Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Termyn8or -> Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 9:54:30 AM)

Hardly anyone thinks of it this way huh. In the days of hordes of suits lining up at the Whitehouse to get what pretty much amounts to welfare, has anyone thought of who is not there ?

This is a spawn of what I call omnidirectional thinking. I learned about lateral thinking before I hit puberty, this is more advanced. I tend to look for the root cause of a problem, and when I solve a problem it is usually solved for good, not just hobbling along with a bandaid, which seems to be the trend these days.

However, back to the point, who is NOT asking for a bailout ? The entertainment industry and media, Hollywood. Amusement parks. Grocers, TV shops, cobblers, bakeries. Who else ? I know of a gasket company that does not have tin cup in hand.

Where I work the government doesn't come to give money, they come to take money. TV stations and networks, cable companies, banks that haven't been bought out, roofers, contractors. none of them even asking for, let alone getting a bailout.

What say you ? Who else is not asking for a bailout ? Perhaps this is a moot point, but it could be a good pointer to what kind of business to go into. Like an economic compass, could such thinking lead some into financial success in these times of distress ?

All opinions welcome, you can't piss me off, even if you say I am full of shit. But the fact still remains that certain businesses are still making money, and some actually make more when the economy is stressed (understatement of the year eh ?).

Insurance companies (figuring Merc will ring in on that). What else ? The guy on TV with the Ronco flapper that can fry you a hamburger in two seconds and do your hair while you sit at the kitchen table ? S_Mark who has ACTUALLY succeeded in business ? There are a few others.

About Mark, he has a chain of stores, he can't be there all the time. That is how to succeed, you don't buy yourself a job. If you buy yourself a job you have one store, a big bottle of pills for your ulcer and another for the migraines. Business is to get it running to the point where you don't have to watch it every minute, kinda like raising a kid. At some point you can walk away and then you can, when you choose, to do it again.

That's right, though I would never tell him, my boss is a failure. It is a hands on business and he has to be there. He does not know how to delegate responsibilities nor who to delegate them in them first place. Successful businwesmen are not out in the showroom haggling with custiomers, they have people to do that for them. Thwe secret of getting rich is really no secret, and it doesn't take degrees or other letters after one's name. It just takes a certain kind of sense, and a bit of ambition in the beginning.

And I have to say it once, but will say it only once. Who else doesn't have tin cup in hand at the Whitehouse ?

Oil companies.

T



housesub4you -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 1:23:36 PM)

Term....hate to bring more bad news but Amusement parks well at least one will be asking for help Six Flags will be broke by the end of this year, they have not had a positive cash flow in over 3 years. 

So take them off your list.  Death always seems to make money.  Perhaps I should look for work in the funeral Business now, but even that is being taken over by huge national companies and forcing the family owned funeral home to close up shop



ScooterTrash -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 1:50:12 PM)

Let's all pool together and start a chain of bars, we can call them the counter bail or something like that. Bars will always do a bang up business when life gets the general populus down.



rulemylife -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 2:00:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or


And I have to say it once, but will say it only once. Who else doesn't have tin cup in hand at the Whitehouse ?

Oil companies.

T


They don't need to.

They've been receiving a bailout for years in the billions of dollars in tax subsidies they receive for "new exploration".

I guess year after year of record profits just isn't enough for them to finance their own development costs.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 2:26:09 PM)

quote:

Insurance companies (figuring Merc will ring in on that).
Didn't really want to get into this, because its damn near impossible to document and detail all the 'worms' living in this 'can'. But WTF - it's raining and freezing (53~!) and the business doing great, good thing people need insurance and don't have money. A 'perfect storm' for my purposes.

Term - AIG was up in front of that line weren't they?

Insurance entities are the most precarious of all institutions because they don't make any, or much, money on insurance. Their income comes from investing premium dollars.

Operating ratios of expense to premiums written commonly exceed 100%. It's only after investment income is added into the equation that they are considered "profitable". See the house of cards that sets in motion?

Insurance entities are set up to generate investment dollars. Underwriting gets some consideration, but in a 'soft market' an underwriter for a big premium will commonly ask the agent - "what can you sell?" Once those premium dollars come in the front door they go out the back as investments and that's where the money is made, and not much money at that. In theory, the investments are supposed to be in 'secure' investment instruments. Traditionally the more secure the investment the lower the return. You know what was considered the MOST secure, investment? You guessed it - Real Estate, property and even better, single family resident mortgages. Relatively low ROI, but always considered 'liquid' and never worth less than the underlying collateral - property. Until now that is.

There is not an insurance company out there that is not living on the edge. There is not one who isn't heavily invested in Banking industry managed real estate mortgages both commercial and personal. They may be at the base, but they are a big part of the 'house of cards'.

Me - I don't need a 'bailout'. I have a nice little business that funds P&C insurance loans. Liquid enough to survive about 2 years and mobile enough to be gone when that time expires.

I'll say this - any company, industry, or individual who doesn't need a bail-out now - WILL need one after this proposed 'stimulus' package hits the streets. You better have some hard currency and liquidity handy.

Were all the 'worst cases' to come true based upon my reading and research covering the current economic conditions this is projecting to be a summer where you'll need a gun to take your groceries home from the store - IF there are grocery stores. 

The story so far...
  • GM is taking the first batch of bail out money to South America.
  • Failed Banks can't lend more because any buy out only covers up losses and doesn't increase the lending base.
  • There is NO scrutiny contained in the package, other than executive compensation, included in the Bill.
  • Congress admits to not knowing how and where the money will be spent.

There are going to be a LOT of pissed off people roaming the streets once the weather breaks.



Crush -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 4:45:21 PM)

I wrote my Congressman and BOTH Senators asking for my piece...told them for $500k I'd be able bailed out and would put a bunch of money back into the economy as I paid of mortgage and CCards....

Only got a standard form letter back.....  Guess I needed to ask for more...



MmeGigs -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 6:59:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Hardly anyone thinks of it this way huh. 


There are a lot of folks out there who think of it this way.  I think that most folks do.  The stuff you see on political discussion boards, editorial pages, poliblogs and such really isn't representative of the population as a whole. 

quote:

I tend to look for the root cause of a problem, and when I solve a problem it is usually solved for good, not just hobbling along with a bandaid, which seems to be the trend these days.


I tend to do the same myself.  I don't think that choosing short-term expediency over long-term efficacy is a new trend, though.  We've been doing this for a long time - that's most of how we got here.  I don't think that there's one root cause for our economic problem, nor will there be one solution for it.  I think that we all agree that a big part of the solution is to create jobs.  I think that the kind of jobs we create will be what determines whether this will be a real solution or a bandaid. 

I've seen recent references here to the folks who don't pay taxes.  In the past, conservative posters here have said that 40% of workers don't pay taxes.  If we're talking income tax and figuring in EIC and such, that's probably a fairly accurate figure.  A big chunk of those folks are net drains on the budget - they not only aren't paying in, they're getting some back.  The rest of us - the 60% of us who pay in - are not only supplying what these folks get back, we're paying their share of the 75% or so of the budget that goes to stuff that's not social spending.  30% of the taxes that we net-contributors pay is to cover the non-contributors' share of these expenses.  I agree with the folks who have brought this up that it's an unsustainable situation and that us net-contributors are getting screwed.  The kind of jobs we create as we come out of this will determine whether we'll be more screwed or less screwed once everything shakes out. 

We're starting out with a 2:3 ratio of workers who are net-drains to those who are net-contributors.  That ought to be a pretty shocking statistic.  The folks who have brought this up seem to see it as some failing on the part of the folks who are net drains.  That strikes me as a bit surreal.  I'll bet that there's nothing these 40% of workers who are net drains would like more than to make enough money that they'd become net contributors, but there aren't enough decent paying jobs out there.  If there were, these folks who are net drains wouldn't make up 40% of the workforce. 

If we create more low-wage jobs we are putting more people on the net-drain side and changing this ratio unfavorably.  We can put limits on the money we spend on the net-drain folks, but that still leaves proportionately fewer of us to pick up the tab for the rest of the budget.  The fewer of us there are paying in, the bigger the share each of us has to pay - there's no way that it can be otherwise.  In addition, these low-wage workers won't be buying new stuff that will help to get businesses back on their feet.  They'll be lining up at the food shelf and shopping at Savers and the Dollar Store.   

If we create more living wage jobs, we change the ratio of net-drains to net-contributors favorably.  There's less demand for money for programs that fill in the gap for low-wage workers because proportionately fewer people will need that help.  A larger proportion of workers will be net contributors helping to cover the lion's share of govt spending that has nothing to do with support for low wages.  In addition, we'll have more people who are able to afford to buy the things that our businesses produce. 

How we go about creating these living wage jobs is a whole other can of worms.

quote:

And I have to say it once, but will say it only once. Who else doesn't have tin cup in hand at the Whitehouse ?

Oil companies.


Are you sure?  They haven't come out looking for a piece of the bailout money, but that doesn't mean they don't have their hands out on Capitol Hill.  I'm sure that their lobbyists are looking for ways to get a cut of the stimulus, same as every other lobbyist.  If they weren't, they wouldn't be doing their job.



Lynnxz -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 9:15:29 PM)

Plummers.

Those guys will always have business... you may not have the cash to go get a new enormous tv... but you sure as hell are going to fix the toilet thats backing sewage through your kitchen ceiling.

Bars are reporting lower profits, Construction is at a standstill unless you're one of the really big guys with a bad ass contract... eh. Sucks.



Vendaval -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 9:24:49 PM)

Dollar stores and thrift stores, bootleggers and drug dealers



Lynnxz -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 9:26:52 PM)

Mcdonalds and Walmart saw profit for black friday I think. 



Vendaval -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 9:36:58 PM)

One of the humorous moments in the bailouts mess is Larry Flynt's petition for a bail-out of the Adult Entertainment Industry.

"Adult industry leaders Flynt and Francis sent a joint request to Congress asking for $5 billion in federal assistance, “Just to see us through hard times,” Francis said. “Congress seems willing to help shore up our nation’s most important businesses, we feel we deserve the same consideration. In difficult economic times, Americans turn to entertainment for relief. More and more, the kind of entertainment they turn to is adult entertainment.”

But according to Flynt the recession has acted like a national cold shower. “People are too depressed to be sexually active,” Flynt says, “This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex.”"

http://larryflynt.com/?p=558




Hippiekinkster -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 9:46:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynnxz

Plummers.

Those guys will always have business... you may not have the cash to go get a new enormous tv... but you sure as hell are going to fix the toilet thats backing sewage through your kitchen ceiling.

Bars are reporting lower profits, Construction is at a standstill unless you're one of the really big guys with a bad ass contract... eh. Sucks.

Plumbing is some of the easiest shit to do. And plumbers are almost as crooked as Doctors. There's an ad in my neighborhood newsletter (1600 houses in my subdivision - bigger than many towns) from some plumber trying to talk people into buying a new toilet if the old one is backing up, or isn't flushing right, or whatever. TOILETS DO NOT WEAR OUT! For fucks sake. These cocksuckers are frauds, plain and simple.

I'd say 95% of plumbing problems can be solved by remembering two things:
1: Water runs downhill
2: Home Depot has the parts you need

Electrical is equally as simple, but a bit more hazardous than plumbing.

Look, you have people who can't add 2 and 2 doing this shit. YOU can do it, too.

I remodelled a condo near the river in Sandy Springs back in 2002. I got a buyer, but there was a hitch. I had to have a quit-claim from a woman who lived in Madrid, Spain. meanwhile, there were some trivial things (punchlist) that needed doing, and I was low on time. So I hired a couple guys who were recommended by our local hotshot realtor. I'd just installed 6 inch baseboard, and some caulking needed to get done. SO these guys started doing some caulking. Really sloppy work. I said that was unacceptable. "Well, the precision caulking work, with straight edges, will cost you more. This is our contractor-grade caulking work." "You mean to tell me that you only do your best work if you get more money?" Goddamn, that pissed me off. They were out the door. I stayed up late and drank coffee and ate percocets, and got it done myself.

That just blew me away. And I find that attitude in most "tradesmen". Shitty work unless one pays a chunk of change. Fuck them.

Oh, I have more stories. I've done right around a house a year since 98,  3 of them down to the studs. Sometimes one needs to get some extra help. The assholes just have no conception of the idea that the customer might know a thing or two. I could keep on ranting. Most tradespeople are moronic jerkoffs. A Union would help get rid of those fucks, especially the illegals.



MrRodgers -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 10:18:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: housesub4you

Term....hate to bring more bad news but Amusement parks well at least one will be asking for help Six Flags will be broke by the end of this year, they have not had a positive cash flow in over 3 years. 

So take them off your list.  Death always seems to make money.  Perhaps I should look for work in the funeral Business now, but even that is being taken over by huge national companies and forcing the family owned funeral home to close up shop

I think we should all be plumbers...never a shortage of demand for plumbers.

Although we could sell some cunt-backed securities. You know...good paper with
some meat behind it.



Vendaval -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/9/2009 10:29:52 PM)

Yeah, but gotta do something about the plummers dress code!  [sm=ass.gif]



ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/10/2009 1:18:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Yeah, but gotta do something about the plummers dress code!  [sm=ass.gif]


Nah, hairy butt crack is the best way to repel repair advice from those too squeamish or mechanically handicapped to do the job themselves. They're clients, you can't really tell them to shut the f-up if you'd like repeat business. A little unwanted, unflattering exhibitionism gets the job done and doesn't insult the client.







Vendaval -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/10/2009 1:19:54 AM)

Hey, if they show up with a bare hairy ass then the cold wax treatment comes out.  Works like a charm on the short fuzzy prickly bits.



MrRodgers -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/10/2009 5:25:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Insurance companies (figuring Merc will ring in on that).
Didn't really want to get into this, because its damn near impossible to document and detail all the 'worms' living in this 'can'. But WTF - it's raining and freezing (53~!) and the business doing great, good thing people need insurance and don't have money. A 'perfect storm' for my purposes.

Term - AIG was up in front of that line weren't they?

Insurance entities are the most precarious of all institutions because they don't make any, or much, money on insurance. Their income comes from investing premium dollars.

Operating ratios of expense to premiums written commonly exceed 100%. It's only after investment income is added into the equation that they are considered "profitable". See the house of cards that sets in motion?

Insurance entities are set up to generate investment dollars. Underwriting gets some consideration, but in a 'soft market' an underwriter for a big premium will commonly ask the agent - "what can you sell?" Once those premium dollars come in the front door they go out the back as investments and that's where the money is made, and not much money at that. In theory, the investments are supposed to be in 'secure' investment instruments. Traditionally the more secure the investment the lower the return. You know what was considered the MOST secure, investment? You guessed it - Real Estate, property and even better, single family resident mortgages. Relatively low ROI, but always considered 'liquid' and never worth less than the underlying collateral - property. Until now that is.

There is not an insurance company out there that is not living on the edge. There is not one who isn't heavily invested in Banking industry managed real estate mortgages both commercial and personal. They may be at the base, but they are a big part of the 'house of cards'.

Me - I don't need a 'bailout'. I have a nice little business that funds P&C insurance loans. Liquid enough to survive about 2 years and mobile enough to be gone when that time expires.

I'll say this - any company, industry, or individual who doesn't need a bail-out now - WILL need one after this proposed 'stimulus' package hits the streets. You better have some hard currency and liquidity handy.

Were all the 'worst cases' to come true based upon my reading and research covering the current economic conditions this is projecting to be a summer where you'll need a gun to take your groceries home from the store - IF there are grocery stores. 

The story so far...
  • GM is taking the first batch of bail out money to South America.
  • Failed Banks can't lend more because any buy out only covers up losses and doesn't increase the lending base.
  • There is NO scrutiny contained in the package, other than executive compensation, included in the Bill.
  • Congress admits to not knowing how and where the money will be spent.


There are going to be a LOT of pissed off people roaming the streets once the weather breaks.

First, you are basically correct about the insurance business but after decades since the Mcfadden act (1945) post WW II, the insurance industry has for obvious reasons...been the cash-richest industry on the planet.

Part of the reason is little infastructure and overhead costs plus returns in good years begin to really add up. Mortgages purchased on real estate for example are structured so that all of the cash flow goes to the lender and are not needed as much as it is tax free income to developers.

Obtaining a non-recourse 20 year mortgage on my building for example, means I pocket the spread and walk away from it. The insurance co. takes the property and the balance to me...is tax free. I didn't sell the building so no capital gains and my money is simply proceeds of a loan, i.e., non-taxable.

I just don't understand your diatribe on this bailout/stimulus. There is nothing in it or the $trillion for wall street to suggest that we are headed for the depression so many claim.

We are nowhere near as bad off as in 1929 have many more protections, have a much larger and more resilient economy. We have unemployment insurance, severence benefits, people will start some businesses (I am starting 2) with some very skilled people in the home improvement and service business.

Also, the fed cut off money supply in 1929...we have an open spicket now. Also, as in that period, we don't have 16,000 private banks going out of business.

Economy heads in different directions when adjustments are necessary. Find one direction and you can do business.

BTW the story of GM taking money to Brazil was a ruse. GM immediately reported that's not true. The only caveat is that as we both know...money is fungable and this whole stimulus pales in comparison to the greed and sense of entitlement on wall street. Plus, this stimulus bill has a whole lot more oversight than did the wall street bailout.



MrRodgers -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/10/2009 5:29:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynnxz

Mcdonalds and Walmart saw profit for black friday I think. 

But I don't think they are hiring...are they ?



Lucylastic -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/10/2009 5:35:05 AM)

THinks about starting up a  butt waxing business for builders and plumbers....
Lucy




UncleNasty -> RE: Who DOESN'T need a bailout ? (2/10/2009 7:08:59 AM)

You're full of shit Term.

Uncle Nasty (happily typing 2 handed with only minor disability remaining)



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
2.734375E-02