Fuck its silent in here.......

[PenPho]

This guy is an ignorant clown.  Most employers pay their employees after they have worked, not in advance.   The first paycheck comes at the end of the first month of employment, when it is determined whether the new employee has worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify.   Then the check is sent to the carrier to provide coverage.  

No.  Every job I've had since 1996 (before then I didn't have insurance), I've been covered since my first day of employment.

Morph's army of orphans, however have to wait 3 years before getting coverage.

[CBStew]

This guy is an ignorant clown.  Most employers pay their employees after they have worked, not in advance.   The first paycheck comes at the end of the first month of employment, when it is determined whether the new employee has worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify.   Then the check is sent to the carrier to provide coverage.  

No.  Every job I've had since 1996 (before then I didn't have insurance), I've been covered since my first day of employment.

My comment was that this was the case with "most" employers who provide coverage, not "all" employers.  You are apparently one of a fortunate few.  My comment is based upon literally thousands of contracts that I have seen over five decades.  And, by the way, is a characteristic of every public sector contract that I have ever seen.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

This guy is an ignorant clown.  Most employers pay their employees after they have worked, not in advance.   The first paycheck comes at the end of the first month of employment, when it is determined whether the new employee has worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify.   Then the check is sent to the carrier to provide coverage.  

No.  Every job I've had since 1996 (before then I didn't have insurance), I've been covered since my first day of employment.

My comment was that this was the case with "most" employers who provide coverage, not "all" employers.  You are apparently one of a fortunate few.  My comment is based upon literally thousands of contracts that I have seen over five decades.  And, by the way, is a characteristic of every public sector contract that I have ever seen.

What can we say, morph?  You're just exceptional.

*pats morpheus on the head*

[CT III]

This guy is an ignorant clown.  Most employers pay their employees after they have worked, not in advance.   The first paycheck comes at the end of the first month of employment, when it is determined whether the new employee has worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify.   Then the check is sent to the carrier to provide coverage.  

No.  Every job I've had since 1996 (before then I didn't have insurance), I've been covered since my first day of employment.

My comment was that this was the case with "most" employers who provide coverage, not "all" employers.  You are apparently one of a fortunate few.  My comment is based upon literally thousands of contracts that I have seen over five decades.  And, by the way, is a characteristic of every public sector contract that I have ever seen.

Although to be fair, Morph's experience provides a pretty good sample size.

Hell, his last 10 months do.

[Bort]

This guy is an ignorant clown.  Most employers pay their employees after they have worked, not in advance.   The first paycheck comes at the end of the first month of employment, when it is determined whether the new employee has worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify.   Then the check is sent to the carrier to provide coverage.  

No.  Every job I've had since 1996 (before then I didn't have insurance), I've been covered since my first day of employment.

My comment was that this was the case with "most" employers who provide coverage, not "all" employers.  You are apparently one of a fortunate few.  My comment is based upon literally thousands of contracts that I have seen over five decades.  And, by the way, is a characteristic of every public sector contract that I have ever seen.

What can we say, morph?  You're just exceptional.

*pats morpheus on the head tassles tousle's morpheus' hair*

Oleg'd

[morpheus]

Switching gears... Government Motors and the dangers of only considering what is seen when analyzing the BAILOUT.  That second link should be required reading for anyone purporting to perform economic analysis.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Switching gears... Government Motors and the dangers of only considering what is seen when analyzing the BAILOUT.  That second link should be required reading for anyone purporting to perform economic analysis.

Let's look at the first link:

"I've been saying for a while that I thought the government's exposure [euphemism for taxpayer losses] in the auto bailout was in the $10-billion to $20-billion range."

The bold is Forbes' editorializing.  "Exposure" is NOT a euphemism for loss.  It is a measure of risk.  My exposure on the house I financed in Highland Park is $2.6 million which equals the loan used to back the project.  My loss is unknown because I haven't sold the house yet.  If "exposure" equaled "loss" then I would sell that house for $0.

I won't argue with Rattner's numbers.  After all, they affirm one of my many criticisms of the bailout: that taxpayers would never recoup the value of their "investment."

They only affirm that Dan Ikenson is writing with an angle, not analysis.

Rattner admirably admits of a cost.  And that cost is not insignificant.  It is anywhere from $65 billion to $82 billion (the range of the cost of the bailout) minus what is being paid back and what investors are willing to pay for GM shares—in the "single-digit billion range," as Rattner says.

Here's where "cost" does equal "exposure."

The bottom line on the GM bailout appears to be this: The government invested just under $50 billion in GM.  After today, $23 billion should be repaid with the government still owning 33% of the company.  If the stock hits $53, the government comes out whole.  The "exposure" is $-0- at that point.  If it goes above $53, the taxpayer of the US make a profit.

Ikenson does go on and list a bunch of unseen costs in the transaction, and some of them are reasonable.  What about the unseen savings?  What about the CNC shop in Wheeling that sells to a guy that sells to a guy that sells to GM?  Might he have folded and put 25 people out of work while the process of the transition of "the sales and market share that should have gone to Ford or Honda or VW as part of the evolutionary market process" evolved?

Yes.  There are unseen costs.  There are also unseen benefits.  When a kid breaks a glass in his dad's shop and gets dressed down, maybe the kid learns something. Maybe the father stats doing business with the guy who replaces the glass.

That's the problem with unseen.  We can't see it all.

[morpheus]

Switching gears... Government Motors and the dangers of only considering what is seen when analyzing the BAILOUT.  That second link should be required reading for anyone purporting to perform economic analysis.

Let's look at the first link:

"I've been saying for a while that I thought the government's exposure [euphemism for taxpayer losses] in the auto bailout was in the $10-billion to $20-billion range."

The bold is Forbes' editorializing.  "Exposure" is NOT a euphemism for loss.  It is a measure of risk.  My exposure on the house I financed in Highland Park is $2.6 million which equals the loan used to back the project.  My loss is unknown because I haven't sold the house yet.  If "exposure" equaled "loss" then I would sell that house for $0.

I won't argue with Rattner's numbers.  After all, they affirm one of my many criticisms of the bailout: that taxpayers would never recoup the value of their "investment."

They only affirm that Dan Ikenson is writing with an angle, not analysis.

Rattner admirably admits of a cost.  And that cost is not insignificant.  It is anywhere from $65 billion to $82 billion (the range of the cost of the bailout) minus what is being paid back and what investors are willing to pay for GM shares—in the "single-digit billion range," as Rattner says.

Here's where "cost" does equal "exposure."

The bottom line on the GM bailout appears to be this: The government invested just under $50 billion in GM.  After today, $23 billion should be repaid with the government still owning 33% of the company.  If the stock hits $53, the government comes out whole.  The "exposure" is $-0- at that point.  If it goes above $53, the taxpayer of the US make a profit.

Ikenson does go on and list a bunch of unseen costs in the transaction, and some of them are reasonable.  What about the unseen savings?  What about the CNC shop in Wheeling that sells to a guy that sells to a guy that sells to GM?  Might he have folded and put 25 people out of work while the process of the transition of "the sales and market share that should have gone to Ford or Honda or VW as part of the evolutionary market process" evolved?

Yes.  There are unseen costs.  There are also unseen benefits.  When a kid breaks a glass in his dad's shop and gets dressed down, maybe the kid learns something. Maybe the father stats doing business with the guy who replaces the glass.

That's the problem with unseen.  We can't see it all.

You've illustrated the fallacy perfectly in your argument, Chuck.  What is seen is "oh noes that CNC guy had to fold up, how will they feed their children!!!???"  What is not seen is "GM's crappy product employed resources inefficiently, and their bankruptcy led to people doing better things with their lives than supplying GM with parts to make crappy products."  Or, "Ford/Honda/VW, after taking over GM's resources, needs the good or service that the CNC guy provided, so the CNC guy's competitors hire 20 of the 25 workers, and the other 5 go on to more economically useful/productive jobs, so everyone ends up ahead."

You are focusing on what is seen (the guy with 25 employees) versus what is not seen (better use of resources leads to benefits for many consumers).

[J. Walter Weatherman]

What is not seen is "GM's crappy product employed resources inefficiently, and their bankruptcy led to people doing better things with their lives than supplying GM with parts to make crappy products."

In the middle of a once-in-a-half-century worldwide economic contraction. You know... in the abstract.

Related: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html

[morpheus]

What is not seen is "GM's crappy product employed resources inefficiently, and their bankruptcy led to people doing better things with their lives than supplying GM with parts to make crappy products."

In the middle of a once-in-a-half-century worldwide economic contraction. You know... in the abstract.

Related: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html

I think http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/opinion/18clemens.html is more relevant to GM.

[Slaky]

Switching gears... Government Motors and the dangers of only considering what is seen when analyzing the BAILOUT.  That second link should be required reading for anyone purporting to perform economic analysis.

Do you guys have meetings where you come up with cute nicknames for stuff?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

For Pen...

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/16/5477568-are-airport-x-ray-scanners-harmful

Peter Rez, a physics professor at Arizona State University in Tempe, did his own calculations and found the exposure to be about one-fiftieth to one-hundredth the amount of a standard chest X-ray. He calculated the risk of getting cancer from a single scan at about 1 in 30 million, "which puts it somewhat less than being killed by being struck by lightning in any one year," he told me.

While the risk of getting a fatal cancer from the screening is minuscule, it's about equal to the probability that an airplane will get blown up by a terrorist, he added. "So my view is there is not a case to be made for deploying them to prevent such a low probability event."

[Gilgamesh]

Switching gears... Government Motors and the dangers of only considering what is seen when analyzing the BAILOUT.  That second link should be required reading for anyone purporting to perform economic analysis.

Do you guys have meetings where you come up with cute nicknames for stuff?

Like the Death Tax?  Or Democrat [sic] Party?  Or the transformation of the word "liberal" into an epithet?

[Quality Start Machine]

Switching gears... Government Motors and the dangers of only considering what is seen when analyzing the BAILOUT.  That second link should be required reading for anyone purporting to perform economic analysis.

Do you guys have meetings where you come up with cute nicknames for stuff?

He's on the Roger Ailes conference call every morning.

[Bort]

Or the transformation of the word "liberal" into an epithet?

Frankly, the current crop of liberals has done a good enough job on their own discrediting the term over the past 20 years.