37 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_autos_canada;_ylt=Avoltzu4drJK6DnBOXM49OKyBhIF

3.29 million doll hairs canada is putting up

about 20 percent aye?

12/21/2008 12:49:37 AM

Autoworker chief pleads for government aid
from The Associated Press

WASHINGTON November 30, 2008, 01:58 pm ET · The head of the United Auto Workers made a public plea Sunday for government help for U.S. carmakers as the Big Three put the final touches on stabilization plans to submit to Congress.

"We cannot afford to see these companies fail," said Ron Gettelfinger, the UAW chief

12/22/2008 9:54:52 AM

^ Yeah, the UAW really can't "afford" it--if the automakers go bankrupt, the union will have to make major concessions in the reorganization.

12/22/2008 10:03:19 AM

Detroit is going to be even more of a ghost town.

Maybe we can set up everyone who lost their homes there and have a mad max kinda deal going on.

12/22/2008 11:17:46 AM

Quote :

"$1.6 billion went to bailed-out bank execs Records show bonuses, chauffeurs, health club benefits, financial planning The Associated Press updated 1:09 p.m. ET, Mon., Dec. 22, 2008 Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals. The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue. Some trimmed their executive compensation due to lagging bank performance, but still forked over multimillion-dollar executive pay packages. Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found. The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines. Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services committee and a long-standing critic of executive largesse, said the bonuses tallied by the AP review amount to a bribe "to get them to do the jobs for which they are well paid in the first place. "Most of us sign on to do jobs and we do them best we can," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. "We're told that some of the most highly paid people in executive positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!" The AP compiled total compensation based on annual reports that the banks file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 116 banks have so far received $188 billion in taxpayer help. Among the findings: # The average paid to each of the banks' top executives was $2.6 million in salary, bonuses and benefits. # Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top five executives received a total of $242 million. This year, Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid executives. They will work for their base salaries of $600,000, the company said. Facing increasing concern by its own shareholders on executive payments, the company described its pay plan last spring as essential to retain and motivate executives "whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels." Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday declined to comment beyond that written report. The New York-based company on Dec. 16 reported its first quarterly loss since it went public in 1999. It received $10 billion in taxpayer money on Oct. 28. # Even where banks cut back on pay, some executives were left with seven- or eight-figure compensation that most people can only dream about. Richard D. Fairbank, the chairman of Capital One Financial Corp., took a $1 million hit in compensation after his company had a disappointing year, but still got $17 million in stock options. The McLean, Va.-based company received $3.56 billion in bailout money on Nov. 14. # John A. Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83 million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007, avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options. Like Goldman, Merrill got $10 billion from taxpayers on Oct. 28. The AP review comes amid sharp questions about the banks' commitment to the goals of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a law designed to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets. Last month, the Bush administration changed the program's goals, instructing the Treasury Department to pump tax dollars directly into banks in a bid to prevent wholesale economic collapse. The program set restrictions on some executive compensation for participating banks, but did not limit salaries and bonuses unless they had the effect of encouraging excessive risk to the institution. Banks were barred from giving golden parachutes to departing executives and deducting some executive pay for tax purposes. Banks that got bailout funds also paid out millions for home security systems, private chauffeured cars, and club dues. Some banks even paid for financial advisers. Wells Fargo of San Francisco, which took $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, gave its top executives up to $20,000 each to pay personal financial planners. At Bank of New York Mellon Corp., chief executive Robert P. Kelly's stipend for financial planning services came to $66,748, on top of his $975,000 salary and $7.5 million bonus. His car and driver cost $178,879. Kelly also received $846,000 in relocation expenses, including help selling his home in Pittsburgh and purchasing one in Manhattan, the company said. Goldman Sachs' tab for leased cars and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. The firm told its shareholders this year that financial counseling and chauffeurs are important in giving executives more time to focus on their jobs. JPMorgan Chase chairman James Dimon ran up a $211,182 private jet travel tab last year when his family lived in Chicago and he was commuting to New York. The company got $25 billion in bailout funds. Banks cite security to justify personal use of company aircraft for some executives. But Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., questioned that rationale, saying executives visit many locations more vulnerable than the nation's security-conscious commercial air terminals. Sherman, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said pay excesses undermine development of good bank economic policies and promote an escalating pay spiral among competing financial institutions — something particularly hard to take when banks then ask for rescue money. He wants them to come before Congress, like the automakers did, and spell out their spending plans for bailout funds. "The tougher we are on the executives that come to Washington, the fewer will come for a bailout," he said. Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28337800/ MSN Privacy . Legal © 2008 MSNBC.com"

I have a feeling reports will come out where the auto execs do the same thing

12/22/2008 2:11:56 PM

^actually, for the most part I disagree that you'll hear reports about the automakers doing similar things. They can't hold a torch to Wall Street. I think last year the firms there gave out a total of $36 billion in bonuses.

12/22/2008 2:39:53 PM

Autoexecs don't get over payed

But they get something akin to tenure in the corporate world.

How long has Rick Wagner been at GM? yea.

12/22/2008 3:24:21 PM

Toyota just announced they were not going to make profit for the first time in 70 years (or something like that).

I'm starting to think things are going to get even worse (Peter Schiff is predicting catastrophe )...

12/22/2008 3:49:27 PM

long as this keeps on not affecting me or my parents i'm good

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 4:05 PM. Reason : economic crisis that is]

12/22/2008 3:59:18 PM

it already has...sigh.

Please stop posting in here!

12/22/2008 6:46:29 PM

Looks like we are just postponing the inevitable right now:

Quote :

"Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said the biggest U.S. automaker got “what we asked for” with $9.4 billion in U.S. loans over the next 24 days. Investors bet that it’s not enough. GM dropped as much as 14 percent today in New York trading to extend yesterday’s 22 percent plunge, while credit-default swaps on GM bonds rose 0.5 percentage point in a sign of increasing concern that the Bush administration’s bailout may end in a default. The stock-price slide erased the 23 percent gain on Dec. 19, when Detroit-based GM received a federal aid package to help the automaker stay in business until March 31 while it crafts a plan to shut plants, shed brands and reduce debt. “It’s almost impossible for a management that invested in the assets, that hired the people, that put forth the strategy, to change so dramatically in such a short period of time,” Edward Altman, a New York University finance professor who created the Z-score formula to measure bankruptcy risk, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. There is a “high” likelihood of a GM bankruptcy, Standard & Poor’s said yesterday in reducing the rating on the company’s unsecured debt to C, or 11 grades below investment quality. Robert Schulz, an S&P analyst in New York, said creditors can expect “negligible recovery” should the automaker default. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aX0LE04twYco&refer=home

I understand the argument that with our economy already reeling, we don't want to let the automaker industry implode and potentially put hundreds of thousands of people out of work. But we have to ask, at what cost? Obama will likely push through a much larger bailout, with strings attached. He is an unabashed friend of the unions, so the UAW will likely have to make very few, if any, concessions. At the same time, he will likely add a lot of strings and mandates to the bailout via his "green boom" platform, with MPG requirements and emissions targets for the companies. If we do this, we are setting the industry up for a bigger, costlier failure down the line. I guess we can just keep pushing our costs down the road and worry about them later, but eventually it'll catch up to us and really bite us in the ass.

12/23/2008 11:30:12 AM

GMAC is declared a bank, receives $5B of the TARP money at 9%, and promptly promises to loan it out to car buyers with credit scores down to 620 at 0% for 5 years.
nice.....

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/704-Regulatory-Fraud-by-Idiocy,-Example-9463.html

1/1/2009 12:17:26 AM

^ why do tax payers care if a company is loosing money? If you 'loan' it to company at 9%, you get your money back at that rate unless that company goes under. That, or something isn't fully explained here.

1/1/2009 1:01:32 AM

Quote :

"you get your money back at that rate unless that company goes under."

yeah, that's the point. GM/GMAC is borrowing $5B to supposedly help keep them alive. Selling more cars at a loss is not going to keep them alive! Their problem isn't volume (well, not their entire problem), it's cost.

Quote :

"^ why do tax payers care if a company is loosing money?"

normally, they don't. But as soon as a company gets bailed out with a loan (GMAC) or gains partial ownership of a company (AIG), then they have every right to know how exactly the company is planning on becoming profitable so they can pay back their loan or increase their share price.

1/1/2009 9:44:39 AM

I can't believe I didn't think to insert this gem

1/6/2009 9:23:59 PM

so, how long until we find out that those companies who get the most money from TARP had the most friends in Washington?

1/8/2009 9:07:02 AM

^^you bastard, I came here to post that

1/8/2009 3:24:55 PM

Calvin and Hobbes is genius

1/8/2009 3:46:26 PM

Now, this is kinda neat

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20090123&id=9541473

They took taxpayer money and essentially transferred some of it to the private equity firm Cerberus so they could get out from under the massive loss they took on their 2006 bet. That's just brilliant. Of course the MSM is too stupid to figure this shit out.

1/23/2009 3:25:57 PM

Now analysts are betting that the total tab on the auto bailout will come to $130 billion or more. Sunken cost effect FTL.

The word in Washington is that the Obama administration is seriously considering letting GM fall into bankruptcy, and perhaps letting Chryster fail outright. The kind of shake-up needed to make GM viable again cannot be realized without a formal Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In that case, the government would still need to step in and provide some guarantees and financing because there is not enough private DIP financing available, but GM would be able to move quickly to break free of the contracts which are weighing them down.

I would be very impressed if Obama allowed GM to go into bankruptcy and/or let Chrysler fail. It would show that he will not be held hostage by the labor unions which have driven the big 3 to insolvency.

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 5:24 PM. Reason : 2]

2/23/2009 5:23:41 PM

At this point, I think GM has to slide to bankruptcy. They're banking everything on an electric car that has a 40 mile range (when not on gasoline generator power) and costs upwards of 40,000$.

Meanwhile, Opel continues to make efficient and elegant cars for the European market.

Restructure and kill Buick, Saturn, Pontiac. Keep Chevy and Cadillac, profit.

As for chrysler, lets all assume they are already dead. Infinite money can't save a company that thought the Sebring was going to be a hit.

2/23/2009 5:27:11 PM

^I like that you have changed your stance as the situation has deteriorated. It shows that you're not an ideologue.

SandSanta 12/12/08:

Quote :

"If you bothered reading the thread, the gist of my argument isn't that they should be saved for national pride, its that they shouldn't be allowed to completely bankrupt now. Five years from now, when the US economy has already restructured from the current downturn, is much more viable option. Though, of course, that assumes that GM won't be able to save itself. "

You were absolutely right earlier in the thread that the private financing will not be there for GM, however. No matter how you slice it, the government is gonna have to dump a lot more money into the mess that is General Motors.

2/23/2009 5:39:26 PM

Well they got their stop gap infusion but instead of aggressively moving towards getting rid of redundant brands like Pontiac and Saturn while refocusing smaller and efficient cars, they're right back in DC touting an electric car that costs more then a BMW.

They drastically need to restructure and gut a majority of their entrenched management.

Furthermore, the stimulus package is a complete train wreck designed more to spending money for the sake of spending money rather then spending money on infrastructure improvements like efficient energy, improved broadband, and tech R&D that would guarantee future growth.

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 5:47 PM. Reason : And seriously, kill chrysler, sell Jeep.]

2/23/2009 5:46:39 PM

agreed 100%.

It's not just the slow pace of negotiations with UAW. It's the costly dealership contracts. The entrenched management. The bloated product line.

The only way to "fix" GM is to radically restructure, and the only way to radically restructure is through a formal chapter-11 bankruptcy, accompanied by some form of financing and guarantees from the US government that they will be properly capitalized.

2/23/2009 5:55:42 PM

Quote :

"Struggling for its own survival, G.M. has said it will completely pull out of Saab by the end of 2009, a course that Ms. Olofsson, the enterprise minister, described as tantamount to declaring "that they wash their hands of Saab and drop it into the laps of the Swedish taxpayers." She said: "We are very disappointed in G.M., but we are not prepared to risk taxpayers' money. This is not a game of Monopoly.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/world/europe/23saab.html?_r=1&hp

3/23/2009 10:53:36 AM

Quote :

"It's not just the slow pace of negotiations with UAW. It's the costly dealership contracts. The entrenched management. The bloated product line. The only way to "fix" GM is to radically restructure, and the only way to radically restructure is through a formal chapter-11 bankruptcy, accompanied by some form of financing and guarantees from the US government that they will be properly capitalized."

also the bondholders don't seem thrilled with their plan as exists right now, which could be a bigger roadblock to their current plan.

3/23/2009 6:40:27 PM

According to the government, GM's Rick Wagoner was forced to resign because of poor performance. That’s embarrassing. You run an organization that loses billions of dollars and then get fired by a guy who heads up an organization that loses trillions of dollars.

~Jay Leno

4/1/2009 5:39:51 PM

Guess by that standard George Dubya was the worse CEO over

4/1/2009 6:11:43 PM

Hmm, no, that would make Obama the worst CEO ever. $1.7 Trillion > $0.5 Trillion

4/1/2009 7:28:52 PM

^^well done retard.

4/2/2009 12:14:04 PM