14 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

All valid points. But what a shame US taxpayers bailed out companies to foot the bill for expansion in China.

You mean if the companies weren't bailed out they would still exist in the USA but just not in China? Really?

Edited April 13, 20188 yr by bristolboy

You mean if the companies weren't bailed out they would still exist in the USA but just not in China? Really?

No, it just means it was a waste of money

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

No, it just means it was a waste of money

 

How so?

How so?

Ford did not take the bailout and they were fine.

GM & Chrysler worst case would have had to file chapter 11 (like Rick Wagoner wanted) and they’d of been fine as well.

16 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Ford did not take the bailout and they were fine.

GM & Chrysler worst case would have had to file chapter 11 (like Rick Wagoner wanted) and they’d of been fine as well.

 

First off, Rick Wagoner is hardly an impartial source. The Obama administration invited him to resign from his position as head of GM.

Second, Chapter 11 was hardly practical or even practicable.

First off, you would have had to have found a bank or banks was willing and able to lend the huge sums needed. After the financial meltdown, where were such banks to be found?

And why would a bank lend to an auto company that was in bankruptcy? You  think that the prospect that GM and Chrysler might not be exist in a few years wouldn't drive away potential customers? Warranties, maintenance, and resale value are significant factors when someone wants to purchase a car. If you go back and look you'll find that GM's rivals were already taking advantage of the fact of its bankruptcy for the entire 43 days that it was in chapter 11.

We saw what happened when the government let Lehman brothers fail. The government didn't think the consequences would be grave. In fact, it was a catastrophe. Losing 500,000 well paying jobs would have been an even bigger one.

First off, Rick Wagoner is hardly an impartial source. The Obama administration invited him to resign from his position as head of GM.
Second, Chapter 11 was hardly practical or even practicable.
First off, you would have had to have found a bank or banks was willing and able to lend the huge sums needed. After the financial meltdown, where were such banks to be found?
And why would a bank lend to an auto company that was in bankruptcy? You  think that the prospect that GM and Chrysler might not be exist in a few years wouldn't drive away potential customers? Warranties, maintenance, and resale value are significant factors when someone wants to purchase a car. If you go back and look you'll find that GM's rivals were already taking advantage of the fact of its bankruptcy for the entire 43 days that it was in chapter 11.
We saw what happened when the government let Lehman brothers fail. The government didn't think the consequences would be grave. In fact, it was a catastrophe. Losing 500,000 well paying jobs would have been an even bigger one.

Clearly we disagree.

On 4/12/2018 at 8:01 PM, BuriramSam said:

Looks like Xi found a way to blink and save face. Tough break for TDS sufferers. But don't worry, there is still plenty to criticize. I heard he got two shops of ice cream at some dinner.

Oh? Xi's the one blinking?

Trump is pivoting to a blink so big it can only more fairly be called a squint, He's reversing his stance on the Pacific Trade Pact:

Trump is desperately looking for ways to save farmers from his trade war with China

"On Thursday, the president he told farm-state governors and lawmakers that he was directing his advisers to look into reentering the pact in order to open up more markets for American farmers. It’s a remarkable about-face given his consistently harsh rhetoric about the pact, one of the Obama administration’s major policy achievements. It was designed to eliminate trade barriers between 12 Pacific Rim countries representing 40 percent of global GDP, but Trump called it “one of the worst trade deals” and pledged to withdraw from it upon entering the White House."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/12/17228874/trump-tpp-trade-war-china

 

13 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Oh? Xi's the one blinking?

Trump is pivoting to a blink so big it can only more fairly be called a squint, He's reversing his stance on the Pacific Trade Pact:

Trump is desperately looking for ways to save farmers from his trade war with China

"On Thursday, the president he told farm-state governors and lawmakers that he was directing his advisers to look into reentering the pact in order to open up more markets for American farmers. It’s a remarkable about-face given his consistently harsh rhetoric about the pact, one of the Obama administration’s major policy achievements. It was designed to eliminate trade barriers between 12 Pacific Rim countries representing 40 percent of global GDP, but Trump called it “one of the worst trade deals” and pledged to withdraw from it upon entering the White House."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/12/17228874/trump-tpp-trade-war-china

 

 

13 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Oh? Xi's the one blinking?

Trump is pivoting to a blink so big it can only more fairly be called a squint, He's reversing his stance on the Pacific Trade Pact:

Trump is desperately looking for ways to save farmers from his trade war with China

"On Thursday, the president he told farm-state governors and lawmakers that he was directing his advisers to look into reentering the pact in order to open up more markets for American farmers. It’s a remarkable about-face given his consistently harsh rhetoric about the pact, one of the Obama administration’s major policy achievements. It was designed to eliminate trade barriers between 12 Pacific Rim countries representing 40 percent of global GDP, but Trump called it “one of the worst trade deals” and pledged to withdraw from it upon entering the White House."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/12/17228874/trump-tpp-trade-war-china

 

You appear to be in the wrong thread.

22 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You mean if the companies weren't bailed out they would still exist in the USA but just not in China? Really?

 

When you have to make up stuff people say, you've already lost.

4 hours ago, BuriramSam said:

 

You appear to be in the wrong thread.

Being that his reversal is, as most commentators agree, a consequence  of his threat to impose tariffs on China, not the wrong thread at all. But if you disagree, notify the mods.

4 hours ago, BuriramSam said:

 

When you have to make up stuff people say, you've already lost.

Let me remind you of what you wrote:

"All valid points. But what a shame US taxpayers bailed out companies to foot the bill for expansion in China."

And here is my comment on it:

"You mean if the companies weren't bailed out they would still exist in the USA but just not in China? Really?"

Exactly how did I misconstrue what you said? You clearly stated that money came from taxpayers to finance expansion in China. Do you read what you write?