(with capacative screen)
Microcenter already sells a $39 Azpen A700 with the exact same specs. What am I missing?
And yet...nobody is in jail, being fined, or even refunding all that money they were paid to develop it.
That only punishes the workers (and the taxpayer if they need another bailout because of it).
The people who really need punishing will happily watch you do that from their yachts.
But only if the government is involved, it is all the fault of of the government, right?
When the government uses force to take money from ordinary people "invests" it for them, losing $10 billion on the deal, then yes. It's their fault.
If the people whose jobs/future that were saved by that "investment" now have an excess of $28 billion in cash, they should give it back to the people who were forced to help them (with threats of jail, etc. if they didn't).
I'm long past tired of "investors" suing for their losses. You want to gamble with your money, you take the risk of losing it.
It wasn't their money to gamble with. It belonged to the taxpayers.
The people at GM should be glad they still have a company and jobs to go to. Saying "thankyou" to the taxpayer doesn't make any sense to you? It's not like they don't have the money (in cash) to do so.
Why should he? This wasn't a loan. They took stock just like any poor shlub who tried to make a buck on GM stock.
Did "they" buy shares voluntarily or were they forced to buy them by a government who was trying to save people's jobs?
This isn't personal. His job is to protect shareholder value. He indicated, in the interview, that if he paid back the $10B loss he would be opening GM up to lawsuits from every other shareholder who lost money in the bankruptcy.
a) Those 'other shareholders' bought the shares voluntarily. The taxpayer didn't.
b) Those 'other shareholders' should probably be grateful that their shares aren't valued at $0 right now. Thanks to the taxpayer.
It's sad that the law can't ever make an exception to do the decent thing without exposing itself to a bunch of assholes who're just trying to game the system.
The government did not issue a loan, they bought a large amount of stock.
a) Would they have purchased that stock if it hadn't been a "bailout"?
b) A "loan" would have left them with nothing if the company had tanked. A stock purchase would entitle them to some company assets to sell off, this is what most people call "security".
a) It's the right thing to do, the money he took belonged to the people.
b) It won't affect him, personally, on any level. His paycheck will be as big as ever.
I guess he just enjoys being a tyrant and saying "no" to people when they come to him with reasonable requests.
Yep. There's no *legal* requirement for him to pay back the money he took from the people that are keeping him in a life of luxury, so why should he? It's not as if his management was in any way linked to the shitty cars that weren't selling enough to keep the company going. Nope. Not a bit.