Tuesday, December 17, 2013

SAR #13351

Not everyone who disagrees with me is a mendacious idiot. Just most.

Don't Tell The Bernank: Empirical data confirms that interest rates do not affect business investment decisions, which tend to be driven by perceptions of the risk/reward balance in new or expanded production. If no market is seen, no investment will be made, no matter how low the interest rate. 
Quoted: "... it is pretty clear that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror … although people argue about which state or states were responsible." [Hint, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian citizens. Added extra: "remember that Saudi Prince Bander – head of Saudi intelligence – helped to arm the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and is now arming Al Qaeda in Syria."]

Public Enemy Number One: Having failed to blackmail their machinists' union in Washington, Boeing is trolling statehouses across the country, looking for a pliable work-force and a tax-friendly environment where it will not be burdened with taxes or contributing to worker's pensions. Or unions.

The First Unreformed Church of Wall Street: According to Bloomberg, while Pope Francis is a pretty nice guy, he “misunderstands the free market” and his comments are “ frustratingly vague, imprecise or poorly considered.” Maybe, but he's pretty clear on the Sermon on the Mount. 
Deep In The Heart Of: A judge in Texas has resigned after being caught texting prosecutors during a trial. 
Echo: Following in the useless footsteps of their fellow parliamentarians in Pakistan, the Yemeni Parliament unanimously demanded that the US stop using drones to kill members of wedding parties in Yemen. Experts agree that the US drone campaign is counter-productive and has a destabilizing effect on the countries that 'host' drone attack. But that may not be accidential.

Hidden In Plain Sight: Politicians, intimidated by cries of “class warfare,” have shied away from making a major issue out of the ever-growing gap between the rich and the rest. But raising taxes on the rich is not 'class warfare' – it 'crass warfare', aimed at defattening the pigs. Another thing, the proper term is not 'economics' but 'political economics'. End of story.

Fair Is Unfair: GM's CEO says that asking shareholders to pay back the $10 billion hit the taxpayers suffered in bailing out the company would be “unfair”. Why would anybody want to set a precedent where the investor has to suffer a loss when an investment goes south?

Wrong Question: Finally a few folks are asking “Should the NFL Lose Its Tax-Exempt Status?” but the real question is, “Why did the NFL ever have a tax exempt status?” Why is one of the most profitable organizations in the country with a CEO who rakes in more than the head of Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola, not only tax-exempt, but able to get taxpayers to fund their stadiums – and then pay no property taxes on them? 
Pot/Kettle: College men who rape coeds say their rights are being violated when they are punished by the schools for what should be pursued in a court of law. Or by Heisman voters, whichever. 
Clip & Save: "North America to Drown in Oil as Mexico Ends Monopoly." Citibank is sure that simply adding greed to depleted Mexican oil fields will double their output with weeks, maybe even days. Petroleum geologists don't think so, but what do they know about finance and investments?

The Parting Shot:
 Charola,  12th Century Templar church.
Tomar, Portugal.


Drew Dowdell said...

Fair is Unfair: I have to side with the GM CEO on this one. If the goal of the government was to recuperate every last penny from GM, then they should have held on to the stock, and as the majority shareholder, directed the company to begin paying dividends again to all shareholders. There was no hard deadline for the government selling the stock... it was entirely the government's choice to sell.

The only reason the government sold was because of the "gub'ment bad" caveman rant from a certain population that wouldn't buy any car car "gub'ment motors"

Charles Kingsley Michaelson, III said...

Must admit I was puzzled when the Gov. sold off its stock for a loss. Quite what the rush was (and I don't quite buy your explanation)if not a gift to some faction, I don't know. But the stock price should have included the cost of paying back the bailout...

Drew Dowdell said...

Since day 1 of the auto bailout, there has been a constant drum-beat from those against the bailout that the Government owning GM would do the following:
1. Depress the price of the stock unnaturally due to anti-government sentiment "We don't know when those crazies at the treasury will sell their shares and tank the price!!"
2. Prevent GM from truly innovating with product and making bold moves. (Somewhat true so far)
3. Create an anti-GM sentiment among consumers above and beyond any anti-GM sentiment already out there.
4. Force GM to build only fuel sipping, tree-hugger, electric hippie cars that no one would buy because Obama is such a Greenpeace activist or something. (demonstrably not true, GM just dropped off a 2014 GMC Sierra with a V8 for me to test drive this week, I write car reviews and news)

All of the above sentiment, true or not, contributed to the idea that the Government had to exit GM asap or else it would hold the company back. So.. the government took its loss and moved on...

It's really not that big a deal though because the Government will print 8.5 times that amount in one month to hand to banks.

TulsaTime said...

This was a crock from day 1, with the government bailing out hedge funds while pretending they cared about jobs. Drew, you may be in the biddness, but I have heard nothing related to undue gov't influence. If anything, the feds did nothing with the bail out that any stockholder of that magnitude should have done.

Much like the bailout of the banks, the govt threw trillions at these problems in a blind hope the economy would not slag down totally. The bond holders would never let them even suggest a different way to do things, because SOCIALISM

Drew Dowdell said...

The closing of some brands over others is the biggest example of government interference. Why keep Opel which GM says loses so much money and yet close Pontiac, which had a fanbase and had minimal costs to produce?