For those keeping score at home, I was actually hoping the government would sponsor an organized wind-down of GM an Chrysler over a long period of time - an orderly selling of assets etc...
And why exactly would they do that..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
For those keeping score at home, I was actually hoping the government would sponsor an organized wind-down of GM an Chrysler over a long period of time - an orderly selling of assets etc...
For those keeping score at home, I was actually hoping the government would sponsor an organized wind-down of GM an Chrysler over a long period of time - an orderly selling of assets etc...
And why exactly would they do that..
For those keeping score at home, I was actually hoping the government would sponsor an organized wind-down of GM an Chrysler over a long period of time - an orderly selling of assets etc...
And why exactly would they do that..
To provide those assets to companies that can use them more efficiently (by selling them) while proving the shareholders with a fair price for their assets (by winding down over a long period)
Huh?! Bankruptcy is just the plan to let equity holders off the hook for mistakes.
There are several forms of bankruptcy. The kind being discussed here is where the company assets are liquidated. If not, then why where you whining about how all those jobs would be lost? Of course, all you really care about is whether the UAW union thugs will maintain their stranglehold on the company. You don't give a hoot about jobs, per se.
The main mistake GM made was agreeing to the terms imposed on them by union thugs.
It doesn't matter what type of bankruptcy is used - in the end, it's a way to protect owners personal wealth from the creditors to whom they owe money.
That IS dangerous, our government was never set up to do this type of governing, and gives them waaaaayyyyy tooooo much power if they went down that road.
No, the most advantageous would have been for the government to stay out of it altogether.
if Chrysler had folded, or GM, another company would have purchased any assets of value and employees who were worth having. That's how a free market works. Ford, or Toyota, or whomever would have stepped in to fill the production void left by either of these companies death.
Chance are that either, and especially GM , would have survived bankruptcy intact.
No, the most advantageous would have been for the government to stay out of it altogether.
Bankruptcy is one of the primary functions of the federal courts. Liquidation and receivership have to be conducted under the guidance of the federal courts.
if Chrysler had folded, or GM, another company would have purchased any assets of value and employees who were worth having. That's how a free market works. Ford, or Toyota, or whomever would have stepped in to fill the production void left by either of these companies death.
I agree, but receivership would have been the first step.
Chance are that either, and especially GM , would have survived bankruptcy intact.
The UAW wouldn't have, though - which is why Obama stepped in.
Then employ ten times as many people for one thing.In addition explain to me why GM is any better than Enron or Lehman Brothers?
And why exactly would they do that..
To provide those assets to companies that can use them more efficiently (by selling them) while proving the shareholders with a fair price for their assets (by winding down over a long period)
In addition explain to me why GM is any better than Enron or Lehman Brothers?
People failed. If I fail its my place in life to make good, not yours
They would not haved survived
Then employ ten times as many people for one thing.
To provide those assets to companies that can use them more efficiently (by selling them) while proving the shareholders with a fair price for their assets (by winding down over a long period)
In addition explain to me why GM is any better than Enron or Lehman Brothers?
People failed. If I fail its my place in life to make good, not yours
Here is a list of the WWII General Motors War Material Production 1940-45: (This is the best list I could assemble from the contemporary sources at war's end)
198,000 Diesel engines for tanks & landing craft
206,000 Airplane engines
13,000 Complete bombers and fighter planes
97,000 Aircraft propellors
301,000 Aircraft gyroscopes
38,000 Tanks, tank destroyers and armored vehicles
854,000 Trucks, including amhibious DUKWs
190,000 Cannons
1,900,000 Machine guns and submachine guns
3,142,000 Carbines
3,826,000 Electric motors
11,111,000 Fuses
360,000,000 Ball and roller bearings
119,562,000 Shells
39,181,000 Cartridge cases
540,619,000 Grand Total
To this day, the government has not forgotten GM's contribution.
1942, Production Goes to War - Generations of GM
Then employ ten times as many people for one thing.In addition explain to me why GM is any better than Enron or Lehman Brothers?
In addition explain to me why GM is any better than Enron or Lehman Brothers?
People failed. If I fail its my place in life to make good, not yours
Here is a list of the WWII General Motors War Material Production 1940-45: (This is the best list I could assemble from the contemporary sources at war's end)
198,000 Diesel engines for tanks & landing craft
206,000 Airplane engines
13,000 Complete bombers and fighter planes
97,000 Aircraft propellors
301,000 Aircraft gyroscopes
38,000 Tanks, tank destroyers and armored vehicles
854,000 Trucks, including amhibious DUKWs
190,000 Cannons
1,900,000 Machine guns and submachine guns
3,142,000 Carbines
3,826,000 Electric motors
11,111,000 Fuses
360,000,000 Ball and roller bearings
119,562,000 Shells
39,181,000 Cartridge cases
540,619,000 Grand Total
To this day, the government has not forgotten GM's contribution.
1942, Production Goes to War - Generations of GM
They didn't survive without handouts.
If GM collapsed, Ford would have gone too.
It's amazing how little some people know how these things work.
Good for me..by the way..I invested in Ford and made a killing..
As did I. So let me get this right you're saying that by giving GM an unfair advantage of Billions in operating capital it helped Ford Survive? Is that really what you're trying to suggest?
Suggest?
That's exactly what happened.
The executive board at Ford would tell you the very same thing.
The US took about 61% of GM's stocks and paid about $50 billion for it
Today's price of GM stock is about $31 per share'
Todays price cap is about $48.49 Billion so today, theoretically the Govs stocks are worth .61x $48.49 Bil = $29.5 Bil.
Not a very good investment but way way WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better the most of the so call bailout "investments" they made to the various Banks, Insurance companiesm hedge funds etc, who were the CAUSE of this crises.
There basically, both Bush II and Obama took on the banksters debts in a series of complex deals where the banks basically get the profits while the government takes on all the risk.
If you want a very clear idea of how much SOCIALISM we gave to the BANKSTERS (and how little we gave to the people who really needed help that were screwed by aforementionsed Banksters), you might consider reading either Stiglet's books "FREEFALL" or Krugman's Book the GREAT UNRAVELING
If those tomes don't thoughly burn your capitalism loving buns, you either have the patience of a saint or you are a Bankster laughing all the way to (and in) the bank.
The US took about 61% of GM's stocks and paid about $50 billion for it
Today's price of GM stock is about $31 per share'
Todays price cap is about $48.49 Billion so today, theoretically the Govs stocks are worth .61x $48.49 Bil = $29.5 Bil.
Not a very good investment but way way WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better the most of the so call bailout "investments" they made to the various Banks, Insurance companiesm hedge funds etc, who were the CAUSE of this crises.
There basically, both Bush II and Obama took on the banksters debts in a series of complex deals where the banks basically get the profits while the government takes on all the risk.
If you want a very clear idea of how much SOCIALISM we gave to the BANKSTERS (and how little we gave to the people who really needed help that were screwed by aforementionsed Banksters), you might consider reading either Stiglet's books "FREEFALL" or Krugman's Book the GREAT UNRAVELING
If those tomes don't thoughly burn your capitalism loving buns, you either have the patience of a saint or you are a Bankster laughing all the way to (and in) the bank.
What makes you think that the critics of the GM bailout support any other kind of bailout?