PDA

View Full Version : Business ruined by government



charly_t
05-29-2012, 12:42 PM
A relative and his wife visited us over the week end. They had visited in another town and learned about a business there that had to take bankruptcy. It seems that this company owned more than one plant in the USA and there was no other company making this item or items in the USA. The government made charges of it being a monopoly and after the dust cleared ( so to speak ) that business had to take bankruptcy and it went out of business as a result. This was not a large company but still they had a number of employees.
I'm guessing this happened a good many years ago from the conversation so I have no idea who was in the White House but not Obama. It would seem that we have a government who is unfriendly to business unless it is huge and can give a lot of money to somebody in office etc.

menmon
05-31-2012, 02:22 PM
This is true!

Our government is pro-big business and anti-small business and labor...so having someone in the whitehouse that will swing things back to labor and the little guy for a little while is not a bad thing.

Socks
05-31-2012, 02:28 PM
This is true!

Our government is pro-big business and anti-small business and labor...so having someone in the whitehouse that will swing things back to labor and the little guy for a little while is not a bad thing.

Please tell me you don't think the current president is doing this.

Uncle Bill
05-31-2012, 02:43 PM
This is true!

Our government is pro-big business and anti-small business and labor...so having someone in the whitehouse that will swing things back to labor and the little guy for a little while is not a bad thing.

There's little value in answering an Obama sycophant like you. We realize nothing can be pointed out that will make you understand how incredulously you have been duped by your messiah. If you are so ignorant as to stand with Obama on this economy, have at it.

For the rest of us, here's how most of us view this oligarchy, as penned by Newt. Enjoy the facts.

UB

His efforts so far have been a disaster. The Obama Department of Energy extended a $2.1 billion "investment" -- a loan guarantee -- to a green-tech company, Solar Trust of America, which declared bankruptcy last month. He lost another $530 million on Solyndra, a start-up where executives were making lucrative salaries, plus bonuses.

And for all the President's promises of millions of "green jobs," few have appeared. The White House claimed its "investment" in Solyndra would create 4,000 jobs, but at its height, the company employed just 585 people -- and then it went bankrupt. The cost? Almost $1 million per temporary job.

The $34 billion Obama has spent on his loan guarantee program for green energy startups exceeds the GDPs of 104 of the world's countries, but the sources he's focusing on account for only a tiny fraction of America's energy production, and they're still not cost-competitive.

His stimulus package, too, was an indiscriminate "investment" which added $800 billion to our debt -- and a failure by any reasonable standard.

If President Obama wants to make Mitt Romney's experience as a private investor "what this election will be about," it can only highlight this dysfunction of his bureaucratic model for job creation compared to private capital.

Private investors risk their own money because they think an enterprise will succeed, earning them a positive return. That's what the word "investment" means.

And because they have their own resources on the line, private investors carefully pick companies that offer products and services other people actually want -- things for which there is a demand. That's how they hope to earn a profit.

Enterprises for which there is genuine demand are able to grow and employ people. So in addition to creating something others find useful, they create jobs as well.

Private investors do not, in general, purchase failing companies intending for them to go out of business. Since failing companies do not earn money, such a venture would work against their goals.

And because their own money is at risk, private investors monitor closely how their company is being run and intervene if they feel their funds are bring used unwisely or in ways that don't contribute to the business's growth.

Bureaucratic investment works on assumptions that are almost exactly the opposite.

Bureaucratic investors use other people's money, taken by force, and give it to companies with no expectation of a positive financial return. These "investments" are, to all appearances, indistinguishable from reckless spending.

In fact, the bureaucrats are probably aware that their "investment" is highly risky and unlikely to be profitable, since if it weren't, the venture would be able to attract private funding rather than needing a government handout.

Indeed, it is bureaucrats who at times "invest" even when advised emphatically that a business is likely to fail (as those in the Obama administration were warned about Solyndra).

Because they are using the taxpayers' money, bureaucrats are not overly worried about whether the business they're funding offers products or services that other people actually want to buy.

They're far more preoccupied with other factors, such as whether the company fits into their ideological agenda, whether it's located in a politically important place, and whether it offers the opportunity of financial gain for any of their donors, allies, or personal friends.

The fact that there is not demand for products like overpriced solar panels or electric cars is not an insurmountable hurdle in these cases, since bureaucratic investors can arrange coercion to push Americans to buy them, manipulate tax laws to incentivize consumption, and spend more government money to subsidize production. They might even require federal agencies and departments to purchase the products -- at further cost to taxpayers -- when it does not make rational sense.

Finally, bureaucrats don't monitor with interest how the companies they fund are being run, as private investors do, so they don't notice when employees use the money to pay themselves generous salaries and large bonuses even as their businesses fail.

These are the reasons the President's bureaucratic investments are not a reliable engine for job creation or economic growth, and why, despite spending billions of dollars, he has so few jobs to show for it.

But the President's failed model for job creation is more than just misguided -- it's also destructive.

To pay for his spending binge, he is taking money away from real investors -- the Americans who actually are creating jobs and building businesses in the private economy. And in doing so, preventing jobs from being created.

So it's not Mitt Romney and private equity that are killing millions of jobs. It's Barack Obama's class warfare and incompetent bureaucracy.

Americans understand this as a matter of common sense.

If in this election President Obama wants to double down on his failure, be our guest.

Your friend,

http://info.humanevents.com/egl40/imgs/odahab/newt-signature-black.gif
Newt

Uncle Bill
05-31-2012, 02:56 PM
And it's not only in America where government run 'investment' fails.

UB

Spain’s Green Energy Industry Collapses After Subsidies Endedhttp://sayanythingblog.com/files/2012/05/wind-turbines-spain-y001-300x235.jpg







Written By:
Rob Port (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/author/admin/)
May 30, 2012




Back in 2009 President Obama was selling his “investments” in green energy here in America by referencing the success of such government “investments” in Spain.

But Spain became an inconvenient example of everything that’s wrong with government “investment” into green energies. That country’s “investments” brought them to the edge of fiscal collapse, and what did the Spanish taxpayers get in return for all that spending? Almost nothing, as the green power industry in the country has dried up as the subsidies ended (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/30/spain-scuttles-clean-energy-subsidies-promptly-watches-the-industry-go-down-like-a-sinking-ship/).

Saddled with a budget deficit more than twice the European Union limit and a ballooning gap between income and costs in its power system, Spain halted subsidies for new renewable-energy projects in January. The surprise move by Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy one month after taking office helped pierce investor confidence in stable aid for clean energy acrossEurope.
“They destroyed the Spanish market overnight with the moratorium,” European Wind Energy Association Chief Executive Officer Christian Kjaer said in an interview. “The wider implication of this is that if Spanish politicians can do that, probably most European politicians can do that.”
Spain’s $69 billion of investment in power capacity from 2004 to 2011 was about triple the spending per capita in the U.S. in that period, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance data and U.S. Census Bureau population estimates. Most of the 2012-2013 spending will be for the legacy of projects approved before the aid cuts to wind, solar, biomass and co-generation.
Investment in solar photovoltaic alone is headed to skid to as little as $107 million in 2013 from $879 million this year and $1.5 billion last year, New Energy Finance estimated. For new wind projects, investment should plunge to $963 million in 2013 and $244 million in 2014 from $2 billion this year.
Goods and services that work, for which there is actual market demand, don’t need subsidies. What needs subsidies are goods and services that don’t work. Like green energy.

menmon
05-31-2012, 03:06 PM
I think Obama is pro-business, but he is also pro-labor and more so than pro-stockholder. This tired arguement that if you make the rich richier the rest of us do well is unfounded. We need leadership that has all of our best interest.

BonMallari
05-31-2012, 03:11 PM
does anybody remember all the GM dealerships that this administration closed that coincidently were Republican donors

menmon
05-31-2012, 03:13 PM
Yes but Mitt wanted to close them all.

BonMallari
05-31-2012, 03:42 PM
Yes but Mitt wanted to close them all.

wrong , Mitt wanted to let GM live or die on its own, something a free market system would have done (oh my gosh, I am starting to sound like Franco)....GM needed to change the way it does business, we will address the same issue with them again, all we did was delay the process...

Gerry Clinchy
05-31-2012, 09:57 PM
Interestingly, a local dealer who lost his Chrysler dealership, is doing quite well selling Hyundais :-) Say they make more profit than they did on the Chryslers.

Hyundai has plants in the US. Toyota has plants in the US. The Toyota Tundra has more American-made parts in it than any other truck in its class. (My son works for Toyota).

If both Hyundai and Toyota can do well making their cars in the US, and Chrysler cannot ... what would be the difference in the way they operate?

BonMallari
06-01-2012, 02:04 AM
Interestingly, a local dealer who lost his Chrysler dealership, is doing quite well selling Hyundais :-) Say they make more profit than they did on the Chryslers.

Hyundai has plants in the US. Toyota has plants in the US. The Toyota Tundra has more American-made parts in it than any other truck in its class. (My son works for Toyota).

If both Hyundai and Toyota can do well making their cars in the US, and Chrysler cannot ... what would be the difference in the way they operate?


Hyundai and Toyota are not knee deep in UAW pensions that they cant pay, plus the foreign car makers adapted to what consumer trends were and adapted accordingly and put out a better product (with the exception of the large pick up truck), look how many people were on the GM payroll that were no longer employed, too many "golden Parachute" options were given out when there wasnt enough in the account to pay them

Franco
06-01-2012, 06:47 AM
Didn't Rmoney recently take credit for saving Government Motors? That he supported a managed bankruptcy and pretty much laid out the blue print for Obama to save them? The true Free Market solution what have been for GM to take a natural course and let the private sector put GM back together. So, whether is was Rmoney's or Obama's plan, it was still anti-Capitalism and Free Market, tax payers will never get thier 50 billion that is still owed, back! And, with the auto workers union on the Board of Directors, will never be profitable. Shame on both of them!

The bailout of GM is the most unAmerican act I've seen by our government in some time. Ford did it the old fashioned American way and now has to compete with the government. Tell me where that is Capitalism or Free Market!

In regard to Chrysler, they are doing jsut fine. Their Jeep line is very profitable and so is their line of Dodge pickup trucks. Chrysler dealers are also selling the small fuel saving Fiat that is gaining in market share.

zeus3925
06-01-2012, 07:51 PM
The skinny on bailout money as of three days ago:

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/main/summary

Franco
06-01-2012, 08:10 PM
The skinny on bailout money as of three days ago:

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/main/summary

Only shows that auto mfg's took 80billion but doesn't show what they paid back. I seem to remember the government receiving stock in GM for a portion of the debt. What's that stock worth today compared to what it was issued to us for?

http://www.freep.com/article/20120601/BUSINESS01/120601012/Toyota-returns-dwarfing-GM-Ford-Chrysler-increases
May figures came out this monring. Chrysler was as strong as donkey kong(can you say Jeep?) and Asian mfg's continue to capture a huge share of the passenger vehicle market. Ford beat GM.

ARay11
06-04-2012, 03:51 PM
I think Obama is pro-business, but he is also pro-labor and more so than pro-stockholder. This tired arguement that if you make the rich richier the rest of us do well is unfounded. We need leadership that has all of our best interest.


Dem: Redistribute Wealth. (great, now even those who DO bust their tails get nothing out of it... not exactly the America our forefathers imagined)
Repub: The wealthy create jobs. (I've never seen a company run by a poor guy.)

menmon
06-04-2012, 04:45 PM
Here is the difference....Example 1 - Rich guy pays lower wages...distributes more to his shareholders Example 2 Rich guy pays higher wages...distribues less to stockholders....workers have more money and can buy more

There is a fine balance...too much to workers not good, but too much to shareholders not good unless you are stockholder.

Since most of us make our living through wages, I'm supportive of better wages.

With the creation of 401K and most americans owning stock, they have been able to get lots of support for legislation that is pro-corporation at the expense of labor....what many forget is the wage paid is most important.

I had a customer one time that owned 149 Sonic Drive In stores. He called me one day wanting to pay off his loans because some stockbroker within the bank was calling him pressuring him to buy stocks he knew nothing about. I call the stockbroker and told him never call this client again then went and put all this man's cash into a money market managed account that he did not have to make a decisison on, because the man knew hamburgers and made lots of money selling them. Stocks and bonds made him nervous and they were not how he made his money.

My point is that wages are how we make our money...we should put that first.

sandyg
06-04-2012, 05:43 PM
Here is the difference....Example 1 - Rich guy pays lower wages...distributes more to his shareholders Example 2 Rich guy pays higher wages...distribues less to stockholders....workers have more money and can buy more

There is a fine balance...too much to workers not good, but too much to shareholders not good unless you are stockholder.

Since most of us make our living through wages, I'm supportive of better wages.

With the creation of 401K and most americans owning stock, they have been able to get lots of support for legislation that is pro-corporation at the expense of labor....what many forget is the wage paid is most important.

I had a customer one time that owned 149 Sonic Drive In stores. He called me one day wanting to pay off his loans because some stockbroker within the bank was calling him pressuring him to buy stocks he knew nothing about. I call the stockbroker and told him never call this client again then went and put all this man's cash into a money market managed account that he did not have to make a decisison on, because the man knew hamburgers and made lots of money selling them. Stocks and bonds made him nervous and they were not how he made his money.

My point is that wages are how we make our money...we should put that first.

And I'm sure you made a healthy commission on the transaction. My, how altruistic of you!

menmon
06-05-2012, 09:38 AM
I gave my customer what he wanted....I also helped him grow his business from a couple stores to 149 stores and a wealth of $200 million, with $30 million in cash in that money market account. He made it selling hamburgers and having a bank that supported his growth, and yes over the years the bank earned and let me highlight earned fees and interest income. But I assure you he is not complaining. Furthermore, he came by most of this wealth while Clinton was president and since he had his money in cash, I'm sure he didn't lose any when the markets crash when Bush was president.

J Hoggatt
06-05-2012, 10:08 AM
I gave my customer what he wanted....I also helped him grow his business from a couple stores to 149 stores and a wealth of $200 million, with $30 million in cash in that money market account. He made it selling hamburgers and having a bank that supported his growth, and yes over the years the bank earned and let me highlight earned fees and interest income. But I assure you he is not complaining. Furthermore, he came by most of this wealth while Clinton was president and since he had his money in cash, I'm sure he didn't lose any when the markets crash when Bush was president.

Stop the US - THEM -please....
During the Clinton years we had a Republican Controlled House/Senate...... Some would contend THAT made the difference..........

During the Obama Years-- We haven't even seen a BUDGET out of the Dem. controlled Senate.... PLEASE--STOP......

PS.
Jimmy Carter was the worst President -----before Obama..........

menmon
06-05-2012, 10:21 AM
Actually....Carter was president when he started his business...LOL and because of worker compensation when this man had a trucking accident, he recieved enough money to build his first Sonic....I think had it not been for UNION initiatives; he would have been disabled and struggled to get by. Funny how these helping hands change lives. See the republicans only care about the current rich, while the democrats want to help others have a chance at the American Dream.

This is a perfect example and can't argue with that:cool:

BonMallari
06-05-2012, 11:03 AM
Actually....Carter was president when he started his business...LOL and because of worker compensation when this man had a trucking accident, he recieved enough money to build his first Sonic....I think had it not been for UNION initiatives; he would have been disabled and struggled to get by. Funny how these helping hands change lives. See the republicans only care about the current rich, while the democrats want to help others have a chance at the American Dream.

This is a perfect example and can't argue with that:cool:

you buy right into the kool aid dont you....


I didnt realize that all the R's on this board were rich....and the American Dream is whatever you make it to be,to each their own

J Hoggatt
06-05-2012, 11:04 AM
Actually....Carter was president when he started his business...LOL and because of worker compensation when this man had a trucking accident, he recieved enough money to build his first Sonic....I think had it not been for UNION initiatives; he would have been disabled and struggled to get by. Funny how these helping hands change lives. See the republicans only care about the current rich, while the democrats want to help others have a chance at the American Dream.

This is a perfect example and can't argue with that:cool:

Unions have a place and time ----They have done some awesome work for a huge amount of people.
They also have a history of corruption and abuse of power. --- The pendulum usually does swing....... (think about it).
Unions have to keep their Employer healthy enough (without Government envolvement.) so both can survive......... NOTE (I said without Government Envolvement).

My beef is with PUBLIC Workers Unions -- they live off the taxpayer --- taxing/ comparing wages to one another... more on top of more until.........the TEA PARTY -- I am watching WISC. today with hopes that they get what they deserve-- A severe beat back!!!!.

ARay11
06-05-2012, 11:05 AM
Actually....Carter was president when he started his business...LOL and because of worker compensation when this man had a trucking accident, he recieved enough money to build his first Sonic....I think had it not been for UNION initiatives; he would have been disabled and struggled to get by. Funny how these helping hands change lives. See the republicans only care about the current rich, while the democrats want to help others have a chance at the American Dream.
This is a perfect example and can't argue with that:cool:




I think a lot of Dem (and Repub) policies and platforms have changed since 1977-ish.
If the same situation were presented today... would the end of the story be the same? I do not think there are many politicians (on either side of the aisle) considerate of any individual's rights, freedoms, or pursuit of their American Dream. Our current President is no different.

menmon
06-05-2012, 01:55 PM
Probably not....it is harder to compete with the large companies for many reasons so most of us find the best thing to do is work for a wage.

huntinman
06-05-2012, 02:22 PM
Probably not....it is harder to compete with the large companies for many reasons so most of us find the best thing to do is work for a wage.

Your client that owns the Sonics that has done so well working for himself would probably not agree. You keep contradicting your own arguments.

menmon
06-05-2012, 03:02 PM
He should vote democrat so the poor will have more money to by sonics