StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) This whole "discussion" started with people being quoted on exactly this topic. But you hand-waved them away, narrowing the standards to people you approved of. When I did the same thing using the same general non-standard, you had a problem with it. Go figure. This is an interesting perspective on the events. It started with a TPM link talking about Romney's editorial. I will openly state that I do not consider Romney to be a reliable, impartial commentator on this issue. He's running a political campaign against Obama and is using this as a political issue. I do not put any weight into his unsupported assertions that private capital was available. You immediately started with the hyperbole, stating that anything saying that private capital wasn't available is "propaganda." You follow this up with unsupported assertions that everything would have been just fine without government intervention and that private capital would have stepped in. Noticeably absent is any support for this claim. Balta responds by pointing out that the credit markets weren't exactly in good shape post-Lehman. Your response is to continue to claim that private capital was available and any claims to the contrary were propaganda. In your first two posts, you've entirely dismissed any possible contrary evidence to your ideologically driven belief.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 10:06 AM) There would have been a source of funding. The idea there wouldn't have is just propaganda. Is this "propaganda" from The Economist? What makes it propaganda instead of an honest evaluation of the realities of the credit markets in early 2009?

I've actually yet to see you cite anyone. I've looked around myself a little, which is actually how I found that UofC paper. But, please, any time you feel like addressing the majority of my posts instead of picking one line and ignoring the rest...

You have not. You still aren't, as you didn't address a word of that post. Your first post was to hand-wave away anything stating that funding wasn't available as propaganda. You haven't done anything to actually address the substance of what Balta and I have posted aside from plainly asserting that funding would have been available. You haven't provided a single source to back up what you've been saying. Unsupported assertions deserve to be dismissed out of hand, but they've been dismissed with cites to others in the industry, to economists, to people in finance. But you refuse to address any of that, instead focusing on one line in a given post, saying "I've addressed that" and then ignoring everything else. You don't have to "explain every single opinion that agrees with [me]," but, if you're going to discount Ford lobbying for GM bailouts, you need to present a logical case. If you're going to dismiss Autonation saying you're engaged in a fantasy, you need to present a logical argument. Instead, you've merely claimed that they're defending "auto industry" bailouts, as if they're all part of a monolithic entity. If they weren't legitimately concerned that GM would fall apart and destroy the auto industry with it without the baliout, why wouldn't Ford be more than happy to let a competitor fail? What interest does Autonation's CEO have in claiming that private equity wasn't available in 2009 right now?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) I was playing your game of turning this into a hyperbole laden cesspool of nonsensical statements, or is that just for you to do? Because I sure didn't see any relative value on the who market pledge. It was a joke post. Feel free to make similar sarcastic remarks! But try to do so in between posts that actually engage what others are saying. You've dismissed anyone in the auto industry as inherently biased and incapable of objective analysis. This doesn't really make sense, since the only reason for Ford to lobby aggressively for GM and Chrysler to get what they got is if Ford had very legitimate fears of those companies being liquidated otherwise and taking down the entire US auto supply chain with them. The same for the former CEO of MB-USA and current CEO of Autonation. What vested interest does he have in pointing out how Romney's scenario is "fantasy," as he is a libertarian-leaning Republican who generally espouses free-market capitalism? Can you start by explaining the motive of two UofC professors to plainly state that there was not private capital available for a managed bankruptcy, even if we went with the poor policy of government-backed loans for private capital? What was their motive? Can you point to any contemporaneous articles, papers, statements etc. that there really was capital available? That anyone was really interested in managing GM's and Chrysler's bankruptcies?

A conversation on whether unsupported assertions that The Market (pbui) would have magicked up tens of billions of dollars in credit in late 2008/early 2009 contrary to just about everyone is really a discussion about "freedom," who knew? Will you ever bother to actually address any of what's been posted?

The IGM Forum at UofC-Booth took a poll of economists on whether the ARRA resulted in lower unemployment at the end of 2010. 80% agree, 2% uncertain and 4% (two) disagree. Results on the second question, whether the benefits will outweigh the costs long-term, are more mixed but still show a majority agreeing and only 12% disagreeing.

lol

This is a giant handout to the banks, plain and simple. But Obama is evil and hates Wall Street.

Mitt Romney's Bank-Friendly Plan to Save Detriot That's probably not true. But leave that aside for the moment. Why does Romney favor loan guarantees instead of direct federal loans in the first place? The way this works, taxpayers don't just risk taking a loss, they're practically guaranteed to take a loss. If the loans perform well, private lenders get all the profit. If they tank, Treasury pays the bill. And in the meantime, billions of dollars in scarce private loans are directed toward GM and Chrysler, making it even harder for other businesses to access the credit markets. In what way is this a better deal than just making the loans directly? As with college loan guarantees, it's really nothing more than a way of ensuring private banks a surefire profit with no risk. Republicans need to find a new wheeze. This one is getting long in the tooth. If we accept that private lenders would have lined up if the government offered loan guarantees, why the hell should anyone but the banks prefer that setup?

More dips*** koolaid propaganda from liberals and auto industry apologists. The Market be with you. All: And also with you. Lift up your hearts. All: We lift them up to the Market. Let us give thanks to the Invisible Hand, our Market. All: It is right to give It thanks and praise.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 12:22 PM) This was posted on Facebook by the husband of a friend of mine. He kind of has a point here: Leaders of the Catholic Church (and the other faiths). If you really stand by your principals and oppose abortion and the contraception mandate. Excommunicate the Catholic Reps and Senators that support them. Otherwise, your arguments are just show. I don't think the Catholic Church has a policy of excommunicating everyone who has theological differences.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) I addressed this one already too. They got WAY better terms from the Feds than they would have anywhere else. Which "one?" I made three separate points there. You've asserted that the market simply would have found a way, that an unstructured liquidation of GM and Chrysler was impossible. There's no contemporaneous support for this position. They wouldn't have gotten any terms from anyone else.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 11:21 AM) As opposed to everyone with self-interests at stake? Great you have all of the people who depended on this money saying that the really, really needed the money. Speaking of arcane magic, I'm sure we are going to get lots of stories out of the auto industry that contradict that the auto-industry needed the money. If other options that didn't result in catastrophic liquidation were really available, why were GM's and Chrysler's competitors begging the government to give them money? What self-interest did these UofC business prof's have in advocating for a structured government-financed bankruptcy because private DIP wasn't a possibility? You've already admitted in your previous post that you really are appealing to magical outcomes based entirely on ideology. No matter how absurd the position of "private equity for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy" can be shown to be from various sources across political and economic spectrum, you're sure that God The Market would have found a way. You're holding anun falsifiable position.

Your statement is equivalent to an appeal to arcane magic.

Hell, I can even find something from some Chicago boys that clearly indicates that the DIP credit markets were non-existent and that government loans were necessary to prevent an unstructured and catastrophic liquidation. http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/luigi.zing...itorials/gm.pdf

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 10:25 AM) Because all of the people associated with the industry are still busy trying to justify the gift of billions of dollars. Why was Ford begging the government to give billions to their competitors if private bankruptcy was really available? Why does the current CEO of Autonation and former CEO of MB-USA say that the idea that conservative market evangelists keep putting forward are "fantasy?" Why does no one outside of the closed circle of conservative economics support the idea that a private managed bankruptcy was possible?

Also Autonation isn't "a used car dealer." You remain deluded.

Why does it seem like the only people who insist a private bankruptcy was possible are conservative market evangelists and not anyone actually associated with the industry?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 07:28 AM) I've been out of law school for 4 years now, and I am not a practicing attorney, so please bear with me here...but it sure seemed that many of the cases I read in regards to constitutional rights being violated had much less reason for economic harm than this one. If you assume for the sake of argument (and I know you disagree here) that there is some constitutional right to privacy, wouldn't the fact that information considered by the courts to be a very private concern was disclosed to her mother be plenty egregious enough to formulate some economic harm from? Your relationship with your parents is one of the most important relationships a person will ever have, after the relationship with your spouse and your children, and considering many people go through their lives without either of the latter two, for many people, it is THE most important relationship they will ever formulate in their entire lives. To have that relationship jeopardized (and I am not saying this is morally correct that a parent would hold something like sexual orientation against their child) by someone who has no compelling reason to disclose a private concern of the child to the mother seems like a fairly extraordinary offense to me. I've seen attorney monetize a lot of far less obvious harm in my day of studying the law and working in law firms. Right, I can't imagine that your constitutional rights to privacy are tied solely to direct economic harm.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 05:36 AM) And I am questioning she has that right. Forget motivation for a moment, if a teacher disclosed the relationship out of concern that it is an adult dating a minor child, the same end result would have occurred. I find it hard to believe that a minor child has the right to privacy if they are in a potentially illegal relationship with an adult. Plus, if I am keeping something secret from my mother, and I allow you and others to know, then wait for someone, anyone, to slip so I can sue? That just doesn't seem correct. For that to be avoided anyone with knowledge of her orientation would have to walk up to her and ask who she is open with and who she is keeping it a secret from. That seems wrong to me. The coaches handled this wrong, but there is wrong and there is illegal wrong. This to me is wrong, but should not be illegal. If it was you would be creating a potentially second class of reporting potential sexual abuse. One class for heterosexual relationships in which you can easily report and a second class for homosexual relationships where you have to ask the possible victim if they are fully out, partially out, or keeping it a secret from everyone? Tex, read the ruling on the motion for summary judgement. The judge goes through whether the school had a compelling reason to break that right to privacy or not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 07:25 PM) You are delusional. QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 07:57 PM) Hard assets = something to provide collateral, vs. paper assets = nothing to provide collateral. There's one fundamental difference, but the government wanted control of the bankruptcy process so they could control where the money went. That's okay, keep drinking the dips*** koolaid - it's too easy to buy that there was absolutely no money anywhere. Klapse! See above.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 07:47 PM) About the same thoughts here with me. I can't believe a person can be open about something and have all of those people be compelled to keep a secret. And who are they suppose to keep the secret from? Should I ask anyone I know anything about who they have told and who they haven't? That seems so stupid. I am thinking about a coworker. If someone said they were thinking of fixing him up with a girlfriend of theirs, I would probably say, that's nice of you. But if someone else said, that's probably not a good idea, he's gay; I don't think that would be wrong. He has never hid his preference. The issue here is that a government actor violated her rights in an official capacity.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 10:06 AM) There would have been a source of funding. The idea there wouldn't have is just propaganda. You are delusional.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 02:08 PM) Sorry, I don't see it. I understand coming out is a big deal. I understand it should be on the terms of the person who's coming out. But if you're open about it at school, you should know that be it through a teacher, a student, or whatever, that other people are going to find out about it. You can't complain after the fact. Fwiw I don't think she admitted to being out at school, that was a hypothetical.