"Although Ford did not need money from the $80 billion bailout program, Ford did receive $5.9 billion in government loans in 2009 to retool its manufacturing plants to produce more fuel-efficient cars."

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/ford-motor-co-does-u-turn-on-bailouts/

And I should mention that in 2006 Ford's almost had to ask for PROTECTION in Federal Bankruptcy court, however you are correct that they mortgaged everything to secure a loan, which had they failed would have ended up being carried by the tax payers one way or the other.

Ford's trying to say they "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" is somewhat of a joke. Not only did they end up taking billions from the government, in 2006 they closed 14 factories and cut 30,000 jobs. Needless to say, in doing so the government was basically covering losses felt by thousands while unemployed.

Let us not forget that in 2007 Fords also transfered untold amounts of Red ink off their books into private VEBA trust. So as I said... Ford took bail out money, just not as much as GM and Chrysler.

Here is the kicker... When The Obama Administration bailed out Chrysler it was actually Daimler Chrysler, and as you so ignorantly stated DC did employ a lot of Americans, but it basically amounts to paying someone to give our people a job. Not to mention handing over Chrysler to Fiat, an Italian car company.

Now... Stellar Enterprise LLC has NEVER taken any government money. So stick it up your asses!

-- Edited by SELLC on Thursday 10th of May 2012 01:35:15 AM

Actually Gerry....

Ford took a bail out from the government before the melt down, and that is why they were able to resist a government takeover during the downturn.

Many people forget that fact.

Here's some more information about Obama, Romney and the auto industry, from the Wall Street Journal:

Wall Street Journal
By Karl Rove
May 10, 2012

Obama's Public-Equity Record

The auto bailout makes Bain Capital look like an amateur on job losses and outsourcing.

President Barack Obama's re-election organization is spending a lot of time attacking Mitt Romney over his careers in venture capital (investing in start-ups) and private equity (investing in troubled or failing businesses).

To reporters at Bloomberg Businessweek, Obama senior campaign adviser David Axelrod recently ripped Mr. Romney for "leveraging companies with debt, bankrupting companies and making money off of those bankruptcies . . . [that] cost jobs and certainly wages and benefits."

And an Obama campaign briefing paper says "Romney closed over a thousand plants, stores and offices . . . cut employee wages, benefits and pensions . . . laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries."

The president is guilty of the same alleged sins.

The Obama administration, after all, forced General Motors and Chrysler into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009 and then capriciously ordered thousands of local dealerships closed.

The auto industry bailout cost lots of Americans their jobs. GM employed roughly 252,000 workers in 2008. Now it has 207,000, with 131,000 of them working in foreign plants. The Detroit Free Press recently noted that fewer Americans work at Chrysler than did before the bankruptcy. Based on data from the National Automobile Dealers Association, I estimate that as many as 100,000 Americans lost jobs at the companies' dealerships.

Mr. Obama's auto industry bailout plan imposed cuts in wages and benefits for current and future workers at both GM and Chrysler. And he loaded up both companies with debt they can never repay. The bailouts cost $80 billion; $51 billion is still outstanding and $24 billion may never be recovered, according to the Treasury Department's latest report. As GM's profits stall, its stock languishes at a level less than half that necessary to recoup Mr. Obama's investment of taxpayer dollars in the company.

The president's actions have produced big bucks for a foreign business. Last month, Fiat reported that, powered by its U.S. Chrysler subsidiary, profits were up tenfold the past year. Without Chrysler's earnings, Fiat would have lost money.

Fiat is likely to deploy those profits in expanding its world-wide operations, even as it's still unclear if it will deliver on its promise of billions in technologies for fuel-efficient vehicles in the U.S.

Mr. Obama also shifted productionand jobsoverseas. As part of the administration's restructuring, GM will increase production in China, Mexico South Korea and Japanalmost doubling the number of vehicles it makes in those countries, according to a confidential report by the company to Congress in May 2009 (obtained by the Detroit News). Many of those cars will be imported into the U.S.

There are differences between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama. Mr. Romney rescued companies with private money collected from investors including union pension funds, college endowments and private individuals. He had to go through the normal process of laws and courts. His principal focus was on long-term growth for companies in which he invested his company's reputation and money. And he had to make a profit to be successful.

Mr. Obama's story is very different. The auto industry was bailed out with taxpayer money. The president restructured GM and Chrysler by fiat and then forced them into bankruptcy, presenting the courts with a fait accompli.

The president wanted the auto industry to survive, but he also wanted to reward political alliesso he gave 20% of General Motors and 55% of Chrysler to the United Auto Workers union. He stood by as the UAW forced the closure of a plant in Moraine, Ohio, where workers had joined a rival union.

The secured creditors of GM and Chryslerincluding retirees, pension funds and endowmentshad their investments virtually wiped out by the president's plan. Though taxpayers will never get all their money back, the president still calls it all a big success.

If the auto industry bailout is the best Mr. Obama can do, Republicans should take heart. Because matched against his overall record of presiding over high unemployment, trillion-dollar annual deficits, and a growing number of Americans in poverty and on food stamps, the bailout is not the political game changer Team Obama believes it is.

This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, May 2, 2012.

PowerStroker has his head so far up the donkeys ass he can't even see the writing on the wall!

Stop fighting it PowerStroker, we are trying to help you folks!

OK, so what in terms of the facts presented in the article do you disagree with, PS? I want to know, blow by blow. Cmon...

gerryvz wrote:

---

Here's some more information about Obama, Romney and the auto industry, from the Wall Street Journal:

Wall Street Journal
By Karl Rove
May 10, 2012

Obama's Public-Equity Record

The auto bailout makes Bain Capital look like an amateur on job losses and outsourcing.

President Barack Obama's re-election organization is spending a lot of time attacking Mitt Romney over his careers in venture capital (investing in start-ups) and private equity (investing in troubled or failing businesses).

To reporters at Bloomberg Businessweek, Obama senior campaign adviser David Axelrod recently ripped Mr. Romney for "leveraging companies with debt, bankrupting companies and making money off of those bankruptcies . . . [that] cost jobs and certainly wages and benefits."

And an Obama campaign briefing paper says "Romney closed over a thousand plants, stores and offices . . . cut employee wages, benefits and pensions . . . laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries."

The president is guilty of the same alleged sins.

The Obama administration, after all, forced General Motors and Chrysler into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009 and then capriciously ordered thousands of local dealerships closed.

How did Obama "force" them in to bankruptcy?  To say that is to suggest that had Bush been elected to a 3rd term, there wouldn't have been a need by the auto makers for assistance.  Obama didn't force anyone in to bankrupcy, but he was there to help the US auto industry when they found themselves in that position.

The auto industry bailout cost lots of Americans their jobs. GM employed roughly 252,000 workers in 2008. Now it has 207,000, with 131,000 of them working in foreign plants. The Detroit Free Press recently noted that fewer Americans work at Chrysler than did before the bankruptcy. Based on data from the National Automobile Dealers Association, I estimate that as many as 100,000 Americans lost jobs at the companies' dealerships.

The bailout didn't cost jobs, it saved as many as possible, but couldn't save them all.  Had it not been for the bailout, many, many more jobs would have been lost.  Do you disagree?  Are you suggesting that had we let GM and Chrysler go under, then magically they would have MORE US employees?

Mr. Obama's auto industry bailout plan imposed cuts in wages and benefits for current and future workers at both GM and Chrysler.

That sounds like something that would make you happy.

And he loaded up both companies with debt they can never repay.

They are actually ahead of schedule, and the alternative would be to just let those companies disolve, would you really prefer that outcome?  It wasn't Obama who loaded those companies up with debt, Obama just lent them the money to cover their debts.

The bailouts cost $80 billion; $51 billion is still outstanding and $24 billion may never be recovered, according to the Treasury Department's latest report. As GM's profits stall, its stock languishes at a level less than half that necessary to recoup Mr. Obama's investment of taxpayer dollars in the company.

We lost 1.3 billion on Chrysler, which isn't so bad when you consider we saved an industry and all of the employees who work directly for Chrysler, as well as the 2nd and 3rd tier parts suppliers - all of whom still have jobs and pay taxes instead of drawing unemployment and living off the public dole... I wonder what that would cost?

 To speculate that we will lose more than 20 Billion on GM is to assume we dump all 500 million shares of GM stock at todays price, which we won't do.

The president's actions have produced big bucks for a foreign business. Last month, Fiat reported that, powered by its U.S. Chrysler subsidiary, profits were up tenfold the past year. Without Chrysler's earnings, Fiat would have lost money.

It's too bad Bain Capital didn't invest in Chrysler, they could have shared in the success.

Fiat is likely to deploy those profits in expanding its world-wide operations, even as it's still unclear if it will deliver on its promise of billions in technologies for fuel-efficient vehicles in the U.S.

Best of luck to them.

Mr. Obama also shifted productionand jobsoverseas. As part of the administration's restructuring, GM will increase production in China, Mexico South Korea and Japanalmost doubling the number of vehicles it makes in those countries, according to a confidential report by the company to Congress in May 2009 (obtained by the Detroit News). Many of those cars will be imported into the U.S.

Obama isn't micro-managing the operations of these companies and making every decision about where assembly plants are going to be.  Think of the alternative, which is no more GM or Chrysler at all, which is what we would have if McCain won the election.  I say count your fucking blessings.

There are differences between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama. Mr. Romney rescued companies with private money collected from investors including union pension funds, college endowments and private individuals. He had to go through the normal process of laws and courts. His principal focus was on long-term growth for companies in which he invested his company's reputation and money. And he had to make a profit to be successful.

Mr. Obama's story is very different. The auto industry was bailed out with taxpayer money. The president restructured GM and Chrysler by fiat and then forced them into bankruptcy, presenting the courts with a fait accompli.

Mr. Romney actually wanted to buy failing businesses because he saw a profit for himself in doing so.  Mr. Obama didn't want to get in to the car business, but saw the loss of America's gold standard of manufacturing and ultimately the loss of a huge chunk of our economy if he didn't. 

You're welcome.

The president wanted the auto industry to survive, but he also wanted to reward political alliesso he gave 20% of General Motors and 55% of Chrysler to the United Auto Workers union. He stood by as the UAW forced the closure of a plant in Moraine, Ohio, where workers had joined a rival union.

GM and Chrysler had made commitments to the UAW they weren't able to keep.  So the UAW took stock and a few seats on the board instead, just like any creditor would do.  Also, your percentages are way off.  If the UAW actually owned 55% of Chrysler, FIAT would not be running that company.  I think Rove is trying to sneak one past us, but we're too smart for him.

The secured creditors of GM and Chryslerincluding retirees, pension funds and endowmentshad their investments virtually wiped out by the president's plan. Though taxpayers will never get all their money back, the president still calls it all a big success.

It is a success.  The point wasn't to make a profit for the US Treasury, it was to save an entire industry for the future of the US economy, all for a mere 80 Billion of which we already have most back.  It would be a deal at 10 times the price even if there were no ROI whatsoever in terms of treasury dollars.  If you suddenly care so much about ROI, tell me how much the taxpayers made on Bush's wars?

If the auto industry bailout is the best Mr. Obama can do, Republicans should take heart. Because matched against his overall record of presiding over high unemployment

(Bush was losing 700 thousand jobs per month, and now were adding a couple hundred thousand per month)

, trillion-dollar annual deficits

(2 wars not paid for, Medicare part D not paid for, and 2 huge tax cuts for the rich not paid for will do that, thanks Bush),

and a growing number of Americans in poverty and on food stamps,

 That number was growing very rapidly under Bush too. 

 the bailout is not the political game changer Team Obama believes it is.

Yet Romney now feels the need to take credit for the Obama Auto bailout:

 

This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, May 2, 2012.

---

 As requested Gerald, I took your buddy Karl apart point by point.  Please stop listening to him, he's really cynical and cares more about his agenda than truth.  It's not healthy, and I worry about you.

So I take it you can't refute the points I made?

Hey PowerStroker .. didja know that Matt Drudge (founder & purveyor of the Drudge Report) is ... GAY ?!?

it's true.

I just love when people call me a bigot! LOL, here I am with pages of threads with views that run contrary to my own, yet I am a bigot?

There are only two things in this world I cant stand! (1) People who are intolerant of other peoples sexual preferences and (2) Homosexuals.

You guys are lucky I come down with a nasty cold, or I'd have been busting chops!

NAAAAAAAAAAAH............. GAYRRY.............DA DIFFERENCE IS THAT POWERSTOKER IS JUST A PLAIN OL' LIB. YOU ON DA OTHER HAND.............A LIBTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SUCK IT GAYRRY!!!!!!!!!! OR SHOULD I SAY GAYRRY VAN CUNT SINCE YOU LIKE TO USE FULL NAMES NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I GOTTA ADMIT........... POWERSTOKER IS PRETTY CREDIBLE EVEN THOUGH HE'S A LIB!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gerald, it's like the old saying goes: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

YO POWERSTROKER............... IS IT ME OR DOES IT LOOK LIKE GAYRRY IS TRYING DESPERATELY TO BE YOUR FRIEND?????????? HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCKIN LOSER.................. HIS ONLY FRIEND IS REX THE KNOB POLISHER AND STOMETTE THE SHIT HE CREATED!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AC or DC?

Perhaps we could direct that electricity into Ronald Stoma's brain, sort of a crude electroshock therapy.

^^ lame ^^

Well you see Gerry, all the Mercedes hood ornaments that Stoma has owned in his life were ripped/stolen from the hood of a Mercedes, thus he has never seen the bottom portion.

It's not his fault.

Turn your phone off once you're in-bed dude !

Yo,

So this post is about the same-ol'-same-ol' of what happens after decades of re-investigating why things are the way they are, via company's & their poor decisions...

The problem as always, is the stock-market..It has no logic, or desire to look after anyone or the planet...It simply allows idiotic decisions to go forward, so that money is made for the stock-holders, regardless of the real non-monetary price to be paid...

Anyhow, I thought that's what governments were elected & placed in power for, to oversee the safe-keeping of the people that voted them in, not the Corporations that paid for their election debts...

Anyhow, someone has once again, gone to the trouble of writing a book about all this mess, only to arrive at the same conclusion as to the cause of "all this mess", the stock-market...

Here you go, & short'n sweet cut 'n paste...




'Capitalism wont save the planet'

Review of Brett Christophers' latest book, The Price is Wrong: why capitalism wont save the planet'

Wind and solar power projects, that for so long needed state backing, can now provide electricity to wholesale markets so cheaply that they will compete fossil fuels out of the park. Its the beginning of the end for coal and gas. Right? No: completely wrong, writes Simon Pirani.


The fallacy that 'market forces' can achieve a transition away from fossil fuels is demolished in The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism Wont Save the Planet, a highly readable polemic by Brett Christophers.


Prices in wholesale electricity markets, on which economists and analysts focus, are not really the point, Christophers argues: profits are. Thats what companies who invest in electricity generation care about, and these can more easily be made with coal and gas.


Zeitgeist


Christophers also unpicks claims that renewables projects are subsidy-free. Even with renewably-produced electricity increasingly holding its own competitively in wholesale markets, its state support that counts: look at China, which is building new renewables faster than the rest of the world put together.



The obsession with wholesale electricity prices, and costs of production to the exclusion of other economic factors emerged in the 1980s and 90s as part of the neoliberal zeitgeist, Christophers explains.


The damage done by fossil fuels to the natural world, including climate change, was priced at zero; all that needed correcting, ran the dominant discourse, was to include the cost of this 'externality' in prices.


This narrative became paramount against the background of neoliberal reforms: electricity companies were broken up into parts, typically for generation, transmission, distribution and supply; private ownership and competition in markets became the norm.


But prices do not and can not reflect all the economic factors that drive corporate decision-making.


Smooth


The measure that has become standard, the Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE), is the average cost of a unit of electricity produced by different methods. But for renewables, 80 per cent-plus of this cost is upfront capital investment and the fate of many renewables projects hinges on whether banks and other financial institutions are prepared to lend money to cover that cost. And on the rates at which they are prepared to lend.


The volatility of wholesale electricity markets does not help: project developers and bankers alike have to hedge against that.


We dont like to absorb power price volatility, one of the many financiers that Christophers interviewed for the book said. Well take merchant price risk right now we often dont have a choice but well charge three times more for it. [...] No bank in the world will take power price risk at low returns.


Christophers writes in an exemplary, straightforward way about markets complexities. He details the hurdles any renewables project has to get over before it starts: as well as securing finance, it needs land and associated rights and licences, and increasingly a problem in many countries including the UK a timely connection to the electricity grid.


Corporate and financial decision-makers are concerned not so much with costs, compared to those of fossil fuel plants, as with an acceptable rate of financial return. Does the project meet or exceed that rate?


"The conventional transition model [...] assumes an effortlessly smooth trade-off between fossil fuels and renewable electricity sources, just as stick-figure mainstream economics more widely assumes all manner of comparable smooth trade offs, not least between present and future goods.


"But real world processes of production and consumption involving real world businesses do not come even close to approximating to such smooth trade-offs."


Revival


The clearest illustration of the argument that profit is the main driver of investment, not price, is the big oil companies behaviour.


Christophers writes: "[T]he returns ordinarily associated with wind and solar power are much lower than those to which fossil fuel companies are accustomed in their core businesses."


He adds: "The big new hydrocarbon projects still being initiated by the international oil majors in the 2020s, in the face of widespread public fury and dismay, promise significantly higher rates of return and, of course, on a significantly greater absolute scale than renewables ever do."


So tiny renewables businesses are used solely to greenwash the companies continuing investment in fossil fuel production. Shell, which in 2020-22 dabbled in slightly larger renewables investments, found that the rate of return for shareholders was the lowest of all its businesses.


"Chastened by Wall Streets savage indictment of his companys erstwhile turn effectively away from profit, [Shell chief executive Wael] Sawan spent the first half of 2023 pivoting Shell back to oil and gas. Hence the horrific spectacle of a significant revival in upstream exploration activity on the part of the European majors, with Shell to the fore. [...] At the same time, Shell and its peers were busily scrapping projects (including in wind) with projections of weak returns.

-- Edited by Rastus on Friday 3rd of May 2024 06:19:24 AM