What's new
By:

Maybe Chapter 11 Was The Better Route?

Stoked said:
I see nothing in here that truly answers my question. Yes it can save companies. But in this case DID it?
Click to expand...

I can relate to the political concerns angle. Fearing GM re-bankruptcy is entering northeasilencer territory. When was the last time focusing on radical notions has won a republican election? Hysterical tax policy is already the main fault of the Romney campaign (see PKM's "untaint Ted analysis"; BC & Obama speeches).

How about a strategy of demonizing democrats for their political union corruption while sympathizing with the union working people for the democratically controlled everything failing to implant lasting protections while taking millions from them, including the cadillac h.c. attack Obama waged on democrats biggest donors? (one sentence)
 
Why exactly should the government, or any owner, have to sell their stake in something simply because mgmt wants them to? If GM's execs want the gov to sell their stake, they should bust their asses getting the share price up to a level where the government isn't taking a massive bath.

Government has made a mint on the AIG bailout, and made a profit on the money it forced GS, MS, JPM, etc to take. GM (and the unions) have been the albatross. Make better cars, sell more cars, get your stock price up, and you'll get the government out of your stock.
 
Stoked said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well over 99% of species die out. What you're advocating amounts to letting 99% of the cojmpanies in the US to fail, only to be replaced by a company that will also fail. When the rare successful company along, it will succeed until a new generation takes over or the marketplace changes, and then fail.
 
One Brow said:
Well over 99% of species die out. What you're advocating amounts to letting 99% of the cojmpanies in the US to fail, only to be replaced by a company that will also fail. When the rare successful company along, it will succeed until a new generation takes over or the marketplace changes, and then fail.
Click to expand...

As a company fails something new takes its place.

Are you advocating that we make sure that every company that exists exist forever?
 
franklin said:
How about a strategy of demonizing democrats for their political union corruption while sympathizing with the union working people for the democratically controlled everything failing to implant lasting protections while taking millions from them, including the cadillac h.c. attack Obama waged on democrats biggest donors? (one sentence)
Click to expand...

You mean, Republicans should attack Democrats for doing what the Republicans want to accomplish, only without the Affordable Care Act? Interesting strategy.
 
Stoked said:
As a company fails something new takes its place.

Are you advocating that we make sure that every company that exists exist forever?
Click to expand...

I think a decent medium can be found. I think 99% of companies surviving is as bad as 99% of them failing.
 
One Brow said:
You mean, Republicans should attack Democrats for doing what the Republicans want to accomplish, only without the Affordable Care Act? Interesting strategy.
Click to expand...

A large part of politics is about demonizing the "opposition". That strategy may actually be quite effective.
 
One Brow said:
I think a decent medium can be found. I think 99% of companies surviving is as bad as 99% of them failing.
Click to expand...

Well your use of 99% is misleading. The time frame to reach that 99% is much larger than the time frame of a business. The business that were bailed out are far from even 5% of the total businesses out there.

There are other smaller American auto makers that would start to step in and fill the void left by GMC.
 
One Brow said:
You mean, Republicans should attack Democrats for doing what the Republicans want to accomplish, only without the Affordable Care Act? Interesting strategy.
Click to expand...

More along the lines of pointing out how much money the unions give only to be **** on by the party. The unions have lost all their political capital yet still give freely like a colony of whores with leprosy. Republicans could do a better job of using this to their advantage.
 
I also think we should let GM fail because they don't build cars as good as the Japanese companies who were subsidized by the state for decades until they became better than their American counterparts. We should not support government subsidized companies unless it is competition coming from outside our borders. I will never buy another GM car only Japanese ones. Or German ones uhcause mercantilism is cool yo. /sarc
 
One Brow said:
Well over 99% of species die out. What you're advocating amounts to letting 99% of the cojmpanies in the US to fail, only to be replaced by a company that will also fail. When the rare successful company along, it will succeed until a new generation takes over or the marketplace changes, and then fail.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense but Darwiniacs should be in favor of "letting" only the fit survive.
 
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...

I understand the whole mindset of "there oughtta be a law" and "the government must do something". Your statement here is perhaps the purest statement of the ideological liberal/management/fascist mantra anyone can posit.

however, it's like saying man is the relevant God, or that government is actually the relevant fundamental reality in existence. People who are sure they know what must be done will always rise up to make this argument, and have done so through the ages.

however, the statement is sheer nonsense. markets, free or otherwise, are simply the net value we place on our stuff, including our ideas. "Markets" are a fancy way of saying "Reality", and are nothing more than that, or less. If the markets can't find the equilibrium point of human values, what ever can? If the companies are in trouble, it means the owners/managers messed up, and made wrong decisions, and did wrong things. And unless they change their basic strategies or rethink their operations, they will continue to do business in ways that don't really work.

The real problem is we humans have values that are misplaced, and nobody can fix this but us. Governments, and corporations will always be slow responders to this need, and it will always work out better to allow individuals more freedom to respond, because they will always do a better job, because the fundamental fact of government or corporate hugeness is bureaucracy and isolation of decision makers, and people who are insulated from the effects of their decisions by huge reserves of capital or power will never be our best bet, as a species or as a nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top