This is my personal take on things, notice I haven't supplied references, so agree with what you can agree with and pitch the rest.
GM just bought back 20 billion of its own stock and the net result is that it is down 3% for the year. Even market can't suspend disbelief on GM. That's money that could have been spent on R&D and new factories but instead it was spend on trying buy off Wall St because the market doesn't believe in its future. GM is in a very transparent place. For instance Musk predicted Bolt sales to within about 1000 units because he said GM wasn't serious and was only trying to game the subsidies- more below on that. Now GM shows a concept electric car with no controls- at this point likely an attempt to anti sell electric cars.
There is a solid basis for the market's non-belief in GM. GM is essentially in the petrol retail business. Its core purpose in reality was always to help move petrol. That is still its focus. And that completely undermines confidence in its future, because that exact focus has a huge history of failure and under the most ideal of conditions. For instance, at the height of the most pro petrol regime in history, the W. Admin, GM went bankrupt. Hmm... what was the supposed cause? GM said it was unions. But then look at BMW and its unions and it stomped GM during that period, double the profit, double the pay and double the benefits etc. GM went bankrupt because of unions? Its part of why Obama lopped the head off GM as part of its bailout condition, because of this kind of basic dishonesty.
The lie was very much like the other bailout lie. The W. Admin crashed the economy. Why did that happen? Per the petrol focused W. Admin it was because of home loans to poor people and poor people being to lazy to pay of their VAR loans. In reality it was because of banking derivatives collapsing. Then as today most derivatives were insuring petrol debt. So in essence petrol couldn't pay its debts because it was failing as usual, and that triggered insurance payout s but there was so much default that it collapsed the global financial sector. But how could that have happened. Well in part it is because petrol debt is blind debt by law (because petrol is such a piece of sht business- no one would insure it otherwise) so people who insure it seek to insure themselves without limit.
Don't believe it- then here's another hint, remember the Goldman Sachs exec recently noting that petrol had to borrow from big banking to pay its dividends, and his quip that big oil was never all that big? It can't make its loan payments but it still borrows to pay dividends? That is the kind of idiocy it runs on and it inspired the banking industry to do similar things with its bonuses. And ask yourself why it needs debt in the first place if it's so successful, and you will see that it's in chronic insolvent debt despite endless unbelievable subsidence and chronic to the point of routine but increasing massive destabilizing bailouts. Take a look at Saudi Arabia. Ask yourself how Obama who was all of the above and out of coal country ended up take such steps against petro- it is because they were inevitable and even tepid although it will be his public legacy.
The truth about petrol is that it has never been successful has been the biggest loser industry in history. As a recent year example, global petrol fuel/energy took in about 1.25 trillion in supposed revenue, but global direct state subsidies to the industry were about 1.5 trillion- most of it likely tragically coming from the US. So you understand that in that year petrol was not only not profitable it was not even revenue positive. So you also understand that its phony profits were simply transfer payments to the rich or more welfare for the rich. Petrol is the ultimate "welfare queen" that its proponents are always projecting about. And why is that? Because that year wasn't just a fluke it's the norm or maybe even the good end of the norm because you see petrol has in its history never been revenue positive let alone profitable. This is why garbage like the the Cheny energy task for has to be top secret- but its a secret that is out in the obvious open. And if you think about it the US claims to be a 17 trillion dollar economy (even if most or much of it is phony) and the US is only a fraction of the global economy- say 100 trillion a year, so why do we hear so much about this piece of sht industry when its supposedly only takes up about 1% of the economy?
Its because even the above isn't even scratching the surface of how pathetic petrol actually is, because its financials and its reality are much worse than the above in actuality. Beyond even its books being garbage, in that the majority of its assets are not just politically stranded, but economically stranded, beyond even that is its now long term need for regular bailouts and its astronomical externalities. Starting with just externalities or indirect subsidies governments (people) globally pay an additional 6.5-7 trillion in externality damage annually to help prop up petrol. But now lets add the cost of the its routine and increasingly destabilizing bailouts generally in the form or wars or financial scams.
Take the 90s. The Wall had fallen which was certainly going to impact petrol's normal free fall. During the 90s the US added about 13% more population and CAFE (fuel standards) stayed level but petrol was failing again as evidenced by a 16% decrease in petrol retail stations in the US. And this came even afer the the attempted major bailout with the first Iraq war in the early part of the 90s, but by 2000 radical action would be needed, you see even the Iraq war couldn't stem the shrinkage as evidenced in petrol retail, so by the W. admin Bush part 2 it was a total petrol emergency. So here we go. Presidential selection of W. just like with T- as petrol is in trouble as usual. Yep, install the loser, but in the case of T. the opponent was a natural gas sales woman. Then the Enron scam- used essentially to bankrupt California and to prop up (bail-out) natural gas- have to wonder if that was part of the Cheny task force- but that was a mere 40 billion designed to help undermine opponents while enriching (bailing out) natural gas cronies. Then 911- during which 2 trillion dollars disappeared from the treasury- another bailout. Then Iraq- another 4 trillion dollar bail- out, then Afganistan maybe another 1.5 trillion dollar bailout. And even when the Bush admin ended there is another 500 billion a year apparently unnecessarily added to the defense budget that didn't go away when wars wound down, again more bailout this time annually under idiotic non democratic sequestration- again necessary to cover the petrol scam. Then add 20 trillion for TARP which was still a Bush admin effort but still a bailout of petrol.And think of cost of the political damage to the US for wars of aggression- can you put a dollar cost on that?
So during the W. admin 27 trillion in bailouts were thrown at the petrol industry and in the midst of this GM still failed. Granted GM failed after 7 trillion were thrown at petrol but this was in addition to its usual subsidies during a tight 7 year period.
But what causes this and how did we get here?
Remember in the US that slavery actually ended around 1950 even if technically long before that. And around that time people were noticing the incredibly low economic efficiency of petrol- hence things like the emergence of the peak oil thesis. By then petrol was already mature tech, built out in markets and at scale but policy people couldn't help but realize that it totally sucked and was never self-sufficient always needed subsidies etc. But economic non viability would become a its main feature shortly thereafter. Also it penchant for driving unnecessary wars was a feature. For perspective we could have been rid of petrol in the 1950s and should have been rid of it. Even a pure dirty fission based global society would have been preferable and quite possibly led to a lot less proliferation.
Around 1970, approximately 2000 economists including economists on the right told the global policy people that "the economic problem" had been solved and that capitalism was dead (nice message during the cold war.)Dead because automation had already obviated labor and hence capital as well as capital is the other side of the labor coin. So next came crap like the Powell memo. Because economists were saying work was over and people should be paid from birth to death an unconditional high indexed guaranteed annual income- think radically expanded social security. They said in 1870 under agriculture 97% of people worked in the field 16 hour a days, 7 days a week and it was feast or famine but in 1970 the US 3% of people worked in the field and the US could feed the world, hence start people on social security at age 0, increase the rate and make it indexed. Keep in mind that part of this was due to agriculture, as before language and tools people were sufficient outside the nest on 4hrs of work per day. Some animals are sufficient on less than 13 minutes of effort per day. Economists were telling capital that 97% of people needed to be freed from its influence and that it should dry up and join the masses. Note the US incarcerates 3% of its people now.
continued in next post
GM just bought back 20 billion of its own stock and the net result is that it is down 3% for the year. Even market can't suspend disbelief on GM. That's money that could have been spent on R&D and new factories but instead it was spend on trying buy off Wall St because the market doesn't believe in its future. GM is in a very transparent place. For instance Musk predicted Bolt sales to within about 1000 units because he said GM wasn't serious and was only trying to game the subsidies- more below on that. Now GM shows a concept electric car with no controls- at this point likely an attempt to anti sell electric cars.
There is a solid basis for the market's non-belief in GM. GM is essentially in the petrol retail business. Its core purpose in reality was always to help move petrol. That is still its focus. And that completely undermines confidence in its future, because that exact focus has a huge history of failure and under the most ideal of conditions. For instance, at the height of the most pro petrol regime in history, the W. Admin, GM went bankrupt. Hmm... what was the supposed cause? GM said it was unions. But then look at BMW and its unions and it stomped GM during that period, double the profit, double the pay and double the benefits etc. GM went bankrupt because of unions? Its part of why Obama lopped the head off GM as part of its bailout condition, because of this kind of basic dishonesty.
The lie was very much like the other bailout lie. The W. Admin crashed the economy. Why did that happen? Per the petrol focused W. Admin it was because of home loans to poor people and poor people being to lazy to pay of their VAR loans. In reality it was because of banking derivatives collapsing. Then as today most derivatives were insuring petrol debt. So in essence petrol couldn't pay its debts because it was failing as usual, and that triggered insurance payout s but there was so much default that it collapsed the global financial sector. But how could that have happened. Well in part it is because petrol debt is blind debt by law (because petrol is such a piece of sht business- no one would insure it otherwise) so people who insure it seek to insure themselves without limit.
Don't believe it- then here's another hint, remember the Goldman Sachs exec recently noting that petrol had to borrow from big banking to pay its dividends, and his quip that big oil was never all that big? It can't make its loan payments but it still borrows to pay dividends? That is the kind of idiocy it runs on and it inspired the banking industry to do similar things with its bonuses. And ask yourself why it needs debt in the first place if it's so successful, and you will see that it's in chronic insolvent debt despite endless unbelievable subsidence and chronic to the point of routine but increasing massive destabilizing bailouts. Take a look at Saudi Arabia. Ask yourself how Obama who was all of the above and out of coal country ended up take such steps against petro- it is because they were inevitable and even tepid although it will be his public legacy.
The truth about petrol is that it has never been successful has been the biggest loser industry in history. As a recent year example, global petrol fuel/energy took in about 1.25 trillion in supposed revenue, but global direct state subsidies to the industry were about 1.5 trillion- most of it likely tragically coming from the US. So you understand that in that year petrol was not only not profitable it was not even revenue positive. So you also understand that its phony profits were simply transfer payments to the rich or more welfare for the rich. Petrol is the ultimate "welfare queen" that its proponents are always projecting about. And why is that? Because that year wasn't just a fluke it's the norm or maybe even the good end of the norm because you see petrol has in its history never been revenue positive let alone profitable. This is why garbage like the the Cheny energy task for has to be top secret- but its a secret that is out in the obvious open. And if you think about it the US claims to be a 17 trillion dollar economy (even if most or much of it is phony) and the US is only a fraction of the global economy- say 100 trillion a year, so why do we hear so much about this piece of sht industry when its supposedly only takes up about 1% of the economy?
Its because even the above isn't even scratching the surface of how pathetic petrol actually is, because its financials and its reality are much worse than the above in actuality. Beyond even its books being garbage, in that the majority of its assets are not just politically stranded, but economically stranded, beyond even that is its now long term need for regular bailouts and its astronomical externalities. Starting with just externalities or indirect subsidies governments (people) globally pay an additional 6.5-7 trillion in externality damage annually to help prop up petrol. But now lets add the cost of the its routine and increasingly destabilizing bailouts generally in the form or wars or financial scams.
Take the 90s. The Wall had fallen which was certainly going to impact petrol's normal free fall. During the 90s the US added about 13% more population and CAFE (fuel standards) stayed level but petrol was failing again as evidenced by a 16% decrease in petrol retail stations in the US. And this came even afer the the attempted major bailout with the first Iraq war in the early part of the 90s, but by 2000 radical action would be needed, you see even the Iraq war couldn't stem the shrinkage as evidenced in petrol retail, so by the W. admin Bush part 2 it was a total petrol emergency. So here we go. Presidential selection of W. just like with T- as petrol is in trouble as usual. Yep, install the loser, but in the case of T. the opponent was a natural gas sales woman. Then the Enron scam- used essentially to bankrupt California and to prop up (bail-out) natural gas- have to wonder if that was part of the Cheny task force- but that was a mere 40 billion designed to help undermine opponents while enriching (bailing out) natural gas cronies. Then 911- during which 2 trillion dollars disappeared from the treasury- another bailout. Then Iraq- another 4 trillion dollar bail- out, then Afganistan maybe another 1.5 trillion dollar bailout. And even when the Bush admin ended there is another 500 billion a year apparently unnecessarily added to the defense budget that didn't go away when wars wound down, again more bailout this time annually under idiotic non democratic sequestration- again necessary to cover the petrol scam. Then add 20 trillion for TARP which was still a Bush admin effort but still a bailout of petrol.And think of cost of the political damage to the US for wars of aggression- can you put a dollar cost on that?
So during the W. admin 27 trillion in bailouts were thrown at the petrol industry and in the midst of this GM still failed. Granted GM failed after 7 trillion were thrown at petrol but this was in addition to its usual subsidies during a tight 7 year period.
But what causes this and how did we get here?
Remember in the US that slavery actually ended around 1950 even if technically long before that. And around that time people were noticing the incredibly low economic efficiency of petrol- hence things like the emergence of the peak oil thesis. By then petrol was already mature tech, built out in markets and at scale but policy people couldn't help but realize that it totally sucked and was never self-sufficient always needed subsidies etc. But economic non viability would become a its main feature shortly thereafter. Also it penchant for driving unnecessary wars was a feature. For perspective we could have been rid of petrol in the 1950s and should have been rid of it. Even a pure dirty fission based global society would have been preferable and quite possibly led to a lot less proliferation.
Around 1970, approximately 2000 economists including economists on the right told the global policy people that "the economic problem" had been solved and that capitalism was dead (nice message during the cold war.)Dead because automation had already obviated labor and hence capital as well as capital is the other side of the labor coin. So next came crap like the Powell memo. Because economists were saying work was over and people should be paid from birth to death an unconditional high indexed guaranteed annual income- think radically expanded social security. They said in 1870 under agriculture 97% of people worked in the field 16 hour a days, 7 days a week and it was feast or famine but in 1970 the US 3% of people worked in the field and the US could feed the world, hence start people on social security at age 0, increase the rate and make it indexed. Keep in mind that part of this was due to agriculture, as before language and tools people were sufficient outside the nest on 4hrs of work per day. Some animals are sufficient on less than 13 minutes of effort per day. Economists were telling capital that 97% of people needed to be freed from its influence and that it should dry up and join the masses. Note the US incarcerates 3% of its people now.
continued in next post
