quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Illuminating it is when we know beyond doubt that Romney would have let GM go bankrupt (so would have I). First that concept points up the instinct of the capitalist to favor one sector of industry over another, his (no it doesn't...it points up profitable companies that can pay their bills), the easiest without regard to anything but profit and from doing nothing more than selling new paper (no...making cars...profitably without giving away the store to people who never invested a fucking dime in same). This is all instinctively as a matter of culture, the capitalist culture (correct), conceptualized without a single concern for any employees, suppliers or society at large (almost entirely incorrect).

Wall street provides intellectual services, thoughts but ideas. It builds no products and deals exclusively in paper.

Yep....and by the way...that paper is generally green.

Wall street for which of course every capitalist favored a bailout (not every capitalist...just those whose dicks were about to be cut into tiny little shreds), is a paper-industry hardly serving society or to the tune of anything like $trillions (entirely false). Romney apparently feels that the corp. need not serve society (indeed, he feels exactly that it should serve society. Without "society" {buying shit} his business concepts die on the vine)...only investors (so, allow me to ask a really fucking stupid question: You buy a house and {before 2006} it went up in value. A bum living on the street corner comes up to you and says "HEY!!! MISTER!!!!! I'm fucking hungry and you made $210,000.00 in the last 3 years on your house....I'm JUST as American as you....I should get AT LEAST a third of that!".....and you'd say_________________? Hmmmmmm?....but wait....he didn't invest anything AT ALL...he only took from society....kind of like the workers that got paid.....quite well....for their efforts....you gonna give this guy 70 grand???????.....Riiiiiight....I thought not) . In GM's bailout, there was no way for him to make money on the deal, so let it die.

Fuckin A.

Not only did the great and glorious so-called capitalist free market refuse to be either a chapter 7 or 11 debtor-in-financing, but that would have been too much like a real job... actually turning around a huge enterprise like GM. So rather than the risk taking, job-creator, on the contrary, once again the capitalist (Romney) is a carpet-bagger, seeks the profit from the least resistance and practices as an American job-killer. IF their paper is no good let it die. Exactly....you're coming around....you might just make it here kiddo. Govt. should not act as financier and do what we wouldn't...make money on new paper.

By Jove I think you have it!

How many jobs did wall street save...create ? Millions. Wall street is a net job destroyer when going to Asia or off shore, your stock goes up. Stop buying from WalMart, Target or damn near any other store if you're truly that concerned. When layoffs are announced, often stocks of the companies...go up. Righto...that's because profits rise, ergo, investors earn value on their investment. If you stopped buying shit that they make in China....their stock would go down. That's how it works Ernie....it's actually pretty fucking simple math. Let me know if you need any help making any other insightful correlations but, so far, you're doing just fine. The incentives on wall street do not serve society. At least some corp. incentives still require a few American workers. The day you convince everyone you know to buy "only American made"...a fuckload more American jobs will jump out in front of you so fast, you'll choke on the dust. Quit bitching about those with money. When you have some (more importantly, enough to invest in creating actual jobs), you'll be stunned how quickly your thinking revolves around preserving yours...and much less on bitching about "theirs".

Look, society through law, grants special powers to the corporation (public & private) and in exchange the corp. is to be a good 'corporate citizen' and to a very large degree, serve society. Says who? I thought businesses were supposed to make a profit. (What the fuck do I know?).

I have a responsibility to you (or anyone) to make you feel good....just because I sell a product? Fuck you.

Corporations, investment 'banking' among other means of turning paper into money and all of those current $tillions in profits, do not serve society at all, only the investor class. That is correct. (By the way...what the hell is a "tillion"?)

They are in fact a drag on society requiring in total...a far larger 'safety-net' than ever was extended to AFDC, (people) yes, a golden net it was, when you are called upon by govt. to pay it.

Suuuuuure. Now, let's see how many cars, houses, shirts or books you can buy without credit.....the shit those big bad assholes provide for you.

Enter Romney as pres. Just what industry do you think will be practically and literally king on his list ?

I'm guessing (and it's just a guess)....those that don't lose money.

Shall I buy the domain name www.Government-Sachs.XXX ? Oh what was I thinking, that's gone already.

Actually...it's not at all: http://www.whois.net/whois/Government-Sachs.com

Enjoy your lack of understanding.

(One of these days...read a fucking book).

quote:

Illuminating it is when we know beyond doubt that Romney would have let GM go bankrupt

quote:

And we are expecting it. Now if we could get recompensed instead of fucked for our bailout of the banks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Since they are doing so well, the taxpayes should expect a check in the mail for the 11 billion or so that GM still owes us.

quote:

So cut it any way ya like it, slice a billion here, add a billion there-whatever, but the GM bailout was simply good economics, and thus was in the best interests of the national economy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
So cut it any way ya like it, slice a billion here, add a billion there-whatever, but the GM bailout was simply good economics, and thus was in the best interests of the national economy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

So cut it any way ya like it, slice a billion here, add a billion there-whatever, but the GM bailout was simply good economics, and thus was in the best interests of the national economy.

Oh, I agree with what happened at GM without reservation. I am addressing Romney and his rise through the business world which apparently doesn't reach or is somehow not understandable to outsiders. Cause they keep coming back with that dumb smile going "Did you know that one day an exec in the NYC office's Daughter went missing? And ya know what Mitt did about that....?".
That's what I'm addressing... Bain supports a network of Machette financiers... Period.

quote:

1-Never underestimate how far looking good in a suit and being a talented shit-talker can carry one in this country.
2-Aint no way, no how, a guy named Mitt wins the presidency. No way. Not gonna happen (Hell, a Newt might have a better chance, but of course, better than 0% ain't a whole lot). Not in a million, billion years. And the GOP knows it...that's why they are running a guy named Mitt :-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Illuminating it is when we know beyond doubt that Romney would have let GM go bankrupt (so would have I). First that concept points up the instinct of the capitalist to favor one sector of industry over another, his (no it doesn't...it points up profitable companies that can pay their bills), the easiest without regard to anything but profit and from doing nothing more than selling new paper (no...making cars...profitably without giving away the store to people who never invested a fucking dime in same). This is all instinctively as a matter of culture, the capitalist culture (correct), conceptualized without a single concern for any employees, suppliers or society at large (almost entirely incorrect).

Wall street provides intellectual services, thoughts but ideas. It builds no products and deals exclusively in paper.

Yep....and by the way...that paper is generally green.

Wall street for which of course every capitalist favored a bailout (not every capitalist...just those whose dicks were about to be cut into tiny little shreds), is a paper-industry hardly serving society or to the tune of anything like $trillions (entirely false). Romney apparently feels that the corp. need not serve society (indeed, he feels exactly that it should serve society. Without "society" {buying shit} his business concepts die on the vine)...only investors (so, allow me to ask a really fucking stupid question: You buy a house and {before 2006} it went up in value. A bum living on the street corner comes up to you and says "HEY!!! MISTER!!!!! I'm fucking hungry and you made $210,000.00 in the last 3 years on your house....I'm JUST as American as you....I should get AT LEAST a third of that!".....and you'd say_________________? Hmmmmmm?....but wait....he didn't invest anything AT ALL...he only took from society....kind of like the workers that got paid.....quite well....for their efforts....you gonna give this guy 70 grand???????.....Riiiiiight....I thought not) . In GM's bailout, there was no way for him to make money on the deal, so let it die.

Fuckin A.

Not only did the great and glorious so-called capitalist free market refuse to be either a chapter 7 or 11 debtor-in-financing, but that would have been too much like a real job... actually turning around a huge enterprise like GM. So rather than the risk taking, job-creator, on the contrary, once again the capitalist (Romney) is a carpet-bagger, seeks the profit from the least resistance and practices as an American job-killer. IF their paper is no good let it die. Exactly....you're coming around....you might just make it here kiddo. Govt. should not act as financier and do what we wouldn't...make money on new paper.

By Jove I think you have it!

How many jobs did wall street save...create ? Millions. Wall street is a net job destroyer when going to Asia or off shore, your stock goes up. Stop buying from WalMart, Target or damn near any other store if you're truly that concerned. When layoffs are announced, often stocks of the companies...go up. Righto...that's because profits rise, ergo, investors earn value on their investment. If you stopped buying shit that they make in China....their stock would go down. That's how it works Ernie....it's actually pretty fucking simple math. Let me know if you need any help making any other insightful correlations but, so far, you're doing just fine. The incentives on wall street do not serve society. At least some corp. incentives still require a few American workers. The day you convince everyone you know to buy "only American made"...a fuckload more American jobs will jump out in front of you so fast, you'll choke on the dust. Quit bitching about those with money. When you have some (more importantly, enough to invest in creating actual jobs), you'll be stunned how quickly your thinking revolves around preserving yours...and much less on bitching about "theirs".

Look, society through law, grants special powers to the corporation (public & private) and in exchange the corp. is to be a good 'corporate citizen' and to a very large degree, serve society. Says who? I thought businesses were supposed to make a profit. (What the fuck do I know?).

I have a responsibility to you (or anyone) to make you feel good....just because I sell a product? Fuck you.

Corporations, investment 'banking' among other means of turning paper into money and all of those current $tillions in profits, do not serve society at all, only the investor class. That is correct. (By the way...what the hell is a "tillion"?)

They are in fact a drag on society requiring in total...a far larger 'safety-net' than ever was extended to AFDC, (people) yes, a golden net it was, when you are called upon by govt. to pay it.

Suuuuuure. Now, let's see how many cars, houses, shirts or books you can buy without credit.....the shit those big bad assholes provide for you.

Enter Romney as pres. Just what industry do you think will be practically and literally king on his list ?

I'm guessing (and it's just a guess)....those that don't lose money.

Shall I buy the domain name www.Government-Sachs.XXX ? Oh what was I thinking, that's gone already.

Actually...it's not at all: http://www.whois.net/whois/Government-Sachs.com

Enjoy your lack of understanding.

(One of these days...read a fucking book).

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

Not long ago I read an article in which an oil industry analyist said that US oil prices were about 40% too high. Why? He explained that people outside of the oil business were buying futures, driving up the prices. They were never going to use the oil, they just wanted to make money from it.

A little more checking found that Goldman-Sachs had made more than $10 billion a couple years ago, buying and selling oil. So...that price at the pump includes their "cut" also.

And bankers wonder why we think they have an ethics problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
So cut it any way ya like it, slice a billion here, add a billion there-whatever, but the GM bailout was simply good economics, and thus was in the best interests of the national economy.

.. I wonder if you could say the same about Soylandra.. [:-]

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
So cut it any way ya like it, slice a billion here, add a billion there-whatever, but the GM bailout was simply good economics, and thus was in the best interests of the national economy.

.. I wonder if you could say the same about Soylandra.. [:-]

What went wrong with Solyndra was they were undercut by the Chinese, because there are no tarriffs on solar equipment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
So cut it any way ya like it, slice a billion here, add a billion there-whatever, but the GM bailout was simply good economics, and thus was in the best interests of the national economy.

.. I wonder if you could say the same about Soylandra.. [:-]

What went wrong with Solyndra was they were undercut by the Chinese, because there are no tarriffs on solar equipment.

my non serious comment was questioning if the Solyndra bailout was good economics and in the best interests of the economy or not, it wasnt about why Solyndra went belly up..