b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 Yes, Elon musk, the billionaire man of the people who knows what it truly means to be down on their luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 7 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said: The fact that we give out these loans but get no equity is kinda criminal tbh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 7 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said: To be fair, Tesla did pay back the loan in full and early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: The fact that we give out these loans but get no equity is kinda criminal tbh A loan is not the same thing as an investment. A lender charges an interest rate or other fees on the loan, and that's how the lender makes a profit off of the deal. I agree with you that the lender should get equity or control of the company if it fails to repay or otherwise defaults on the loan. But this already occurs through standard bankruptcy law as far as I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 31 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: A loan is not the same thing as an investment. A lender charges an interest rate or other fees on the loan, and that's how the lender makes a profit off of the deal. I agree with you that the lender should get equity or control of the company if it fails to repay or otherwise defaults on the loan. But this already occurs through standard bankruptcy law as far as I know. This is what we already do for companies that fail after the government gives loans, and it sucks. We get equity in failure, and merely a repaid subsidized loan from successful companies. If an investment firm did this they'd be out of business because the reward of a successful company is supposed to balance out losses from businesses that don't make it. There's no startup company that can get a loan from a private source that doesn't require equity. This wasn't today's Tesla looking for a short term loan. I mean, shit, it's the justification that capital uses to syphon the surplus value, in that the investors take a cut of profit because they are the "only" ones taking a risk (as workers are paid a mere wage for the risk they take on) If the government was even given just 5% of the shares offered at the IPO and at that price of 17/share and held it to today, they would have doubled their money. Instead, this value is kept in private hands, despite being invested in by the government at the time. And hell, mere months later in May 2010 Toyota got ***2.5%*** of Tesla for $50 million. At this valuation, the government should have had a ***23.25%*** stake in Tesla, if not more as the loan itself made the company more viable and valuable than before. Get the fuck outta here with this paid back the loan bullshit, this is the picking winners and losers bullshit that you libertarians love to wax poetic about, and the taxpayers subsidizing a fucking billionaires private business venture, where the taxpayers took on the nearly half a billion dollar risk and got very little reward in return. We shouldn't be giving no strings attached loans, we should be getting equity in return for taxpayer risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 https://slate.com/business/2013/05/tesla-is-worse-than-solyndra-how-the-u-s-government-bungled-its-investment-in-the-car-company-and-cost-taxpayers-at-least-1-billion.html Quote When the government’s negotiators started hammering out the details of the Tesla investment in mid-2009, it was obvious to both sides that the feds were in a position to name their terms. Tesla’s management knew that if they couldn’t get the government’s money at 3 or 4 percent interest, their next cheapest source of capital would cost 10 times more, a whopping 30 to 40 percent annually. (That’s according to estimates Tesla made in a regulatory filing, which based its numbers on “venture capital rates of return for companies at a similar stage of development as us.”) Quote Personal loans made in 2008 by Elon Musk, Tesla’s co-founder and CEO, provide a telling contrast. Musk received a much higher interest rate (10 percent) from Tesla and, more importantly, the option to convert his $38 million of debt into shares of Tesla stock. That’s exactly what he ended up doing, and the resulting shares are now worth a whopping $1.4 billion—a 3,500 percent return on his investment. By contrast, the Department of Energy earned only $12 million in interest on its $465 million loan—a 2.6 percent return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 30 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: This is what we already do for companies that fail after the government gives loans, and it sucks. We get equity in failure, and merely a repaid subsidized loan from successful companies. If an investment firm did this they'd be out of business because the reward of a successful company is supposed to balance out losses from businesses that don't make it. There's no startup company that can get a loan from a private source that doesn't require equity. This wasn't today's Tesla looking for a short term loan. I mean, shit, it's the justification that capital uses to syphon the surplus value, in that the investors take a cut of profit because they are the "only" ones taking a risk (as workers are paid a mere wage for the risk they take on) If the government was even given just 5% of the shares offered at the IPO and at that price of 17/share and held it to today, they would have doubled their money. Instead, this value is kept in private hands, despite being invested in by the government at the time. And hell, mere months later in May 2010 Toyota got ***2.5%*** of Tesla for $50 million. At this valuation, the government should have had a ***23.25%*** stake in Tesla, if not more as the loan itself made the company more viable and valuable than before. Get the fuck outta here with this paid back the loan bullshit, this is the picking winners and losers bullshit that you libertarians love to wax poetic about, and the taxpayers subsidizing a fucking billionaires private business venture, where the taxpayers took on the nearly half a billion dollar risk and got very little reward in return. We shouldn't be giving no strings attached loans, we should be getting equity in return for taxpayer risk. Your post presumes that making money is the goal of the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 1 minute ago, sblfilms said: Your post presumes that making money is the goal of the government. The goal should be to not leave the taxpayer on the hook for losses of the inevitable business that fails, like Solyndra. There is a good in the government being able to provide loans! But there is a smart way to do it, and is to the benefit of taxpayers. The way we do it now is privatizing success and making public the loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: The goal should be to not leave the taxpayer on the hook for losses of the inevitable business that fails, like Solyndra. There is a good in the government being able to provide loans! But there is a smart way to do it, and is to the benefit of taxpayers. The way we do it now is privatizing success and making public the loss. What do you think happens to equity in a business that fails? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 12 minutes ago, sblfilms said: What do you think happens to equity in a business that fails? 0, just about what we got out of Solyndra, where we're out $500million+ The point is you win big, or even moderately, on a couple of good companies (like if we got equity from Tesla) and that makes up for the massive losses (even if we got equity in Solyndra for example) But you'd need a whole lot of paid back wins at 3-4% to make up for even one failure The difference is similar downsides (taxpayer holding the bag) but far better upsides (taxpayer makes substantial return) when you get equity We shouldn't be socializing the losses and completely privatizing the success Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: 0, just about what we got out of Solyndra, where we're out $500million+ The point is you win big, or even moderately, on a couple of good companies (like if we got equity from Tesla) and that makes up for the massive losses (even if we got equity in Solyndra for example) But you'd need a whole lot of paid back wins at 3-4% to make up for even one failure The difference is similar downsides (taxpayer holding the bag) but far better upsides (taxpayer makes substantial return) when you get equity You are back to approaching this as though the goal is to make money. It isn’t. The government isn’t a private equity firm and that is a good thing. You change the way you approach deals when your goal is profit maximization. The government has a vested interest in domestic economic expansion, in job creation, and the exporting of domestic goods and services. That is why governments lend money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 If the government gave me half a billion dollars I could turn it into a few billion and pay the money back too. If it's worth the loan then some part of the corporation should be responsive to the public in the form of public ownership stakes that are controlled by the government. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 Just now, Anathema- said: If the government gave me half a billion dollars I could turn it into a few billion and pay the money back too. If it's worth the loan then some part of the corporation should be responsive to the public in the form of partial public ownership stakes. Then it's not a loan. It's an investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 1 minute ago, Anathema- said: If the government gave me half a billion dollars I could turn it into a few billion and pay the money back too. If it's worth the loan then some part of the corporation should be responsive to the public in the form of public ownership stakes that are controlled by the government. Taking equity devalues the loan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 32 minutes ago, sblfilms said: You are back to approaching this as though the goal is to make money. It isn’t. The government isn’t a private equity firm and that is a good thing. You change the way you approach deals when your goal is profit maximization. The government has a vested interest in domestic economic expansion, in job creation, and the exporting of domestic goods and services. That is why governments lend money. It's not about making money, it's about mitigating risk. Right now all the risk is held by the public and it isn't mitigated in any way other than the interest to the loan, which over the whole of the program doesn't adequately cover losses. We can just give out grants or wholly forgiveable loans (like the PPP!) if we're not concerned with losses or mitigating risk to taxpayers. And if we don't care about these losses, why not just create a literal government electric car company?! It would accomplish the same goals as you've outlined but without some dude becoming a billionaire in the process! A Tennessee Valley Authority but for electric cars. Ultimately I think there is benefit to having the taxpayers get actual return for its investment, when it comes to specific companies and technologies that it invests in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 40 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Then it's not a loan. It's an investment. NO SHIT, SHERLOCK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 40 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Taking equity devalues the loan If you need a loan/investment from the public then value doesn't have much to do with it. If the public gives a loan/investment then the public should have equity. The government isn't a profit generator, being happy with a 2% return is fucked. If it's in our interest to give tesla money then it's in our interest to have a day in corporate governance; they can keep the cash. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 58 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Then it's not a loan. It's an investment. 18 minutes ago, Anathema- said: NO SHIT, SHERLOCK But in the case of Tesla and especially Solyndra it was less an investment in the companies themselves and more an investment in advancing the technologies the companies are focused on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 15 minutes ago, Anathema- said: If you need a loan/investment from the public then value doesn't have much to do with it. If the public gives a loan/investment then the public should have equity. The government isn't a profit generator, being happy with a 2% return is fucked. If it's in our interest to give tesla money then it's in our interest to have a day in corporate governance; they can keep the cash. Who says they need it? I do deals all the time where I could put up my own cash, but get other people to do so because there is a benefit to me to keep my cash on hand and rent money from somebody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 15 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Who says they need it? I do deals all the time where I could put up my own cash, but get other people to do so because there is a benefit to me to keep my cash on hand and rent money from somebody else. An equity stake would separate those who need it, and are willing to give up something in exchange, and those just looking for a good deal Money talks, bullshit walks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: An equity stake would separate those who need it, and are willing to give up something in exchange, and those just looking for a good deal I don’t think turning the federal government solely into the lender of last resort serves to decrease tax payer risk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyHell Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 30 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: An equity stake would separate those who need it, and are willing to give up something in exchange, and those just looking for a good deal Money talks, bullshit walks I don’t believe the government should have equity in companies. That’s getting a little to much like the CCP for me. Keep the government out of business, its not their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 So yeah, Tom Cotton is definitely going to be the GOP’s top guy in 2024. And unlike the Trumps, he’s genuinely terrifying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 33 minutes ago, MarSolo said: So yeah, Tom Cotton is definitely going to be the GOP’s top guy in 2024. And unlike the Trumps, he’s genuinely terrifying. Don’t count out Josh Hawley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricofoley Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 GOP gonna put their faith in states' ability to rewrite a bunch of COBOL code from 1962 to install a new, more complicated (and worse) benefits system in a matter of days. YOLO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 42 minutes ago, Ricofoley said: GOP gonna put their faith in states' ability to rewrite a bunch of COBOL code from 1962 to install a new, more complicated (and worse) benefits system in a matter of days. YOLO Wonder if the GOP is gonna give states money for this... Doubtful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spork3245 Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 3 hours ago, Ricofoley said: GOP gonna put their faith in states' ability to rewrite a bunch of COBOL code from 1962 to install a new, more complicated (and worse) benefits system in a matter of days. YOLO Is there any type of literature on this 70% nonsense? As I said previously itt, states have varying caps on UE benefits. Going from 60% to 70% won’t matter if you’ve already hit the cap. ie: Arizona’s UE cap is $250/week. If you made $1000/week at your previous job, the max you’re going to get from Arizona UE is still $250/week, despite 60% being $600/week. Are they replacing the $600 PUA with a federally funded program that provides the missing income after the cap? What’s the limit on it and how in the f’n world would that even be regulated and distributed properly (I’m asking rhetorically because I know it’s not possible )? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 Right now reminds me of that moment at the top of the first hill of a rollercoaster, right before gravity takes hold and things speed up significantly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 I take a somewhat different -- though no less bleak --view than Mike. The most likely outcome is that the US "muddles" through the "Autumn Crisis of 2020", the elites view that as proof of...something and continue to whistle past the graveyard of political, economic, and social disintegration, the masses simply stop believing in the concept of the "United States", and eventually it just ceases to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said: I take a somewhat different -- though no less bleak --view than Mike. The most likely outcome is that the US "muddles" through the "Autumn Crisis of 2020", the elites view that as proof of...something and continue to whistle past the graveyard of political, economic, and social disintegration, the masses simply stop believing in the concept of the "United States", and eventually it just ceases to be. I think with either case it's absolutely imperative that we eliminate our nuclear stockpile as soon as possible. There won't be a clear successor state a la the USSR and Russia, so we may end up with a few subnational nuclear states, or a totalitarian domestic nuclear state Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 28 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: I think with either case it's absolutely imperative that we eliminate our nuclear stockpile as soon as possible. There won't be a clear successor state a la the USSR and Russia, so we may end up with a few subnational nuclear states, or a totalitarian domestic nuclear state Where are most of our nukes located? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 26, 2020 Author Share Posted July 26, 2020 21 minutes ago, MarSolo said: Where are most of our nukes located? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 23 minutes ago, MarSolo said: Where are most of our nukes located? In country per this site which no doubt put me on a list The navy has a lot which would be extremely problematic in a disintegrating federal order Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted July 26, 2020 Share Posted July 26, 2020 Russia and China be like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.