Trump Again--Dec 7, 2011

December 7, 2011

Dec 7, 2011, Donald Trump goes public with his view that Barack Obama is arrogant! From the most arrogant guy I know in the whole media scene--how ridiculous! Does it not occur to him that he is widely regarded as the kind of arrogance?

And, his recent "disclosure" of his wealth at $7B, regrettably one indicator to many of his wisdom and acumen, is very likely to be wildly distorted to the upside. Forgetting all the banks and others who have lost fortunes in association with him in his past failures, we can only say: "Donald, produce all the details to support these claims--property addresses, descriptions, valuation calculations, etc." It's highly doubtful that he can legitimately claim a fraction of this if subjected to proper scrutiny.

It's just too much to really believe, isn't it?

Republican Primaries--Dec 6, 2011

December 6, 2011

The latest blip in the Republican Presidential polls favors Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney (and all the others). This is a disappointing reflection of our political process, because Newt is not the kind of leader we need for the critical next four years. His personal life is a concern, his positions have been A-Z on some key issues, he shoots from the hip, and he's arrogant to the extreme--seemingly believing he is the smartest and wisest person on earth, a rather disgusting trait. In this regard, Romney is much more the man we'd like to have dinner with, the man we'd trust to carefully consider decisions before advancing. Even better would be Huntsman, but that choice is regrettably academic at this point.

To emphasize our point, Gingrich's recent decision to seek the advice of Donald Trump pretty much wrapped up our willingness to respect his judgment. Trump has already revealed his lack of knowledge and wisdom on most key issues. Is Donald Trump the kind of adviser President Gingrich would turn to for advice in making decisions, such as those on China, where Trump clearly doesn't even understand the country, the issues, or how to negotiate with them?

So, the Obama presidency has been less than what we'd like to see, and perhaps many of us are vulnerable to voting for a new regime, especially one with a more fiscally conservative bent. Seems a perfect opportunity for the Republicans to take full advantage. However, they've done the opposite so far. The only good we can see is that, at least we are not forced to consider Sarah Palin, and we are finally rid of Herman Cain.

A word on Cain--we don't know whether the multiple allegations are true, but it seems highly likely that some are. He may well have been able to salvage his campaign if he had come clean, admitted his mistakes, and apologized. But, this way, we'll never know and we have to assume he had something to hide--the potential of dishonesty weighs heavier than this possible mistakes. However, if all of it were true, admitting and apologizing would have been woefully inadequate. Is that why he dropped out?

We are not the only ones who would seriously consider voting Republican in 2012--but--the only really credible candidates stand no chance of being nominated. The developing primary race so far has been a 3 ring circus.

A perfect opportunity for Republican conservatism to capture the country may be lost due to the lacklustre array of candidates to lead the Party and due to the intransigence of the Republican Congress to do something to address debt and stimulus through compromise. They seem to be betting everything on keeping us suffering until 2013. But, beware! We may turn to the Democrats again, considering this woeful lack of conservative leadership.

Gridlock--Citizens Responsible? Dec 3, 2011

We've been disappointed with the disappearance of Center in American politics. It seems that the "wingnuts" on both sides predominate at this time. While we keep thinking there will be some compromise on major issues, such as debt reduction/stimulus, the report of the special congressional committee ("we cannot reach agreement") is a ringing clarion of the trouble abroad in the land.

December 3, 2011

Here is one perspective on the issue: Maybe the problem is that we are a democracy. Political representatives certainly must listen to the people. Their failure to try to do that can't be the problem. The problem must be that the voice of the people is not clear--the people simply voice frustration with the inability of Congress to agree. We don't tell them what they should agree on. The voice of the people does not speak out a recommended solution. If we had one, they would have to listen. It isn't helping that we complain, protest, occupy, because we are not clear in what we want. This leaves Congress an enormous amount of freedom to do as they individually believe--and the political lines are drawn on this one.

Maybe the problem is that this one is a complex issue and many of us do not want to take the time to develop an opinion as to the right solution--will tax reductions significantly stimulate growth and employment? This is a question on which highly educated economist do not agree. If we were to agree that they would, then wouldn't we have to demand reduction in our entitlements? That's not happening!

The answer certainly depends on the nature of the particular tax deduction. Given our highly complex tax code, most Americans don't really know how any change would affect them individually. If we wanted their opinions, we'd have to provide everyone with an estimate of the impact of the tax reduction on them.

And, is debt reduction for the US more important than my entitlements in medicare and social security, to mention two of the at-risk budget items...? Maybe, but you'd better be clear as to the benefits to employment and growth to justify sacrificing your own wealth to make this happen. Most Americans are simply not sure those benefits would accrue to tax reductions and entitlement reductions. It's as if Americans are pounding the table demanding a magic solution. We are enabling Congress to behave this way, because we have no intelligible voice!

So, is there any solution? Well, it's not likely that the American people are going to take a good course in economics suddenly and make informed decisions about all these actions and effects. So, in the absence of that, why don't we all simply demand a clear "no smoke and mirrors" 50/50. 50% of the $1.3 trillion comes in tax increases, and 50% comes from budget reductions, including medicare, social security, and defense. 50/50 always had a good ring to it. Let's do it and get on with it.

The details follow--e.g., what tax reductions and for whom, what entitlement reductions affecting whom? Let's Congress work out this detail--they can do that if we tell them we want 50/50.

If we're not able to speak with a strong voice as to what we believe will be best in one extreme or the other, why can't we just demand a compromise and get on with it?

Citizen Responsibility in a Democracy--April 29, 2011

April 29, 2011

It's so dismaying to see who the "Average American" seems to be these days. I say "seems to be," because it's important to acknowledge that those who make noise are not necessarily the true average Americans--representing the vast majority of us. Nevertheless, even if the outspoken are not truly representative, they are numerous and their voice is very troublesome. As an American, I am frequently embarrassed by what those elements say publicly.

There are those of us who give Donald Trump a standing ovation in Las Vegas. There are those who watched the recent BBC presentation "The Chinese are Coming," and filled the comments section on You Tube with vitriolic criticism laced with vulgarity of stunning proportions--criticism of the Chinese, the "whites" and the BBC. There are those who apparently actually think Sarah Palin would be a good candidate for US President! There are those who want to continue to debate whether our President was indeed born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate clearly states. There are those who want to associate Planned Parenthood with something subversive to our government and/or racist. There are those who would argue that foreign countries are responsible for our employment problems. And, sadly, those who would like foreigners to return to their countries of origin, especially those of Islamic faith. And on and on. What about our TV? The Kardashians? Charlie Sheen? The Apprentice? Reality shows?

Sometimes I wonder, "...what have we come to?" Is this the changing face of America? If it is, it's embarrassing and shameful. And, it's certainly no wonder that "The Chinese are Coming," and no wonder that their country is forecast to eclipse the US in wealth and power in the 21st Century. If this is us, then we have done it to ourselves, and we certainly can't blame anyone else! Just based on the vocal elements in part identified above, one might think that all Americans are red-necks, that we are too lazy to study the issues and come to reasoned opinions, that we can't stand to hear others opinions (witness the behavior in recent town meetings when citizens disagree), that we only see the easiest answer--someone handy to blame, that we don't take responsibility for our own actions and outcomes, and that we can't even bear to tolerate, much less respect and accept, those who have different religious beliefs than ours.

I haven't lost faith in the US. There are still many who, even today, on national TV make it clear that they feel (as I do) that Donald Trump is a travesty in terms of Presidential candidacy, and who agree with me that we can hardly imagine a greater fool in economics and in international relations.

And, thanks be, there are many leaders who understand that the benefits of foreign trade far outweigh the loss of jobs in industries or companies which cannot compete. In the BBC series, some workers from Youngstown feel the Chinese stole their steel industry and their jobs. Indeed, we lost lots of jobs, but we still build buildings and bridges with steel (some from China) and as a result of our ability to get it much cheaper, we build more and make more progress--and there is more employment in other places in the US on the other end of this process. Here in San Francisco, we are building a new bridge with cost well over $10 billion, and most of the materials are manufactured and shipped from China. Does one imagine that local authorities did not even try to find US manufacturers who could compete with the Chinese bid? The differential was just too great to pass up the massive savings--and those savings go to benefit other programs in our state and city. In the case of cheaper foreign products, who should we be thinking to benefit--the US company making the more expensive products (and their employees) or those who are buying the competing product from abroad? That's a decision, I suppose.

I will in most cases argue to let the (international) market play out. Of course, if there is foreign government interference in the free market, we should take steps, but many of our protectionist proposals and regulations and taxes are at the behest of a company or an industry, and our protecting through such actions might also be examined as US government interference in the free market. As individuals, if we want to express our choices more clearly, we can avoid Walmart, where much of the merchandise comes form outside the US, and we can patronize local merchants--and pay the higher price that comes with that. That's a good way to express individual patriotism--and let others decide which they prefer to do! There is a good reason Walmart's parking lots are full! Don't we understand you can't have both--no foreign competition and lowest possible prices?

And, the fear and hatred of those of Islamic faith--again, just a way to blame someone for our failure to stop and listen and understand that these people (most of them) agree with all the key principles we hold so dear, and do not intend any harm to others. We forget that we have our own Christian extremists here in the US, and we have our own bombers and terrorists--born of several generations of US parents. And, we don't assume that all Americans are dangerous as a result of this reality. Why should we make the opposite assumption regarding Muslims?

We are a nation founded on principles of justice, fairness, openness, equality. Let's try to remember that and behave accordingly. And, let's try to remember to value in our officials those of good judgment. Let's listen to others and make our own decisions of who and what to support, but give space and respect to those who come to other conclusions.

And, I will try to remember that we also value freedom of speech. I just dearly hope some of the "speech" of recent times does not represent our true values.

The American People Have Spoken--November 5, 2010

It’s Nov 5 and the American people have spoken. What did they say? Seems like everyone agrees with three messages they sent: Cut spending, cut taxes and create jobs! That’s what the American people want, according to almost everyone, especially from the Republicans and the Tea Party. And, surely many Democrats feel the same way.

But, where are the specifics? Republicans and Tea Party candidates rode in to a majority in the House, based on criticism of the Obama administration as it relates to these three things. Purposefully, few offered any specifics whatsoever about how to cut spending or to create jobs. When asked by newscasters to be specific, they offered only examples which intelligent Americans should have seen to be inconsequential in terms of real meaningful impact—none representing even 1% toward closing any of the gaps. And no one—that’s for sure—no one—has offered a comprehensive solution to the problems.

Why is that? On the surface, it would seem to be a great opportunity for those opposed to the current administration and its policies. And, it would seem that the American people would demand this of anyone new who promised solutions—before electing them. But, we didn't.

Could it be that most of these hundreds/thousands of vocal critics in leadership who provided us the passionate interpretation of what the people want—cut spending, reduce taxes, create jobs—could it be that they don’t really understand the problem with all of this? Surely a few of them do not--they seem so ignorant in their remarks, that one would think most of this mass they call the homogenous “American People” would also see their lack of understanding. OK, I will name one name—Donald Trump, who trumpeted in a business channel interview since the election that we should solve the problem by charging a 25% tax on everything coming from China!

No, that’s not the real answer. Most of the critics are intelligent enough to understand the problem with all of this (below). Most of the critics probably understand the problem is so difficult and complex that the American public will not sit still for the long explanations of trade-offs and dependencies. And, those who do understand this perhaps fall into one of three categories: (a) those who know the problem cannot be solved and yet they want to gain personally and for their constituency by occupying a place of power—e.g., a Congressman is surely able to general millions of dollars of pork for his or her District, and thisis not too bad for his own ego and future wealth predictor either—these types don’t really expect to effect any significant change when they get to Washington; (b) those who understand the difficulty of the problem, want to try to fix it when they get there—somehow--but have no idea how to do it, yet; and (c) maybe there area few—very few—who have plans and don’t reveal them yet because the specifics are so egregious that they would never have been elected if they had revealed them to the American people during the campaign—so, stay vague, get elected, and then do your best! See The Candidate, Robert Redford, 1972.

What’s the problem? It’s really quite simple. Our budgets (city, state, and federal) have evolved to a state where so much is committed relatively irrevocably, leaving what can be considered truly “discretionary” as a very small percentage of the total—something like 16% of the total, only. So, we can, with great difficulty, cut 10% of discretionary, but that’s less than 2% of the total. For cutting spending, the hard work and the meaningful gains are in reducing the non-discretionary items, such as military spending, social security, and medicare. However, to the candidates, it doesn’t seem likely that’s what the American people had in mind.

Then, as to cutting taxes, the key is that when taxes are cut, government revenue disappears, revenue that will no longer be available to help with the budget deficit. The theory of tax cutting is that lower taxing motivates business folks to start or grow their businesses, and when that happens, eventually tax revenue goes up because eventually sales and profits go up, and there’s also increased employment along the way. However, there is debate as to how well this theory works. If your taxes were cut, would you go out and spend it, or would you save it or use it to pay down your debts, considering the times we are in? There is also a delay of a year or two—or longer. Can we afford this at this time of huge deficits and crisis?

Jobs—that’s the biggest problem. Donald Trump does not have the solution. He fails to recognize that we have a minimum wage of $7.75 per hour and that’s more than most Chinese blue collar workers make in a day, so it is very simply far more efficient for many things to be made there—we benefit because we pay far less for clothing, furniture, and even the Bay Bridge expansion, all of which was built in China and shipped here. And, if we shut out China, what about India, Bangladesh, Mexico and most of Africa? Can we shut out the rest of the world?

We still have millions of skilled factory workers in a country less and less able to compete globally in the factory arena, with few exceptions that will sustain. Our workers need new skills in areas like technology, marketing, research in areas like medicine and health, financial services, media, and many others. My father’s skills running a machine in a textile mill would be worth nothing in today’s American marketplace. The factory in which he worked in High Point, NC, has long since been shuttered.

It is useless and dangerous for us to try to turn the clock back to a kind of isolationism, when we have so much to gain from globalization. It’s also useless for us to occupy ourselves with blaming politicians for problems we don’t want to face. It is useless to elect candidates who do not offer solutions, however harsh and painful they may be. We need to face the challenges, and forge ahead .We have a strong position in the evolving world, if we don't try to turn back. We need to move forward, to rise to our potential. The fixing of jobs for the American people will take years—and there is no wise critic who can find a solution within the next two years—so many of us need to go back to school and re-engineer ourselves.

So, we have a new power group in Washington and Sacramento, and the rhetoric is flying, around budget cuts, tax reductions, and jobs creation. That’s what the American people said they want—and right away! They might as well have said they want what they had 30 years ago, when we had the world all to ourselves. Progress will be difficult and slow, because the solutions are complex and require sacrifice and change, and because our political landscape is polarized. It’s quite likely the American people will end up throwing this new group of leaders out in 2 years. That seems to be the limit of our patience these days.

I’d like to offer a more optimistic outlook, but it’s not valuable or relevant at this time. For the next few years, we face the challenge of telling and persuading “the American people” of the painful truth our rhetoric has hidden. We have been implicitly promised vague approaches to solutions to major problems which we must soon face and address.

And, by the way, we’re not a homogenous American people who all said the same things in the election. We are now the most ethnically diverse and heterogenous nation in the world and this is indeed not just one of our problems, but also one of our greatest assets—to be developed.

Growth Miracle Coming to an End? October 17, 2010

October 17, 2010

There’s been a lot written about the future of China. Some argue that the small group of leaders of the CPC (Communist Party of China) has managed a 32-year trade-off of economic growth and increasing prosperity in exchange for the people of China continuing to surrender their democratic freedoms. These include no rights to vote for their leaders in a free political system where the people can propose candidates. Also included (or rather excluded) is some of the freedom of speech and press found in modern democracies. This also means that if the leaders feel they need to delay investment in the environment to favor economic growth, there is little that can be done to change that. It means that if your shabby housing project is needed to enable a new high rise, there is nothing you can do to prevent it. You get a nice new home, but you don't get to prevent the move. It means your intellectual property rights (for foreigners) are not going to be protected when you do business in China—not until China has enough intellectual property of its own to protect.

Some say this era of growth under such controls is nearing an inevitable end. Soon there will be enough economic prosperity and the citizens of China will want what’s next: freedom to choose leaders and to speak freely, write freely, to criticize, even change their government in the areas that trouble them. It is true that there are many protests in China, seemingly a growing number as time passes. The government quickly quells most and little is heard of them. Whether these have any connection to the economic growth and prosperity (essentially freeing people to rise to the next level of Maslow’s hierarchy), or whether perhaps due to the growing access to the Internet and news from the rest of the world, is the subject of speculation only. These are legitimate concerns expressed by insiders and outsiders to China. There are problems.

However, while much has been written about all this by Western press, little credit has been given by the critics to what has been accomplished under the Chinese manner of rule, which has overseen the 30-year miracle of China becoming a world superpower and one of the greatest capitalisms of all time:

o 30 years of peace between China and all its neighbor in Asia, and the world

o 30 years of peace inside China—that is, no civil wars

o Continuously improving living conditions for the majority of Chinese

o Economic opportunity, better jobs, entrepreneurship

o Unlimited access to news, entertainment (outside the one realm of being denied criticism of the CPC)

All of this coming from an incredibly poor economy and standard of living prior to 1978 and with the largest population in the world, now 1.3 billion people.

It is also interesting to consider where the unrest, the quickly quelled riots, is coming from. Is it from the new ultra rich? Doesn’t seem likely. Is it from the middle class, which has been enjoying a better home, a car, computers, HDTV’s, and soon an iPhone? Not so likely, either. It may be coming primarily from the still large majority of Chinese who have not yet participated significantly in the fruits of the economic revolution. While there is undoubtedly great intelligence among these people, there is less education in subjects like economics. We imagine many of the protestors have not seriously considered the enormous tradeoffs that CPC leadership has been navigating, rather successfully, for an amazing period of time.

We dare say there is not a government leader in the world who would not envy the 32-year history of success that the small group of leaders of the CPC has engineered. The critics of the west to all of this give far too little credit. One can certainly rightly challenge with any single instance of denial of rights we enjoy in the west, or maybe even with justification challenge the lack of attention to a single issue or industry—like the danger of coal mines in China, to the workers and the environment. However, few economists would question the real tradeoff Chinese leadership made in choosing growth. Had they not chosen growth, there might be up to 30 million new work force entrants denied jobs annually. It would only take a few years of growth at half what they have enjoyed to result in economic unrest which would threaten the stability of China. Clearly, they knew they needed 10% annual growth, and this would be hard to come by—it would mean some hard tradeoffs against “nice to haves” for a number of years. Had China stumbled and not been here to support the world economy in 2008, where would we all be now?

Now, are we at a point where all of this must change? Are we at a point where democracy as we know it is inevitable for China—with all the fairness and openness, accompanied by all the extreme points of view and all the burdensome bureaucracy, which often seems to accompany democracy in the West now? It’s not going to change anytime soon, because the vast majority of Chinese still completely support their system and their leaders, whose polls are far higher than those of any of our Western leaders.Furthermore, if it does start to change, let’s not be too quick with our hurrahs. Managing for economic growth, jobs, opportunity will have to be diluted to meet the many other objectives we try to address in nations of much smaller size and much more mature economies and governments. The risks to the country, the region, and the world during such change will be significant. And, it would help our relations with this great country if we would continue to acknowledge the amazing miracle of what they tried to do and did, with great intelligence and with their own form of government.

AIG Bonuses--March 27, 2009

The $200 million in bonuses paid to AIG officers, many of them in the FP unit which originated the credit default swaps which have cost the company so much, is the focus of most headlines for the last few days.  Ed Liddy, who works for $1 and his reputation, has been called to task for honoring these bonus contracts, which were indeed permitted under the terms of the TARP investments in AIG.  Americans, in search of specific people to blame, have written their congressmen demanding recovery of the bonuses, and unfortunately, some have written threatening letters to executives and suspected recipients, promising “piano wire” executions.

 It’s all a sad commentary on America.  Here we are, 2009, the richest and most successful, most educated, most enlightened, most diverse and open country in the world, at least in the image of many (setting aside our many faults for a moment).  And, here we are, indulging in searching for the guilty, blaming, threatening, and focusing on the wrong issues.  While $200 million might normally be a material amount, in this unique time, it’s miniscule in comparison to the truly significant issues and amounts, which warrant our attention.  Is it that we simply cannot grasp the issues and magnitudes of complex economics we are now into, so we revert to that which we can at least grasp?  Is it that we’re confused about the bailouts and the massive fiscal and monetary actions underway, so we focus on bonuses, which is something we all understand? 

 And, is it that we simply cannot rise up and swallow hard to accept the reality that most of this entire circumstance we find ourselves in is not to the blame of a small group of criminals, cheaters, con-men, or greedy corporate executives, but rather a logical outcome to the way we have been living for the last decade or longer?  Oh, sure, there are certainly some bad guys in action in recent years, and they should be prosecuted.  And, there are others who benefited in what now seems excess.  But, in regard to these, is it really so different from what happens in bonusing in “normal times?”  Aren’t there hundreds of situations every year, in which later performance problems of the company or the unit reveal that the bonus contracts were faulty and result in the wish for the right to claw back (usually not part of the deal)?

 And, isn’t it true that we were all enjoying living high on the hog, enjoying buying more on credit (often a great deal more) than we really could afford if there were any kind of dip in the trajectory of steep appreciation in home values, incomes, and stock market indices?  Can we honestly claim that we had no responsibility as a citizenry to appreciate that this pattern of behaviors had risk associated with it?  If we’re individually down 50% in wealth now, can’t we at least recognize that much of the loss simply is an adjustment to give up the excess gain we all enjoyed for a few years?  The economy is just clawing back some of our unjust bonuses.  

Why do we seem to think that we should be guaranteed continued heady and steady prosperity, and if it is interrupted, then there must be someone to blame, other than ourselves?  Right now, my car has a problem, but it served me well for some time in the past. I knew when the warranty expired, and I decided to not buy an extension to the warranty. When I bought it, I knew it had higher reliability risk than normal, but I liked some of the positive features and I took it anyway.  I can feel irritated that I have to now pay the price in time and money, but I really have no one to blame but myself.  Next time around, I can do better research and make other decisions, but I’m stuck with the consequences of my choices just now.  I guess I could write threatening letters to the CEO of the manufacturer, but that wouldn’t really be fair.

 I had the good fortune to be an officer of AIG for a few years in the 90’s.  I feel I know the company rather well.  It was/is a very fine company, well managed (under the direction of Hank Greenberg), setting aside FP for a moment.  It had a unique entrepreneurial spirit in its many divisions and subsidiaries, one of which I had the privilege of managing.  The entrepreneurial spirit was balanced against a demanding ethic of performance and low tolerance for mistakes, which was bluntly and harshly administered by our CEO, whose capacity for comprehending and challenging was truly amazing.  For one, I rather doubt the company would be in the current situation, had Elliot Spitzer not succeeded in ousting one of Americas best and longest tenured CEO’s.  Everyone knew that succession at AIG would be a problem, and the culture would have to change.  It’s really the timing of the unnecessarily early and hasty transition, and the succession of economic events that led to the demise of this fine company.

 What changed in the FP unit after Greenberg, Did the unit under Sullivan and Cassano (FP manager) begin writing more risky derivative swaps?  I don’t know.  This was not the area in which I served in the 90’s, so I’m not able to judge the relative risk taken even in those earlier times.  I’m simply extending a personal gut feeling that such a meltdown wouldn’t have occurred under Greenberg.  It’s fair to look at the current circumstance and say that someone erred in allowing the magnitude (and perhaps the degree) of the CDS risk to reach levels which would threaten the very existence of the company if a broad market meltdown should occur (as we suddenly experienced in housing finance).  But, let’s remember that AIG had lots of company in financial institution who took on excessive risk in housing, CDS, and/or in other ways—names include Lehman, Merrill, WAMU, Citibank, and others.  And many of those who took little and are safe today will be criticized another time for failing to produce sufficient returns—they only look like hero’s now for a short time.

 As one American, I don’t really care about the bonuses now. Pay them or don't pay them--it's not the major issue of the day.  It’s totally understandable to me that (a) they were typical corporate bonuses and were contractual; (b) undoubtedly many of them are to people who had no responsibility to determine risk or did a good job of doing so in their specific departments; and (c) where faulty bonus structure rewards the few who made bad decisions, that happens all over America every year. 

 America, let’s just move on.  Let’s write our congressmen, but let’s try to understand the issues and write about what’s important.  How about focusing on the pork barrel as a good start—and if you really have courage, get the list of pork for your state and have the courage to examine and challenge as much of that as you can?  If you’re a Californian, it’s easy to criticize the bridge in Alaska, but how about the project planned for Nancy Pelosi's constituents in the San Francisco area—is it really necessary and is it really stimulative, is it for the benefit of one well lobbied company, or for the greater good?

AIG was a great company, well and honestly managed--at least up to the forced departure of Hank Greenberg.  For one, I wouldn't be surpised in, in the end, to see the US Government recover most of the capital invested in the bailout of this historic company.