...about the involvement of the federal government in the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, but I'm convinced the companies would not have--could not have--come out of bankruptcy so quickly without the government's intervention.

Had the two companies been left alone to simply declare bankruptcy without the intervention of the government, the creditors would NEVER have agreed on a plan of reorganization necessary for the companies to come out of bankruptcy. Without the plan derived by the government, the pressure applied to the creditors to accept that plan, and the financing provided by the government in lieu of debtor-in-possession financing typically provided by banks, both companies would have quickly run out of money, with liquidation being the only possible result.

Personally, I don't agree with how the government pressured the various creditors--I think they were far too harsh on the banks and other secured creditors and generous with the UAW--but I'll be the first one to admit that these companies could not have accomplished the "pre-packaged" bankruptcies and come out so quickly on their own.

The results of the liquidation of these two companies would have had disastrous effects on our economy over a long period of time. Say what you will, I don't think any other conclusion can be reached other than that the Obama administration did a superb job in saving these two companies and avoiding the economic nightmare that would have resulted if they had just stood by and permitted them to fail and be liquidated. It was expensive for the taxpayers and set some bad precedents, but overall it was the right thing to do--and it worked!

OMG Looks like baiting to me.

Originally Posted by Keedy

OMG Looks like baiting to me.

Say what you will, Keedy. But if you don't agree, give me an argument for why what the government did was so wrong? More importantly, what would have worked better?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Say what you will, Keedy. But if you don't agree, give me an argument for why what the government did was so wrong? More importantly, what would have worked better?

The government shouldn't have wasted our money and let them die a natural death. They gave in to the unions. They should have let them go bankrupt last fall. Seems like alot of money was wasted so the union could keep their cushy jobs and pensions.
What makes you think anybody is going to buy their cars? Pity? The Big Three are now from Japan...not Detroit!!!
http://www.youtube.com/v/vDwzCB7zk4A..._embedded&fs=1

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

...about the involvement of the federal government in the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, but I'm convinced the companies would not have--could not have--come out of bankruptcy so quickly without the government's intervention.

Had the two companies been left alone to simply declare bankruptcy without the intervention of the government, the creditors would NEVER have agreed on a plan of reorganization necessary for the companies to come out of bankruptcy. Without the plan derived by the government, the pressure applied to the creditors to accept that plan, and the financing provided by the government in lieu of debtor-in-possession financing typically provided by banks, both companies would have quickly run out of money, with liquidation being the only possible result.

Personally, I don't agree with how the government pressured the various creditors--I think they were far too harsh on the banks and other secured creditors and generous with the UAW--but I'll be the first one to admit that these companies could not have accomplished the "pre-packaged" bankruptcies and come out so quickly on their own.

The results of the liquidation of these two companies would have had disastrous effects on our economy over a long period of time. Say what you will, I don't think any other conclusion can be reached other than that the Obama administration did a superb job in saving these two companies and avoiding the economic nightmare that would have resulted if they had just stood by and permitted them to fail and be liquidated. It was expensive for the taxpayers and set some bad precedents, but overall it was the right thing to do--and it worked!

Not being able to read the future and not being able to play "what if" I have no idea if you surmise is correct or not. It may be and then again it may be way off....I DO know one thing...

The UAW is a lot stronger today than it was last week or month and that bothers me !

No one has ever presented any numbers which show that taking money from all of our collective pockets to prop up any company is better than letting the companies resolve their problems on their own. The problem is still there - unsold inventory which is just increasing without restriction.

In the end, it would seem cheaper to pay the companies NOT to build.

Anyway, these companies are going to continue heading down the drain. Nothing has really changed. Debt may have been restructured and a brand name or two sold off or retired, but the market for the product remains as it was. Without a market inspired to buy the product, this was just placing a bandaid on an amputated limb.

The same "quality" products will soon be coming from China and India anyway and at a 70% unit cost. What happens then? The consumer will go for the "best buy" no matter what the politicians (driving their Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, Audi or Prius) say.

Now that GM has emerged from bankruptcy, do you suppose the government in their wisdom, will eventually transfer their 61% ownership back to the company?... or will they continue to dictate how many and of what models will be made?... and how many and where the dealers will be located?

Originally Posted by Ooper

Now that GM has emerged from bankruptcy, do you suppose the government in their wisdom, will eventually transfer their 61% ownership back to the company?... or will they continue to dictate how many and of what models will be made?... and how many and where the dealers will be located?

I'll bet you that not many will be in republican districts.

Yep, Michigan's unemployment could hit 20% because of Obama.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009...a-congressman/

Originally Posted by Keedy

I'll bet you that not many will be in republican districts.

Based on the last election, there weren't very many of those. That might be a pretty good business strategy.

Originally Posted by Keedy

Yep, Michigan's unemployment could hit 20% because of Obama.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009...a-congressman/

Interesting article, Keedy. It's amazing how much unemployment Obama caused in just 171 days as President. I wonder how he was able to do that?

But even now, as the article states, Michigan "hasn't yet exceeded its previous record for unemployment in modern history, when it reached 16.9 percent in November of 1982." I wonder who the incompetent was that was President in those days? Ronald Reagan? The father of conservative economics? No, tell me it isn't true.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Interesting article, Keedy. It's amazing how much unemployment Obama caused in just 171 days as President. I wonder how he was able to do that?

But even now, as the article states, Michigan "hasn't yet exceeded its previous record for unemployment in modern history, when it reached 16.9 percent in November of 1982." I wonder who the incompetent was that was President in those days? Ronald Reagan? The father of conservative economics? No, tell me it isn't true.

In 1982, Detroit was still reeling from the lousy cars they made in the 70's and the devastating situation that Carter was responsible for. Think 20% interest rates for mortgages. The mid 70's to around 1983 were the worst years I ever experienced. It was so bad that it took Reagan about 3 years to straighten it out.

Originally Posted by Keedy

...The mid 70's to around 1983 were the worst years I ever experienced. It was so bad that it took Reagan about 3 years to straighten it out.

And you're only giving Obama 171 days before ragging on him? Ahh, I know. It must be that Republican-Democrat thing again.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

And you're only giving Obama 171 days before ragging on him? Ahh, I know. It must be that Republican-Democrat thing again.

Nope...His socialistic policies that have been proven in the past to stunt growth and enlarge government.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...NkZjZkNWUwMmY=