This comment was left by a ExImBank defender:
JBurke has left a new comment on your post "Obama Bailouts Continue Thru ExIM to NAV":
Based on your same logic Chrysler should never have been bailed out way back, after its share price nose-dived and they had their rating cut. When share price goes down, the money is not actually taken "out of the company", but instead comes out of the market as a vote of lower confidence. Guys like Icahn and others have made zillions buying on bad news and market softness. To say that $130k in campaign contributions drives $360M in loan guarantees is fantasy and whild accusation. These guarantees are for financing through Navistar to 1,000+ smaller supplier firms, not money that is going to Navistar, it is cash flow to Suppliers (small businesses) in better payment terms while protecting the working capital of Navistar. Are you sure you know how this works? Doesn't sound like it. In fact, this whole blog sounds like a political rant instead of financial logic. You've been OUTED, you GOP extremist!
Yes, Chrysler should not have been bailed out way back when. It had to be bailed out again. If Chrysler had folded, a few hundred thousand people would have been out of work for a short while, most of which would have been picked up by better-run companies, companies whose business would have increased sales due to poorly run Chrysler folding. Further, a few dozen of those people would have started auto companies, young fresh smart, and we would have seen in autos what we saw in computers. Prices falling fast, and cars more better cheaper faster (more efficient). What we get with bailouts is, well, what we have today, GM = government motors.
Ah! When a company is being run into the ground by poor management, insiders bailing out and stiffing the pension plan investors is just being smart like Icahn. To choose "pay to play" over sound management is just being smart? Putting taxpayers at risk and keeping alive a zombie company, state directed malinvestment is good policy? There is a difference between crony capitalism and economics.
To say the $130k in campaign contributions drive $360M in loan guarantees is to demonstrate Navistar must pay exorbitant contributions, when so many other companies get far more for far less. Are you sure you know how this works?
Are you sure you addressed the facts and logic of the original post?
Do you realize how delusional you sound "outing me as a GOP extremist"? You need to get out more, and see that the world is bigger than the democrat/republican false dilemma.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
JBurke has left a new comment on your post "Obama Bailouts Continue Thru ExIM to NAV":
Based on your same logic Chrysler should never have been bailed out way back, after its share price nose-dived and they had their rating cut. When share price goes down, the money is not actually taken "out of the company", but instead comes out of the market as a vote of lower confidence. Guys like Icahn and others have made zillions buying on bad news and market softness. To say that $130k in campaign contributions drives $360M in loan guarantees is fantasy and whild accusation. These guarantees are for financing through Navistar to 1,000+ smaller supplier firms, not money that is going to Navistar, it is cash flow to Suppliers (small businesses) in better payment terms while protecting the working capital of Navistar. Are you sure you know how this works? Doesn't sound like it. In fact, this whole blog sounds like a political rant instead of financial logic. You've been OUTED, you GOP extremist!
Yes, Chrysler should not have been bailed out way back when. It had to be bailed out again. If Chrysler had folded, a few hundred thousand people would have been out of work for a short while, most of which would have been picked up by better-run companies, companies whose business would have increased sales due to poorly run Chrysler folding. Further, a few dozen of those people would have started auto companies, young fresh smart, and we would have seen in autos what we saw in computers. Prices falling fast, and cars more better cheaper faster (more efficient). What we get with bailouts is, well, what we have today, GM = government motors.
Ah! When a company is being run into the ground by poor management, insiders bailing out and stiffing the pension plan investors is just being smart like Icahn. To choose "pay to play" over sound management is just being smart? Putting taxpayers at risk and keeping alive a zombie company, state directed malinvestment is good policy? There is a difference between crony capitalism and economics.
To say the $130k in campaign contributions drive $360M in loan guarantees is to demonstrate Navistar must pay exorbitant contributions, when so many other companies get far more for far less. Are you sure you know how this works?
Are you sure you addressed the facts and logic of the original post?
Do you realize how delusional you sound "outing me as a GOP extremist"? You need to get out more, and see that the world is bigger than the democrat/republican false dilemma.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
1 comments:
JWS, I agree with you. You need to show how keeping suppliers afloat to keep supplying dead companies, while short term prevent the inevitable doom is short term politically smart but long term loony economics ...then again...you kind of did. But clarity, lad, clarity. Even if you have been outed as an extremist goofballs, I still like your blog and find it VERY useful in articulating my position...like...go short on the U.S. I wish someone would out me as something. I'm feeling like a real Mr. Nobody.
Post a Comment