What's new
By:

Maybe Chapter 11 Was The Better Route?

I would like to have seen lots of Chapter 11s for other reasons, but if you are suggesting that the government ruined the companies they bailed out, you are being ridiculous.
 
northeast said:
I would like to have seen lots of Chapter 11s for other reasons, but if you are suggesting that the government ruined the companies they bailed out, you are being ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Just simply that they shouldn't have bailed them out.
 
northeast said:
I would like to have seen lots of Chapter 11s for other reasons, but if you are suggesting that the government ruined the companies they bailed out, you are being ridiculous.
Click to expand...

They may not have ruined them because after all the companies were already ruined. The question is did the government interventions save them or just prolong their miserable existance?
 
Yes, many were saved. My guess is there is a good chance that many of the 19 financial institutions and 3 auto companies would have been b/k, (Am I missing some? ) but once half of those went, there was a fear that many others would follow like dominos, unless the government did something. The question is, was there a better way to handle it?
 
northeast said:
Yes, many were saved. My guess is there is a good chance that many of the 19 financial institutions and 3 auto companies would have been b/k, (Am I missing some? ) but once half of those went, there was a fear that many others would follow like dominos, unless the government did something. The question is, was there a better way to handle it?
Click to expand...

Unless the companies changed their practices after receiving the money why would you think they were saved as opposed to given more time to fail?

Oh, and GM is outsourcing to China more than ever since US citizens "saved" GM.
 
northeast said:
Yes, many were saved. My guess is there is a good chance that many of the 19 financial institutions and 3 auto companies would have been b/k, (Am I missing some? ) but once half of those went, there was a fear that many others would follow like dominos, unless the government did something. The question is, was there a better way to handle it?
Click to expand...

In my opinion this raises one question and one poitn of view.

The question is what is your deffinition of saved? Are the companies following most of the policies that lead them to bankruptcy? Are they turning an honest profit or are they still making bad loans that they will have to account for down the road?

My point of view is that yes their was a better way. Let them fail. Other companies would have arrisen to fill the void. Hopefully ones better run.
 
I agree, but the US would have still needed a means of avoiding contagion. The free market was not up to the task.
 
northeast said:
I agree, but the US would have still needed a means of avoiding contagion. The free market was not up to the task.
Click to expand...

The free market can fail yes. But so can government as they have obviously shown.
 
Generally speaking, loans or free money is intoxicating and easily becomes a company's primary strategy.
Not always, of course, but businesses that survive artificially, rarely emerge better when the paints dried.

Businesses that go through the tough times, scrap, and find a way to re-invent themselves, are far better off in the long run.

I would be interested to see how bailed out companies look 50 years from now, opposed to their counter-parts that said no thanks.
 
PKM said:
Generally speaking, loans or free money is intoxicating and easily becomes a company's primary strategy.
Not always, of course, but businesses that survive artificially, rarely emerge better when the paints dried.

Businesses that go through the tough times, scrap, and find a way to re-invent themselves, are far better off in the long run.

I would be interested to see how bailed out companies look 50 years from now, opposed to their. Punter parts that said no thanks.
Click to expand...

Stupid punter parts.
 
​
Stoked said:
They may not have ruined them because after all the companies were already ruined. The question is did the government interventions save them or just prolong their miserable existance?
Click to expand...

Republicans need to sell the rule of law and fairness points. This constant anti-GM drooling is complete nonsense. Bankruptcy saves plenty of companies; government orchestration does not automatically change that.
 
franklin said:
​

Republicans need to sell the rule of law and fairness points. This constant anti-GM drooling is complete nonsense. Bankruptcy saves plenty of companies; government orchestration does not automatically change that.
Click to expand...

I see nothing in here that truly answers my question. Yes it can save companies. But in this case DID it?
 
PKM said:
Generally speaking, loans or free money is intoxicating and easily becomes a company's primary strategy.
Not always, of course, but businesses that survive artificially, rarely emerge better when the paints dried.

Businesses that go through the tough times, scrap, and find a way to re-invent themselves, are far better off in the long run.

I would be interested to see how bailed out companies look 50 years from now, opposed to their counter-parts that said no thanks.
Click to expand...

Federal Mogul bought a brakes company that used asbestos before anyone knew the harms. This relatively small $100mm purchase (strategically) bankrupt an otherwise great company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top