Trump says he would support government taking stake in certain companies

[earlinclaifornia]

5 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Companies that don't need help should be allowed to do what they want. If your company needs the government tit to stay afloat maybe buybacks shouldn't be allowed. That's fair enough. However if you don't allow buybacks or dividends you aren't going to find many investors interested in it's stock in the future. 

 

Why would I buy something like American Airlines knowing the stock is going to stagnate forever when you can buy a company like Apple that has something like $100 billion to keep it's stock high?

Not one cent! Loans are for bailing out during bad times

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You can look up my posts Boeing traded at around $375 when I sold out. Go look up the posts the dates and you can see that. I sold out when the first mention of criminal allegations were brought up. I don't like to do business with companies that are potentially open to criminal investigations. Because of my upstanding morals in that regard I am often rewarded by not losing money when things get ugly.

 

Is there any particular reason I should have to put up with the three posters like you that continuously call me a liar?

When did I call you a liar?

[Tug]

9 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Bet you he wouldnt. No realistic person thinks he would. I simply cannot understand why an important subject like this cant be debated without the playground Trump bashing. Do you and others do that to convince yourselves? Because you arent convincing anyone else.

 

We don’t need convincing we know just think about trumps history of bilking investors using undocumented folks or during the campaign his comment about taxes the majority of us aren’t marks we see him for what he is that’s not bashing he’s earned it and now he has to owne it

[Cryingdick]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

When did I call you a liar?

 

It seemed you were suggesting I hadn't sold Boeing when I had already said in a thread a long time ago that I sold my shares. It was the criminal wrongdoing thread. My mistake if you weren't implying I was lying about holding Boeing.

[Cryingdick]

13 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Not one cent! Loans are for bailing out during bad times

 

You have think of the implication of what I said. If nobody invests that is okay. What that means is the government isn't going have a stake it means something like Boeing will be the government. That's what I mean by private investors won't go near it. Now try to read what I say without putting some warped cynical spin on it. 

 

I have no great opinion one way or the other about it. If the government is ready to step up to the plate and assume 100% responsibility for the companies it bails out then cutting stock buybacks and dividends is one way to achieve that. However I am not sure that's the intention. 

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

It seemed you were suggesting I hadn't sold Boeing when I had already said in a thread a long time ago that I sold my shares. It was the criminal wrongdoing thread. My mistake if you weren't implying I was lying about holding Boeing.

Forgive me I had no intention of even insinuating you might be a liar, rather I was making a cryptic reference to the explosive fact that certain people armed with restricted information did indeed ‘get out’ of the market on the crest of the wave. 

 

The reason I asked about your Boeing shares is you have frequently mentioned them in the past.  Had you still held these shares you would have a financial interest in Government support to the company.

 

Clearly I missed the post when you mentioned selling them.

 

I hope you accept no slight was intended.

Edited March 20, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[bristolboy]

32 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Companies that don't need help should be allowed to do what they want. If your company needs the government tit to stay afloat maybe buybacks shouldn't be allowed. That's fair enough. However if you don't allow buybacks or dividends you aren't going to find many investors interested in it's stock in the future. 

 

 

As far as buybacks go, what you're contending is nonsense.

The Ugly Truth Behind Stock Buybacks

"For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since 1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the C-Suite tool shed. And it’s obvious why Wall Street loves them: Buying back company stock can inflate a company’s share price and boost its earnings per share — metrics that often guide lucrative executive bonuses."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/02/28/shareholders-should-be-required-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks/#3d6653ab6b1e

Edited March 20, 2020 by bristolboy

[Cryingdick]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Forgive me I had no intention of even insinuating you might be a liar, rather I was making a cryptic reference to the explosive fact that certain people armed with restricted information did indeed ‘get out’ of the market on the crest of the wave. 

 

No problem. Yeah undoubtedly people in the know stepped of the tracks when they saw that train wreck coming. No disagreement with that at all from me. I am curious to see if somebody like Buffett might buy it now to amuse himself and keep it out of government hands?

 

Anyway just thinking aloud on the last bit I am always curious about such things.

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Okay so you are suggesting the USA can function without airplanes and airlines? The big players get bailed out because the country can not function without them. Bob's Beach Burger Stand doesn't get bailed out because somebody else can come in and simply open another burger shop.

 

There isn't enough money to bail out everybody.

Why can't they just issue more shares? Why should we care if that dilutes existing shares and the price drops? It is a way for them to raise the capital they say they need.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by lannarebirth

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Why can't they just issue more shares. Why should we care if that dilutes existing shares and the price drops. It is a way for them to raise the capitol they say they need.

Better than nothing. But as with bank bailouts, until shareholders understand that they can lose everything, decent corporate governance is a remote possibility.

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Better than nothing. But as with bank bailouts, until shareholders understand that they can lose everything, decent corporate governance is a remote possibility.

 

I think many common share buyers don't understand that their positions are inferior to those of some other stakeholders. They can lose everything without the company going out of business.

Edited March 20, 2020 by lannarebirth

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Okay so you are suggesting the USA can function without airplanes and airlines? The big players get bailed out because the country can not function without them. Bob's Beach Burger Stand doesn't get bailed out because somebody else can come in and simply open another burger shop.

 

There isn't enough money to bail out everybody.

 

Of course you can, the USA is now great again! It is self-sufficient! It has enough oil! Who would want to fly out and leave such a great country anyway?

 

But joking aside, what your're saying is not true, often the smallest businesses are some of the best and can't be replicated. I remember this one Japanese eatery in Chinatown, run by an elderly couple. Their Kaki-Age was so good, you had to taste it to believe it. They were hounded out by London's rapacious rates. Ever since then I've been searching for Kaki-Age of similar quality, some of the biggest Japanese restaurants. Nothing even came close to the food that those two elderly Japanese cooked up with love and care.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by Logosone

[stevenl]

43 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Of course you can, the USA is now great again! It is self-sufficient! It has enough oil! Who would want to fly out and leave such a great country anyway?

 

But joking aside, what your're saying is not true, often the smallest businesses are some of the best and can't be replicated. I remember this one Japanese eatery in Chinatown, run by an elderly couple. Their Kaki-Age was so good, you had to taste it to believe it. They were hounded out by London's rapacious rates. Ever since then I've been searching for Kaki-Age of similar quality, some of the biggest Japanese restaurants. Nothing even came close to the food that those two elderly Japanese cooked up with love and care.

 

 

He is saying the US can do without your Japanese couple but not without Boeing.

 

Of course the premise 'bail out or Boeing is gone' seems to be incorrect. Also the question 'how much of Boeing's problems can be attributed to the virus' should be answered.

[joecoolfrog]

Socialism lol.

Some of the more narrow minded Trumpsters are going to tie themselves in knots wrestling with this.

[OneMoreFarang]

7 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

If he turned water to wine you would criticize him for doing something Jesus does.

I don't believe in fairytales. 

[Crazy Alex]

I'm against bailouts. I'm against government taking a stake in companies. Look how Bushbama's bailouts went. Golden parachutes for CEOs. Bailed out car companies sold to foreigners, production moved offshore. Screw that.

 

Now... IF we're going to do this, this is a rare moment when I agree with Senator Warren. There should be strict conditions. I'd go with no board or officers getting total compensation past six figures. Honcho pay gets cut even more before workers get shafted. No moving production off shore. She had a more comprehensive list. Most of it was solid.

 

Surely we can do better than the Bushbama bailouts.

[unsubscribe]

capitalism for the masses and socialism for the rich/companies. 

 

And profiteering from senators who use their insider information to dump stocks on the masses while playing down the threat in public. 

 

This crises is exposing the USA for what it truly is.

Edited March 20, 2020 by unsubscribe

[RocketDog]

On 3/20/2020 at 8:57 AM, keith101 said:

So would his companies would be number one on his list ?

Only if he could turn an indecent profit in the deal somehow. 

The man is hardly a humanitarian. 

 

He is of the "All for one as long as the one is me" mentality. 

[RocketDog]

19 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As far as buybacks go, what you're contending is nonsense.

The Ugly Truth Behind Stock Buybacks

"For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since 1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the C-Suite tool shed. And it’s obvious why Wall Street loves them: Buying back company stock can inflate a company’s share price and boost its earnings per share — metrics that often guide lucrative executive bonuses."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/02/28/shareholders-should-be-required-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks/#3d6653ab6b1e

Absolutely correct.

 

Worse still is going deeply in debt when money is cheap to buy that stock back. Then the company is vulnerable to rising interest rates and needs money that be cheaper and cheaper than the keep referenced nancing that debt. 

 

Cheap money is just....... Well, it's cheap money which eventually means higher prices and a risk of runaway inflation.

 

Fiat currency backed by nothing but trust in the issuer has been the downfall of more than one power throughout history, notably the Roman empire. 

[connda]

On 3/20/2020 at 8:45 AM, webfact said:

Asked if he supported the federal government moving to take an equity stake in some companies

So much for laissez-faire capitalism and free markets.  Now we will have government owned too-big-to-fail corporations where the profits are privatized and the losses are socialized with a government backstop.  
The West has become a bad joke.

[URMySunshine]

51 minutes ago, connda said:

So much for laissez-faire capitalism and free markets.  Now we will have government owned too-big-to-fail corporations where the profits are privatized and the losses are socialized with a government backstop.  
The West has become a bad joke.

Be interesting to see how much debt is piled up inside the tangled web of Trump businesses. No wonder he is starting to look a bit pale (orange) I might be wealthier than him ! If he is heavily leveraged he might end up being toast. No bailouts for luxury resorts or golf courses. And I do hope his commie Chinese interests aren't in any way jeopardized. US workers you have been royally had. 

 

Trump Hotel Collection’s—CEO Eric Danziger telling attendees of a hospitality conference in Hong Kong that the group was still planning to open Trump hotels in 20 to 30 Chinese cities, as well as Scion—the brand Trump’s sons are planning to expand—hotels in other cities.

 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2017/06/14/433915/trumps-conflicts-interest-china/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/07/jared-kushners-family-criticised-for-touting-cash-for-visas-scheme-in-china

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2020 by URMySunshine

[Crazy Alex]

16 hours ago, unsubscribe said:

capitalism for the masses and socialism for the rich/companies. 

 

And profiteering from senators who use their insider information to dump stocks on the masses while playing down the threat in public. 

 

This crises is exposing the USA for what it truly is.

What is it, truly?

[URMySunshine]

Off the scale of bad but any sane person knew that already. 

 

• Multiple government officials - including members of Trump's administration - have told The Washington Post that President ignored intelligence warnings 
• Officials were first alerted to the threat of COVID-19 on Jan 3, but Health Secretary Alex Azar allegedly had trouble contacting Trump until Jan 18
• CIA told Trump that China may have been 'minimizing the severity of the outbreak', but the President later praised the country for its 'transparency'

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8137221/President-Trump-ignored-CIA-warnings-coronavirus-pandemic-sources-claim.html

 

'China has been working hard to contain the coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In Particular, on behalf of the American people, I want to thank President Xi,' 

Edited March 21, 2020 by URMySunshine

[lannarebirth]

6 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

What is it, truly?

 

A country whose laws are constructed whereby its legislature and executive can sell dispensations to corporations to feast on a captive populace. Somethin' like that.

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2020 by lannarebirth

[earlinclaifornia]

On 3/20/2020 at 7:46 PM, Cryingdick said:

Companies that don't need help should be allowed to do what they want. If your company needs the government tit to stay afloat maybe buybacks shouldn't be allowed. That's fair enough. However if you don't allow buybacks or dividends you aren't going to find many investors interested in it's stock in the future. 

 

Why would I buy something like American Airlines knowing the stock is going to stagnate forever when you can buy a company like Apple that has something like $100 billion to keep it's stock high?

How about buying now, say Amazon or waiting?

[bristolboy]

“We are desperate”: Trump’s inaction has created a crisis in protective medical gear

A long foreseen shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) — including masks, N95 respirators, and gowns — is crippling health workers’ ability to respond to the coronavirus pandemic in the United States. And as doctors and nurses are forced to reuse gear in ways that put themselves and patients at risk of infection, they’re begging the Trump administration to use readily available legal tools to solve the crisis.

In a joint March 21 letter to President Trump, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and the American Nurses Association called on the administration to “immediately use the Defense Production Act to increase the domestic production of medical supplies and equipment that hospitals, health, health systems, physicians, nurses and all front line providers so desperately need.”

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/22/21189896/coronavirus-in-us-masks-n95-respirator-doctors-nurses-shortage-ppe

 

Trump Resists Pressure to Use Wartime Law to Mobilize Industry in Virus Response

President Trump and his advisers have resisted calls from congressional Democrats and a growing number of governors to use a federal law that would mobilize industry and provide badly needed resources against the coronavirus spread, days after the president said he would consider using that authority.

Mr. Trump has given conflicting signals about the Defense Production Act since he first said on Wednesday that he was prepared to invoke the law, which was passed by Congress at the outset of the Korean War and grants presidents extraordinary powers to force American industries to ensure the availability of critical equipment.

The next day, he suggested that obtaining medical equipment should be up to individual governors because “we’re not a shipping clerk.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-supplies.html