- This topic has 195 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
Ash Housewares.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 30, 2009 at 12:45 PM #375265March 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM #374647
UCGal
ParticipantOh… one more thing… On the GM bailout, Wagoner resignation. Barry Ritholz had the best take on the whole thing.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/how-gm-became-uncle-sams-bitch/
As soon as the news broke about Waggoner’s resignation, I put up a quick post, writing:
“I am no fan of Wagoners, but I have to ask the geniuses behind the bank bailouts: When are you going to ask the TARP and bailout recipients to step down? Ken Lewis being asked to step aside after many years of running BofA ? How about Blankfein? Pandit? And the rest of the TARP recipients?”
That generated the following comment:
I think this is kinda scary that the government can now force the CEO of a private enterprise to step down. I know they received money and they want more but the fact is that they should not have received it in the first place. And GM isn’t owned by the govt. like AIG. I’m not saying Wagoner was a good CEO. Only the principle is scary.
Private enterprise? How do you figure? Once they asked for and got $30 billion from the government, they gave up all pretenses of being a private firm. The “G” in GM now stands for government, as in Government Motors.
As soon as you become dependent upon the biggest guy in the cell block for protection, you become his bitch.
March 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM #374928ParticipantOh… one more thing… On the GM bailout, Wagoner resignation. Barry Ritholz had the best take on the whole thing.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/how-gm-became-uncle-sams-bitch/
As soon as the news broke about Waggoner’s resignation, I put up a quick post, writing:
“I am no fan of Wagoners, but I have to ask the geniuses behind the bank bailouts: When are you going to ask the TARP and bailout recipients to step down? Ken Lewis being asked to step aside after many years of running BofA ? How about Blankfein? Pandit? And the rest of the TARP recipients?”
That generated the following comment:
I think this is kinda scary that the government can now force the CEO of a private enterprise to step down. I know they received money and they want more but the fact is that they should not have received it in the first place. And GM isn’t owned by the govt. like AIG. I’m not saying Wagoner was a good CEO. Only the principle is scary.
Private enterprise? How do you figure? Once they asked for and got $30 billion from the government, they gave up all pretenses of being a private firm. The “G” in GM now stands for government, as in Government Motors.
As soon as you become dependent upon the biggest guy in the cell block for protection, you become his bitch.
March 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM #375106ParticipantOh… one more thing… On the GM bailout, Wagoner resignation. Barry Ritholz had the best take on the whole thing.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/how-gm-became-uncle-sams-bitch/
As soon as the news broke about Waggoner’s resignation, I put up a quick post, writing:
“I am no fan of Wagoners, but I have to ask the geniuses behind the bank bailouts: When are you going to ask the TARP and bailout recipients to step down? Ken Lewis being asked to step aside after many years of running BofA ? How about Blankfein? Pandit? And the rest of the TARP recipients?”
That generated the following comment:
I think this is kinda scary that the government can now force the CEO of a private enterprise to step down. I know they received money and they want more but the fact is that they should not have received it in the first place. And GM isn’t owned by the govt. like AIG. I’m not saying Wagoner was a good CEO. Only the principle is scary.
Private enterprise? How do you figure? Once they asked for and got $30 billion from the government, they gave up all pretenses of being a private firm. The “G” in GM now stands for government, as in Government Motors.
As soon as you become dependent upon the biggest guy in the cell block for protection, you become his bitch.
March 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM #375149ParticipantOh… one more thing… On the GM bailout, Wagoner resignation. Barry Ritholz had the best take on the whole thing.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/how-gm-became-uncle-sams-bitch/
As soon as the news broke about Waggoner’s resignation, I put up a quick post, writing:
“I am no fan of Wagoners, but I have to ask the geniuses behind the bank bailouts: When are you going to ask the TARP and bailout recipients to step down? Ken Lewis being asked to step aside after many years of running BofA ? How about Blankfein? Pandit? And the rest of the TARP recipients?”
That generated the following comment:
I think this is kinda scary that the government can now force the CEO of a private enterprise to step down. I know they received money and they want more but the fact is that they should not have received it in the first place. And GM isn’t owned by the govt. like AIG. I’m not saying Wagoner was a good CEO. Only the principle is scary.
Private enterprise? How do you figure? Once they asked for and got $30 billion from the government, they gave up all pretenses of being a private firm. The “G” in GM now stands for government, as in Government Motors.
As soon as you become dependent upon the biggest guy in the cell block for protection, you become his bitch.
March 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM #375271ParticipantOh… one more thing… On the GM bailout, Wagoner resignation. Barry Ritholz had the best take on the whole thing.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/how-gm-became-uncle-sams-bitch/
As soon as the news broke about Waggoner’s resignation, I put up a quick post, writing:
“I am no fan of Wagoners, but I have to ask the geniuses behind the bank bailouts: When are you going to ask the TARP and bailout recipients to step down? Ken Lewis being asked to step aside after many years of running BofA ? How about Blankfein? Pandit? And the rest of the TARP recipients?”
That generated the following comment:
I think this is kinda scary that the government can now force the CEO of a private enterprise to step down. I know they received money and they want more but the fact is that they should not have received it in the first place. And GM isn’t owned by the govt. like AIG. I’m not saying Wagoner was a good CEO. Only the principle is scary.
Private enterprise? How do you figure? Once they asked for and got $30 billion from the government, they gave up all pretenses of being a private firm. The “G” in GM now stands for government, as in Government Motors.
As soon as you become dependent upon the biggest guy in the cell block for protection, you become his bitch.
March 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM #374657alarmclock
Participant[quote=TheBreeze] The carmaker bailout isn’t even going to amount to $200 billion most likely. Pocket change really.
[/quote]Can you imagine what we might get if we threw $200B at Tesla Motors, ZPM, EEStor and a few other alternate technology makers? Maybe nothing, or maybe we could really start to reduce non-north-american oil dependence. But it’s always safer to go with what you know than to take a chance on something new. At least then you can’t be criticized for failing.
March 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM #374938Participant[quote=TheBreeze] The carmaker bailout isn’t even going to amount to $200 billion most likely. Pocket change really.
[/quote]Can you imagine what we might get if we threw $200B at Tesla Motors, ZPM, EEStor and a few other alternate technology makers? Maybe nothing, or maybe we could really start to reduce non-north-american oil dependence. But it’s always safer to go with what you know than to take a chance on something new. At least then you can’t be criticized for failing.
March 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM #375117Participant[quote=TheBreeze] The carmaker bailout isn’t even going to amount to $200 billion most likely. Pocket change really.
[/quote]Can you imagine what we might get if we threw $200B at Tesla Motors, ZPM, EEStor and a few other alternate technology makers? Maybe nothing, or maybe we could really start to reduce non-north-american oil dependence. But it’s always safer to go with what you know than to take a chance on something new. At least then you can’t be criticized for failing.
March 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM #375159Participant[quote=TheBreeze] The carmaker bailout isn’t even going to amount to $200 billion most likely. Pocket change really.
[/quote]Can you imagine what we might get if we threw $200B at Tesla Motors, ZPM, EEStor and a few other alternate technology makers? Maybe nothing, or maybe we could really start to reduce non-north-american oil dependence. But it’s always safer to go with what you know than to take a chance on something new. At least then you can’t be criticized for failing.
March 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM #375281Participant[quote=TheBreeze] The carmaker bailout isn’t even going to amount to $200 billion most likely. Pocket change really.
[/quote]Can you imagine what we might get if we threw $200B at Tesla Motors, ZPM, EEStor and a few other alternate technology makers? Maybe nothing, or maybe we could really start to reduce non-north-american oil dependence. But it’s always safer to go with what you know than to take a chance on something new. At least then you can’t be criticized for failing.
March 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM #374672kicksavedave
ParticipantI would almost prefer that we took the $200B and gave it directly to the newly unemployed workers after we let those terrible car companies simply dissolve, than waste it completely by giving it to their management, virtually all of whom are incompetent. Let the individuals use it for retraining, to move out of Detroit, or to build their bunker in the hills. But don’t squander it by giving it to management.
March 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM #374953ParticipantI would almost prefer that we took the $200B and gave it directly to the newly unemployed workers after we let those terrible car companies simply dissolve, than waste it completely by giving it to their management, virtually all of whom are incompetent. Let the individuals use it for retraining, to move out of Detroit, or to build their bunker in the hills. But don’t squander it by giving it to management.
March 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM #375131ParticipantI would almost prefer that we took the $200B and gave it directly to the newly unemployed workers after we let those terrible car companies simply dissolve, than waste it completely by giving it to their management, virtually all of whom are incompetent. Let the individuals use it for retraining, to move out of Detroit, or to build their bunker in the hills. But don’t squander it by giving it to management.
March 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM #375174ParticipantI would almost prefer that we took the $200B and gave it directly to the newly unemployed workers after we let those terrible car companies simply dissolve, than waste it completely by giving it to their management, virtually all of whom are incompetent. Let the individuals use it for retraining, to move out of Detroit, or to build their bunker in the hills. But don’t squander it by giving it to management.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.