GM Bailout

[bush_cheney2004]

I think Obama should be impeached over the issue.

Why would he be impeached? FDR did far worse!

That's 25 electoral votes for only $30b and the destruction of a principle of the capitalist system! Not bad.

Indiana is a swing state.

I'll never buy one of their cars. I've given them enough money. I encourage others to not buy GM product as well.

Many people were already never buying one of their cars.

[Moonbox]

I think Obama should be impeached over the issue.

So should the majority of our parliament (Harper, Ignatieff and Layton inclusive).

That's 25 electoral votes for only $30b and the destruction of a principle of the capitalist system! Not bad.

Being the lucky suckers that we are, not only will we be paying taxes on this over the next two decades, we'll ALSO get to enjoy the benefits of higher mortgage and lending rates thanks to this. That's going to be an expensive principle to give up as far as the bond markets are concerned, and we're already seeing mortgage rates rising this week. The triple whammy of it, however, is that now we're in danger of having our credit ratings lowered as a result of the excessive government borrowing. Higher interest rates, here we come!

I'll never buy one of their cars. I've given them enough money. I encourage others to not buy GM product as well.

I'm with you on that.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Moonbox

[geoffrey]

Why would he be impeached? FDR did far worse!

Obama is going to make FDR look like a conservative once he's done with the country.

Indiana is a swing state.

So is Michigan. Hence the bailout.

Being the lucky suckers that we are, not only will we be paying taxes on this over the next two decades, we'll ALSO get to enjoy the benefits of higher mortgage and lending rates thanks to this. That's going to be an expensive principle to give up as far as the bond markets are concerned, and we're already seeing mortgage rates rising this week. The triple whammy of it, however, is that now we're in danger of having our credit ratings lowered as a result of the excessive government borrowing. Higher interest rates, here we come!

Yup! I don't think Canada is at risk credit rating wise, but the US probably is. And the UK is seriously hooped. Mortgage rates in Canada are definitely on the rise. I am currently variable, but will be changing that in a hurry.

I'd strongly advise people in Canada to not hold US denominated assets over the next few years (unless you currency hedge).

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The American have some real problems to deal with, they are doing the best that they can with them. In 2007 the American did 15.37 trillion in GDP, Canada did 1.58 trillion. So we are one tenth of their economic size, but almost totally dependent upon them considering we do about 80% of all our foreign trade with them. That is why when the US economy gets a cold, we get the flu. But it seems to be a lot tougher on them than it is on us. The simple answer is to diversify our export portfolios.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Jerry J. Fortin

[Moonbox]

The American governments (Bush and Obama both) are making things alot worse than they need to be.

[fellowtraveller]

so Harper fiscal conservatism shines through once again! Must drive the true-blue small-c types bat-shite crazy... once again.

Harper blows billions and his principles

In a jaw-dropping reversal of principle, Harper sold out to the corporate welfare mentality he'd steadfastly opposed before becoming a leader of rubber-band pragmatism and fiscal imprudence.

The Stephen Harper who insisted federal governments have no place picking winners and losers in the boardrooms of Canada has delivered the largest one-time, one-company gamble of taxpayer dollars in Canadian history.

A General Motors that has cut its Canadian car production by 50 per cent in just five years, with plans to shed half its domestic workforce in the next five years, has become a flagship Harpernomics investment that won't be declared a winner or loser until the deal expires long after he's gone, in 2018.

We, the taxpayers, now own $500-million worth of preferred shares and 11.7 per cent of a future common share issue that may end up worth as much as the current common shares. Which would mean, literally, nothing.

Remeber the lesson of Tropic Thunder: never go full retard!

The deal we have now is better than the one we had before, he explained pateiently, because: the last deal(which the Liberals and NDP howled for) had Canada with a completely unsecured donation of several billion. All assets,repeat all assets inclduing all assets of GM Canada, , were pledged to the US govt.

The deal now has some security in the form of equity position in the new company, though of course the shares value is suspect.

Get it?

[Oleg Bach]

Hello - I'm a third generational executive - my grandfather founded GM - I am not anything like him - I do not have the drive or the vision - my primary concern was the bottom line and maintaining my privledge and luxury - I am stupid - lazy and have no ethics - I allowed my friends to cut deals with China and Japan to make cars - and send them here and destroy the market that my forefather had created - I abandoned the workers who build the orignal wealth - now the whole thing has fallen apart - So I call up my friends in government and ask them to steal money from the workers and give it to me because I am entitled to be rich for eternity..

Does this sum up the term "bail out" ---------------talk about a ruse based in public benevolence - workers dumped - pensions destroyed - and they walk away to take a holiday in the South of France -------------------institutionalized corruption!

[Moonbox]

The deal we have now is better than the one we had before, he explained pateiently, because: the last deal(which the Liberals and NDP howled for) had Canada with a completely unsecured donation of several billion. All assets,repeat all assets inclduing all assets of GM Canada, , were pledged to the US govt.

The deal now has some security in the form of equity position in the new company, though of course the shares value is suspect.

Get it?

Yes I get it, you may be missing the point. We've thrown billions away that we'll never see again regardless. Now we're going to throw billions more away and will get pennies back for the dollar on that money.

The real kicker in this deal is that Canada's not even able to HOLD the investment and wait for a return. We HAVE to sell it all to the private sector after 8 years and you can be damn sure that won't be long enough to recover even a fraction of that investment.

We're investing $10B that we're not going to get anything back for so that we are in a marginally better position on our initial investment, which we aren't going to get much of anything back for anyways.

ALL of our debt, as far as I understand, is being converted to equity, which we are required to sell off in 8 years, which won't be long enough to see if GM can turn things around. I'd love to see you work out the numbers that would show how the Canadian public are better off sinking $10B into over-generous CAW/UAW pensions than we would be liquidating the whole mess and taking a fire-sale return on what they already owe us. They've got a 1:2 debt-equity ratio so even if you firesaled it we'd at least get $0.25 to the dollar on what we've already sunk into it rather than investing another MASSIVE $10B and putting ourselves into a really shitty equity position that we'll only get a fraction back for anyways.

This is a travesty of epic proportions as it relates to fairness in market economy.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes I get it, you may be missing the point. We've thrown billions away that we'll never see again regardless. Now we're going to throw billions more away and will get pennies back for the dollar on that money.

The real kicker in this deal is that Canada's not even able to HOLD the investment and wait for a return. We HAVE to sell it all to the private sector after 8 years and you can be damn sure that won't be long enough to recover even a fraction of that investment.

We're investing $10B that we're not going to get anything back for so that we are in a marginally better position on our initial investment, which we aren't going to get much of anything back for anyways.

ALL of our debt, as far as I understand, is being converted to equity, which we are required to sell off in 8 years, which won't be long enough to see if GM can turn things around. I'd love to see you work out the numbers that would show how the Canadian public are better off sinking $10B into over-generous CAW/UAW pensions than we would be liquidating the whole mess and taking a fire-sale return on what they already owe us. They've got a 1:2 debt-equity ratio so even if you firesaled it we'd at least get $0.25 to the dollar on what we've already sunk into it rather than investing another MASSIVE $10B and putting ourselves into a really shitty equity position that we'll only get a fraction back for anyways.

This is a travesty of epic proportions as it relates to fairness in market economy.

Let us hope that the Canadian Government will allow the private citizens to purchase these shares when the time comes, instead of rolling them out to the fat cats of Bay Street!

[jdobbin]

Is any of this worth $10 billion? I know that Margaret Thatcher would have thrown these GM/union negotiators out of her office but our governments aren't at that stage. As she said, all socialist experiments eventually run out of other people's money.

The difference here is that the collapse is not coming from the public sector but from the private sector.

I can't imagine Thatcher letting all the banks go bankrupt with a run on their assets and millions of people being out of work in a Depression-like situation with the foreclosure of their homes, can you?

[jdobbin]

That meant every nickel the Opposition insisted we give the auto companies was unsecured. 100% unsecured. At least we have some equity in the company, though I agree it is highly dubious.

The Opposition demanded stimulus that was unsecured? Please. Give it a rest. They demanded the Tories do something in regards to the manufacturing sector. They were not telling the Tories to give unsecured loans. In fact, the Opposition was asking the government ensure some guarantees from that invest.

Wow, the lies that come out of the Tory camp.

[Moonbox]

The Opposition demanded stimulus that was unsecured? Please. Give it a rest. They demanded the Tories do something in regards to the manufacturing sector. They were not telling the Tories to give unsecured loans. In fact, the Opposition was asking the government ensure some guarantees from that invest.

Wow, the lies that come out of the Tory camp.

Jdobbin give it a rest. 'Doing something' with the auto sector pretty much meant following Obama's lead. As GM Canada is wholly owned by GM USA, whatever the Americans did our only option was to follow suit or say screw the whole thing. I blame the mess on Obama (who I previously thought highly of). He royally screwed the American public over and by extension the Canadians public as well.

The Americans aren't exactly keen on keeping production in Canada and if we weren't going to meekly follow their lead we weren't going to have auto plants. Given the specifics of the deal, we should have given up on the auto plants. It's going to cost Ontario MORE in the long run than we'll ever recover and the rest of the country is even worse off with this deal. I'm so angry right now at Obama, Harper and McGuinty I don't even know what to say.

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin give it a rest. 'Doing something' with the auto sector pretty much meant following Obama's lead. As GM Canada is wholly owned by GM USA, whatever the Americans did our only option was to follow suit or say screw the whole thing. I blame the mess on Obama (who I previously thought highly of). He royally screwed the American public over and by extension the Canadians public as well.

Why don't you give it a rest? This idea that the Liberals were asking for unsecured loans and no guarantees is one of the lies being told here. It is full of crap.

For an entire year prior to today's problems, the government was warned that an industrial policy was needed to ensure Canada's viability has a manufacturer. The downturn was happening all through 2008. The Opposition pushed the Tories to address those problems but were largely ignored.

The request for stimulus could have taken many forms. Blaming the Liberals for the present agreement suggests they had a hand in creating or putting the deal together. That is utter non-sense.

The Americans aren't exactly keen on keeping production in Canada and if we weren't going to meekly follow their lead we weren't going to have auto plants. Given the specifics of the deal, we should have given up on the auto plants. It's going to cost Ontario MORE in the long run than we'll ever recover and the rest of the country is even worse off with this deal. I'm so angry right now at Obama, Harper and McGuinty I don't even know what to say.

The blackmail of the manufacturing industry to simply pack up their kit and move has weighed heavily on governments of all stripes.

I am still not hearing from people whether they believe the 2 million people that would lose their jobs with GM's collapse would have been the better scenario. You think that is better? This is what industry experts were predicting.

You are correct that GM would have likely dropped all their plants in Canada. I have heard numbers of around 100,000+ that would be out of work as a result of GM's departure.

The confidence of the economy can turn on a dime. Harper could have let GM leave Canada along with Chrysler. Do you think the country would have done okay by that? Do you think Harper would have survived beyond the year?

[August1991]

Just provided the numbers as Jerry was wondering where it was going. Showing that it's going to suppliers and employees.

It looks like you were right, Geoffrey.

If that's the case, Canadians might well wonder what they are getting for their $10.5-billion. Not much, it turns out. The bulk of the money -- about $8-billion -- is not going into rebuilding the industry. Instead, it is going right out the door to cover the famous legacy pension plans of the auto workers.

Terence Corcoran

The blackmail of the manufacturing industry to simply pack up their kit and move has weighed heavily on governments of all stripes.

I am still not hearing from people whether they believe the 2 million people that would lose their jobs with GM's collapse would have been the better scenario. You think that is better? This is what industry experts were predicting.

2 million people? That's hyperbole. Canada's entire labour force is about 16 million. If GM Canada were to disappear, Ontario would still have an auto industry and 2 million Canadians would not lose their jobs.

Nevertheless Dobbin, you touch on the essence of Corcoran's argument and on a grander scale, it amounts to what is called "Greenspan's Put".

The US government has stepped in to help two industries (banks and auto manufacturing) in trouble. What signal does this "too big to fail" policy send to others?

The oldest kid in a family of 8 has just run up a huge credit card/cellphone bill while at an out-of-town college and Daddy has had to step in and pay off the kid's debts. What are the 7 younger siblings going to think? To make the analogy better, it's the kid's girlfriend and roommate that created the credit card/cellphone bill - not the kid himself.

Edited June 4, 2009 by August1991

[geoffrey]

I can't imagine Thatcher letting all the banks go bankrupt with a run on their assets and millions of people being out of work in a Depression-like situation with the foreclosure of their homes, can you?

I don't think that's what August was saying. Instead of confronting the issue, you twist the statement so you can answer it from the position most easy argued by your worldview. Very Chretien like.

I am still not hearing from people whether they believe the 2 million people that would lose their jobs with GM's collapse would have been the better scenario. You think that is better? This is what industry experts were predicting.

Find me an industry expert that quoted 2 million jobs. That's flat out BS.

People will lose their jobs either way. A bailout just distorts the market. Productive workers earning reasonable salaries at Toyota and Honda will be fire now because they can't fill the market share of unproductive workers earning massive salaries at GM. Why? Because the government provided GM a subsidy of $14,000 per vehicle sale. Can't compete with that. Saves 20,000 jobs at GM, kills jobs at Toyota. The part makers would have just produced parts for the competitors filling the void. The same number of vehicles would be sold with or without GM, and the same number of replacement parts made.

2 million is an absolute lie and I'm sure you just picked that up out of space. Provide at least one, perferably more (since you said EXPERTS) source for that.

You are correct that GM would have likely dropped all their plants in Canada. I have heard numbers of around 100,000+ that would be out of work as a result of GM's departure.

Now it's 100,000? What? Nah. Still too high.

The confidence of the economy can turn on a dime. Harper could have let GM leave Canada along with Chrysler. Do you think the country would have done okay by that? Do you think Harper would have survived beyond the year?

No one complained with oil was sold out to the Americans for a dime in the 80's when we were suffering out West. Trudeau just told us to shove it. Time for Ontario to shove it. Grow up and produce some modern goods. If Ontario experts to have manufacturing big, out of date vehicles as a cornerstone of their economy, they're screwed.

[jdobbin]

I don't think that's what August was saying. Instead of confronting the issue, you twist the statement so you can answer it from the position most easy argued by your worldview. Very Chretien like.

I think he made the reference to Thatcher as if her past privatization has anything to do with these private company failures. Very Harper-like in deflecting.

So you think Thatcher would have let the private companies die off?

Find me an industry expert that quoted 2 million jobs. That's flat out BS.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a8oQkqyRcU6Y

Job losses would total 2.5 million from an automaker failure in 2009, including 1.4 million people in industries not directly tied to manufacturing, according to a Nov. 4 study by the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

I think the BS is coming from you. This is the information quoted from several industry experts. Do you need more quotes or do you have your own economic report?

People will lose their jobs either way. A bailout just distorts the market. Productive workers earning reasonable salaries at Toyota and Honda will be fire now because they can't fill the market share of unproductive workers earning massive salaries at GM. Why? Because the government provided GM a subsidy of $14,000 per vehicle sale. Can't compete with that. Saves 20,000 jobs at GM, kills jobs at Toyota. The part makers would have just produced parts for the competitors filling the void. The same number of vehicles would be sold with or without GM, and the same number of replacement parts made.

I don't dispute that a bail-out distorts the market. So does 2 million plus jobless.

2 million is an absolute lie and I'm sure you just picked that up out of space. Provide at least one, perferably more (since you said EXPERTS) source for that.

I think we have shown that you are the liar here.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1216?hub=Canada

The Ontario Manufacturing Council study released Tuesday suggests the impact would be sharp and immediate if Ford, General Motors and Chrysler were to collapse as a result of the slowing economy and changing market demand.

The report by the Centre for Spatial Economics -- which does forecasting work for the federal finance department -- projects 323,000 jobs in Canada would be lost immediately, with 281,000 of those in Ontario.

Now, that is the worst case scenario with three closing shop in Canada. I think we can safely say that perhaps 100,000 jobs were in jeopardy with GM shutting down in Canada.

Now it's 100,000? What? Nah. Still too high.

That was from Ontario if only GM was to go down.

No one complained with oil was sold out to the Americans for a dime in the 80's when we were suffering out West. Trudeau just told us to shove it. Time for Ontario to shove it. Grow up and produce some modern goods. If Ontario experts to have manufacturing big, out of date vehicles as a cornerstone of their economy, they're screwed.

Quote from Trudeau telling the oil industry to shove it?

Oil gets so many subsidies now and even during the 1980s was receiving aid for pipeline work.

Edited June 4, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

2 million people? That's hyperbole. Canada's entire labour force is about 16 million. If GM Canada were to disappear, Ontario would still have an auto industry and 2 million Canadians would not lose their jobs.

I was not referring to Canada when I said 2 million jobs. I said Canada would likely lose 100,000 jobs.

Nevertheless Dobbin, you touch on the essence of Corcoran's argument and on a grander scale, it amounts to what is called "Greenspan's Put".

Actually, I referenced two economics studies for the numbers. You can dispute them if you like but try and give me a study of what they think the numbers would be.

[Moonbox]

Why don't you give it a rest? This idea that the Liberals were asking for unsecured loans and no guarantees is one of the lies being told here. It is full of crap.

Take it a step further. I know you're capable of making the GIANT leap in logic here. What guarantees do you think Canada was going to get from a bankrupt manufacturer? They have no equity. They have twice as much debt as equity. You cannot get a solid guarantee from that. Not only does GM have nothing to back up the debt, the terms of the agreements were set by the Americans, specifically, Obama.

For an entire year prior to today's problems, the government was warned that an industrial policy was needed to ensure Canada's viability has a manufacturer. The downturn was happening all through 2008. The Opposition pushed the Tories to address those problems but were largely ignored.

Once again, what sort of plan do you think we were going to come up with in a year? Seriously? Experts have been GUARANTEEING us GM's collapse since the turn of the century but you can't just say, "We need more diversified manufacturing." and get that in less than a year. It doesn't work that way.

The request for stimulus could have taken many forms. Blaming the Liberals for the present agreement suggests they had a hand in creating or putting the deal together. That is utter non-sense.

Stop getting so butt-hurt about it. I'm not saying that it's their fault. Maybe some of the other people here are but the Tories are the ones negotiating the agreement. With that said, the Opposition (Liberals included), were demanding the stimulus and they voted FOR the stimulus. Given that the Americans were dicating the terms of bailing out the automakers, and given that the Liberals have voted for the spending, it's ridiculous for you and Ignatieff to turn around and criticize the Tories for it after the fact. That's all I'm saying, but you and I have already argued about this stuff at length.

You are correct that GM would have likely dropped all their plants in Canada. I have heard numbers of around 100,000+ that would be out of work as a result of GM's departure.

The confidence of the economy can turn on a dime. Harper could have let GM leave Canada along with Chrysler. Do you think the country would have done okay by that? Do you think Harper would have survived beyond the year?

I'm saying the deal is a stinker for taxpayers in the USA and Canada. It could have been much better. Blame the terms of the deal on Obama though, rather than hacking it up and blaming it on Harper. The Canadian government had the choice to play ball or not play ball, and there wasn't going to be a lot of negotiating. We got as fair a deal as the Americans did, but Obama sold the Americans out and by extension us too.

I believe that Canada and the US should have bailed out the automakers, but ONLY as an investment. Throwing money at useless Union benefits, and getting suckered into aweful equity agreements should never have been part of the deal. If we did this properly, and the governments came out with a functional and profitable GM in 15 years, we might be able to recoup most of our losses. The way it is now we're going to get nothing back and honest Canadians are going to be subsidizing greedy union pensions and benefits.

This is a TOTAL loss for taxpayers and it's all a result of Obama pandering to auto-based swing states.

[jdobbin]

Take it a step further. I know you're capable of making the GIANT leap in logic here. What guarantees do you think Canada was going to get from a bankrupt manufacturer? They have no equity. They have twice as much debt as equity. You cannot get a solid guarantee from that. Not only does GM have nothing to back up the debt, the terms of the agreements were set by the Americans, specifically, Obama.

Why don't you make a giant leap and stop acting like a boor? Doesn't that sound logical?

The Liberals are not responsible for the deal you dislike. Harper is. The Liberals did not have a place at the table.

Once again, what sort of plan do you think we were going to come up with in a year? Seriously? Experts have been GUARANTEEING us GM's collapse since the turn of the century but you can't just say, "We need more diversified manufacturing." and get that in less than a year. It doesn't work that way.

I was thinking of something simpler like a cut in corporate income taxes rather than a GST cut. That would have been a strategy.

I am also thinking that a strategy with the Bank of Canada on the dollar would have been good. Even now the BoC is suggesting they will do something in regards to the rise of the dollar.

Stop getting so butt-hurt about it. I'm not saying that it's their fault. Maybe some of the other people here are but the Tories are the ones negotiating the agreement. With that said, the Opposition (Liberals included), were demanding the stimulus and they voted FOR the stimulus. Given that the Americans were dicating the terms of bailing out the automakers, and given that the Liberals have voted for the spending, it's ridiculous for you and Ignatieff to turn around and criticize the Tories for it after the fact. That's all I'm saying, but you and I have already argued about this stuff at length.

And I keep telling you that it isn't like the Liberals had a place at the negotiating table. The Liberals have every right to criticize a deal they had no hand in writing up.

I'm saying the deal is a stinker for taxpayers in the USA and Canada. It could have been much better. Blame the terms of the deal on Obama though, rather than hacking it up and blaming it on Harper. The Canadian government had the choice to play ball or not play ball, and there wasn't going to be a lot of negotiating. We got as fair a deal as the Americans did, but Obama sold the Americans out and by extension us too.

This passing the buck to Obama or anyone else is the hackery that I see.

As I've said repeatedly, what was the better deal? And why didn't Harper act earlier on problems that were developing a year and a half ago?

I believe that Canada and the US should have bailed out the automakers, but ONLY as an investment. Throwing money at useless Union benefits, and getting suckered into aweful equity agreements should never have been part of the deal. If we did this properly, and the governments came out with a functional and profitable GM in 15 years, we might be able to recoup most of our losses. The way it is now we're going to get nothing back and honest Canadians are going to be subsidizing greedy union pensions and benefits.

Equity in the company sounds like an investment. At least that is how it has always been interpreted.

This is a TOTAL loss for taxpayers and it's all a result of Obama pandering to auto-based swing states.

And I thought it was an attempt to avoid having to pay more for 2 million plus people out of work.

Edited June 4, 2009 by jdobbin

[canfan]

Who said that we could? It wasn't me, perhaps you should go back and read what I actually said.

Well the polls are never wrong are they? Even at 20%, if that many people actually responded to a poll that is, then you would have to admit something else. Lets use those numbers on a little venture in extrapolated logic shall we...

In the last federal election about 60% of the population in Alberta turned out to vote. Making a leap in faith, we assume that the 20% number you quote is equated in the same manner and we end up with one out of every three Albertans in favour of separation. That is substantially higher than one out of five. Now consider that the Liberals will possibly form the next government, what do you think Albertans would say about that, given that there will likely be another Conservative landslide here. In addition consider this, JMCK Polling in April 2004, was contracted by The Alberta Residents League and they found that among PC voters 81 percent agreed that Alberta’s equalization payments are “too much.” Now that is a nice number for you, coming from the ruling dynasty of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. With that in mind I will suggest that those folks who don't live here can't really take the pulse of the citizens by merely reading the most popular propaganda and drawing their own conclusions. Ya hafta be here to make that stick!

So what I am saying is that there are numerous variables to take into the consideration of the political equation in Alberta. Here is another little tidbit for you, there is another Trudeau in the wings of the Liberal Party of Canada. Now apply your logic to the equation and think about how Albertans will perceive this person who will sit in Ottawa and make judgments affecting the citizens of Alberta............

That's not how polls work. You can't turn 1 in 5 into 1 in 3 based on election voter turnout that had nothing to do with the poll.

[Moonbox]

The Liberals are not responsible for the deal you dislike. Harper is. The Liberals did not have a place at the table.

The CPC needs the support of SOMEBODY to act. That support happens to come from the Liberals. As they have veto on everything the CPC does, I'd say they do have a defacto place at the table. Like I said before, I'm not blaming the Liberals over the CPC. I'm saying that it's hypocritical for the Liberals to criticize a deal they voted for rather than try to have it amended.

I was thinking of something simpler like a cut in corporate income taxes rather than a GST cut. That would have been a strategy.

Here's an interesting idea. Remember you going off on Flaherty for criticizing Ontario's capital investment taxes? Well they're STILL one of the highest in the world and these are SPECIFICALLY the taxes that discourage new investment in the economy. Look how things turn around.

I am also thinking that a strategy with the Bank of Canada on the dollar would have been good. Even now the BoC is suggesting they will do something in regards to the rise of the dollar.

You don't want to get into a monetary policy debate amidst all of this.

This passing the buck to Obama or anyone else is the hackery that I see.

He was in charge of the deal. When he made the deal with GM USA when it came to Canada it was a take it or leave it sort of thing. Harper had about as much to do with writing it as Ignatieff did. He's guilty of accepting a crap deal, but he didn't have a lot of choice did he? It's either we blow billions on CAW moochers or we lose 85000 jobs. Hmm...

As I've said repeatedly, what was the better deal? And why didn't Harper act earlier on problems that were developing a year and a half ago?

I'll tell you about a better deal in a second. As for what Harper could have done a year ago to save GM, there was nothing. There's nothing a government can do when a company has a 2:1 debt:equity ratio and can't meet its short term requirements.

Equity in the company sounds like an investment. At least that is how it has always been interpreted.

What would you say about an investment where the share price would have to go from $1 to $125 to recover the investment. What would you say about an investment where:

Under the deal, GM will have an initial public offering in 2010. Canadian governments must divest 35 per cent of their stock within three years, 65 per cent within six years, and the rest within eight years – regardless of the share price and potential for taxpayers' losses. Officials said that there is a certain flexibility around the timing of the share sale, but those minimums must be met regardless of the state of the economy at the time.

Canada must divest GM shares

What do you think the odds are that we'll be able to sell GM shares after 8 years for $125? That's not an investment. That's a joke.

And I thought it was an attempt to avoid having to pay more for 2 million plus people out of work.

It was thinly disguised as that. You could have done that with a fair deal though. North American taxpayers shouldn't have to pay billions to bankrupt pensions that helped force the company into bankruptcy in the first place. That's Obama pandering to the UAW who happens to be pretty much his biggest sponsor. The UAW was probably the biggest reason the company went bankrupt in the first place and there's no reason why taxpayers should subsidize their greed and mindless manual labour.

You could also drop the requirement to divest which guarantees we won't get more than a fraction back of what we put in.

Anything else you want to know?

[benny]

This bailout has saved 20-30k jobs in specifically Southern Ontario. The government is investing $9.5B on top of the $6b on May 23rd where we all paid for GM's over generous pension plan to the workers. So we've paid $15.5b for 20-30k jobs.

- That's $517,000 per job (assuming 30k jobs saved). It will take the average autoworker 18 years to pay that back in taxes.

- That's roughly $500 per Canadian or on average $2,000 per Canadian family in taxpayer funded costs.

- That's more than 50% of the entire corporate income tax estimated to be paid this year ($26b)

- This increases our national debt by approximately 5% and comes with it approximately $650mm in interest costs in the next year.

Canadians should be outraged. Canadians should be up in arms. Give me $15.5b and I'll employ 10x as many people of higher education than these lowlife autoworkers. We have guarnteed pensions that the majority of Canadians could only dream of. We've created permenant wards of the state.

And worst off, we've cost autoworkers at Toyota and Honda and Nissan plants in Canada their jobs, as they received no bailout. They'll certainly be unable to maintain their staff levels in this recession with their biggest competitors operating for free for a few years.

THIS HAS NOT SAVED A JOB. This has transferred jobs from Toyota (profitable) to GM (not-profitable). This is the largest socialist abuse of the public purse in Canadian history. It has destroyed free market principles (giving the union more than the bond holders for less debt forgiveness). It has permenantly distorted the market for automobiles around the world.

"Why Canada doesn't dare disturbing work patterns?" would have been a more revealing subtitle for this topic.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's not how polls work. You can't turn 1 in 5 into 1 in 3 based on election voter turnout that had nothing to do with the poll.

I wasn't saying that one poll could be read to apply to another question at all. What I was saying was that if you do what the polls do, that is stretching what is really being said, that you could jump from one conclusion to another. I am not a big believer in polls because I understand them.

[benny]

I wasn't saying that one poll could be read to apply to another question at all. What I was saying was that if you do what the polls do, that is stretching what is really being said, that you could jump from one conclusion to another. I am not a big believer in polls because I understand them.

Workers often defend themselves by saying: "we are not only numbers!"

[Shady]

For an entire year prior to today's problems, the government was warned that an industrial policy was needed to ensure Canada's viability has a manufacturer. The downturn was happening all through 2008. The Opposition pushed the Tories to address those problems but were largely ignored.

Nope. The only entity that needed to come up with a plan was GM. For decades. To come up with a proper business model that worked. But they didn't. And now they reap what they sow. Maybe if the unions hadn't turned GM into the largest private purchaser of Viagra in the world, they might still be a viable company.