Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Your General Motors
What's in Obama' plan for General Motors? Says the Wall Street Journal:
According the Treasury-GM debt-for-equity swap announced Monday, GM has $27.2 billion in unsecured bonds owned by the public. These are owned by mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds and retail investors who bought them directly through their brokers. Under Monday's offer, they would exchange their $27.2 billion in bonds for 10% of the stock of the restructured GM. This could amount to less than five cents on the dollar.
The Treasury, which is owed $16.2 billion, would receive 50% of the stock and $8.1 billion in debt -- as much as 87 cents on the dollar. The union's retiree health-care benefit trust would receive half of the $20 billion it is owed in stock, giving it 40% ownership of GM, plus another $10 billion in cash over time. That's worth about 76 cents on the dollar, according to some estimates.
In a genuine Chapter 11 bankruptcy, these three groups of creditors would all be similarly situated -- because all three are, for the most part, unsecured creditors of GM. And yet according to the formula presented Monday, those with the largest claim -- the bondholders -- get the smallest piece of the restructured company by a huge margin.
This seems to be by political design.
Seems to be! For a huge notebook-dump about the Obama administration's run-up to this move, I would recommend (though I can't quite unlock) Peter Boyer's recent novella-length "The Road Ahead" article in The New Yorker, which is good enough journalistically to undermine (IMHO) his general pro-Obama vibe. For a much shorter and far more cynical take, there's Mickey Kaus:
Let the UAW, as new owner of GM, pay the price for the overgrown work rules of its locals. Let the UAW demand above-market raises from itself. Let the UAW try to raise money from new lenders after the previous round of lenders has been royally screwed (thanks, in part, to the UAW). And then let the UAW try to sell the cars that result.
Aye, but then let us pay for the next round of bailouts....
phalkor|4.30.09 @ 3:15PM|#
Aye, but then let us pay for the next round of
bailouts...
Does anyone think we'd do it twice? I can't wait for the
ULTRA-SOOPER BAILOUT in 2021 when the government spends an order of
magnitude more and hookers for everyone to raise morale.
YAY! FREE BLOWJOBS FOR EVERYONE!
|4.30.09 @ 3:15PM|#
Let the UAW, as new owner of GM, pay the price for the overgrown work rules of its locals. Let the UAW demand above-market raises from itself. Let the UAW try to raise money from new lenders after the previous round of lenders has been royally screwed (thanks, in part, to the UAW). And then let the UAW try to sell the cars that result.
I want to have Mickey Kaus's baby.
|4.30.09 @ 3:17PM|#
This is killing me. I was thinking about buying a new Camaro for my 50th, but this is pretty much screwing that idea.
Cabeza De Vaca|4.30.09 @ 3:18PM|#
Phalkor,
To hell with libertarianism, that's a form of socialism I would
support.
Gilbert Martin|4.30.09 @ 3:18PM|#
Like I said when I mentioned this article on the other thread, Obama is a labor union butt-boy.
|4.30.09 @ 3:20PM|#
And then let the UAW try to sell the cars that
result.
And then let the UAW impose trade restrictions on Mexico and Japan
to try to force everyone to buy their cars.
When workers control the means of production, the workers product
useless junk and then put a gun to people heads to make them pay
for it.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 3:21PM|#
I've never been happier in my life that GM told Nissan to fuck off and killed any further discussions on merged operations.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 3:21PM|#
This is killing me. I was thinking about buying a new Camaro
for my 50th, but this is pretty much screwing that idea.
Buy yourself a shiny new 370Z. You won't be disappointed.
|4.30.09 @ 3:23PM|#
You know, one major non-political gripe I have with Obama is his
compulsion to comment on every issue that's in the news. Even if I
were a crazed Obamanite, I'd still want him to focus a
little.
I'm bringing this up because he's now griping about Chrysler's
creditors refusing to accept the proposed restructure. What the
fuck does Obama know about debt issues and bankruptcy? Is the guy a
complete buffoon? Shut the hell up, dude, and let the experts do
their job.
|4.30.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Let's hope and pray that the GM bondholders hold out like the Chrysler bondholders did, and force GM into bankruptcy, too. I don't see how they can get a worse deal.
|4.30.09 @ 3:26PM|#
I was thinking about buying a new Camaro for my
50th
And to think I used to think you were cool.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 3:26PM|#
I'm bringing this up because he's now griping about
Chrysler's creditors refusing to accept the proposed
restructure.
Obama's remarks have nothing to do with reality.
He is merely chumming the water to prepare for the next round of
legislation to lay a few more bricks in the yellow brick road to
Oz.
|4.30.09 @ 3:27PM|#
Buy yourself a shiny new 370Z. You won't be
disappointed.
The new Camaro is just so fucking awesome that I was willing to
overlook the fact that it was made by GM.
370Z? Nah. Genesis coupe.
phalkor|4.30.09 @ 3:27PM|#
Agree with ProL,
This president weighs in on EVERYTHING. It's unnecessary,
imprudent, and makes my left eye twitch. Has president ever
commented on every news story all the time? I'm sure it's
exhausting.
I guess this is the future of politics. The world is beginning to
resemble twitter and twitter the world. Everybody has a comment and
damn it if you didn't just waste your time reading this one.
|4.30.09 @ 3:29PM|#
This is killing me. I was thinking about buying a new Camaro
for my 50th, but this is pretty much screwing that idea.
Ford is making some kickass Mustangs. They have also (to date)
eschewed bailouts.
My proposed ad campaign -
Buy a Ford and tell the welfare quenns to go fuck themselves.
|4.30.09 @ 3:29PM|#
And to think I used to think you were cool.
Liar.
Every now and then a car comes along that begs you to buy it. A
direct injection V6 that pulls a 14 sec 1/4 mile and gets 21/30
city/highway MPG? 2 Please.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 3:30PM|#
The new Camaro is just so fucking awesome that I was willing to overlook the fact that it was made by GM.
|4.30.09 @ 3:31PM|#
Ford is making some kickass Mustangs. They have also (to
date) eschewed bailouts.
True that. But they just don't do it for me. That and a solid rear
axle.
|4.30.09 @ 3:31PM|#
I'd be happy if he stopped having a press conference or a
televised speech every week.
The all-Obama all the time news cycle is getting irritating.
|4.30.09 @ 3:35PM|#
Every now and then a car comes along that begs you to buy
it. A direct injection V6 that pulls a 14 sec 1/4 mile and gets
21/30 city/highway MPG? 2 Please.
Holy shit, how huge is your Pudsey Bear, you massive wuss? This is
your dream car?
J sub, the Mustangs, as the colossal pussy JW pointed out, have a
solid rear axle. Fuck Ford, just for that alone. And I'm not paying
60 grand or more for a Shelby. I can buy a cheap Lotus for
that.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 3:36PM|#
Yes, we need a news moritorium on the economy and the
President.
And did anybody notice that the President has a whistly-S when he
speaks? Sounds a little like Samuel J. Gopher.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 3:36PM|#
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0902_2009_nissan_370z_first_test/index.html
First Test: 2009 Nissan 370Z
Putting the Sting Back in the Z -- 0 to 60 In 4.7 sec. and the
Quarter Mile in 13.3 sec. at 105.7 MPH
When we evaluate a group of cars at the test track, it's often the
case that we inadvertently get to compare dissimilar vehicles, be
it contrasting type (sports car versus SUV), configuration (coupe
versus sedan), engine (V-6 versus V-12), or simply price point.
Side by side, these unrelated vehicles can often shed light on one
another at revealing angles, making some cars shine and others lose
luster. As luck would have it, the day we recorded numbers on the
all-new Nissan 370Z was the same day we conducted our very first
test of the Aston Martin DBS. Surely the DBS would embarrass the Z,
no?
Looking at the two, in person or on paper, they do share apparent
similarities. Each is a front-engine, rear-drive sports car
offering seating for two adults and a low-slung stance a mere
hand's width off the ground. Yet, the idea that a $34,000 Z would
be a match for a $278,000 Aston, much less outperform it in some
respects, never crossed our minds, especially considering the Brit
has six cylinders and 178 horsepower on the Nissan. Plus, the DBS
is the Aston Martin, the flagship of the brand, not to mention
James Bond's transporter. And the Z? Sure, it's Nissan's iconic
nameplate, but it's more for those working nine to five than it is
for 007. But like Rocky Balboa's left hook, a blue-collar punch can
pack a potent sting.
.
.
.
.
So what's the 370Z's secret? Simply put: Nissan turned to the
tried-and-true sports-car formula of cutting weight, reducing size,
and adding power. The Z diet from 350 to 370 included hacking 3.9
inches from the wheelbase, 2.7 inches from the overall length, and
0.3 inch from the height as well as replacing numerous steel
pieces, namely, the doors, rear hatch, front suspension cradle, and
hood reinforcements, with parts made from lighter aluminum. Nissan
even managed to trim mass from the fuel tank and audio and exhaust
systems. The net weight reduction, according to Nissan, is around
88 pounds, depending on trim, although our scales indicate the 370Z
with the optional Sport Package (viscous limited-slip differential,
19-inch forged Rays wheels, Bridgestone tires, Akebono brakes,
SynchroRev Match, front and rear spoilers, 0.29 Cd) weighs 12
pounds more than the Nismo 350Z. That said, our tester does
represent enhanced equipment, i.e., larger (and heavier) tires and
brakes, not to mention the more powerful 3.7-liter V-6, which,
according to Z project manager Peter Bedrosian, "packs an
additional 42 pounds compared with the 3.5-liter."
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 3:38PM|#
*moratorium, even.
Don't you live in NYC, Epi? I mean, do you even know how to
drive?
Gilbert Martin|4.30.09 @ 3:38PM|#
"I'd be happy if he stopped having a press conference or a
televised speech every week.
The all-Obama all the time news cycle is getting irritating."
Even more annoyting is the fawning, kid-glove treatment he gets
from the press in all those press conferences.
|4.30.09 @ 3:38PM|#
Hey Epi--I was out in SoCal last week and it turns out that a
colleague of mine owns an '05 Lotus Elise. It's his *only* car. He
showed it off to me, but wouldn't let me take it out. Bummer.
This guy is living it well. In his 60's, a sweet looking wife and
lives on an island. It's clear to me now that I am being punished
for a major transgression in a past life. Somewhere along the lines
of being a German shower attendant in Poland in the 40s.
|4.30.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Holy shit, how huge is your Pudsey Bear, you massive wuss?
This is your dream car?
No, you beef curtain, not a dream car, but one that is reasonably
attainable at my lowly station in life. Dream cars are just that;
dreams.
|4.30.09 @ 3:42PM|#
I have a thought. How about Obama just stop doing anything traditionally presidential and simply blog for the rest of his term? Might as well.
|4.30.09 @ 3:42PM|#
Don't you live in NYC, Epi? I mean, do you even know how to
drive?
Uh, Mr. Unobservant, I live in Seattle now. I used to live
in NYC. Aren't you subscribed to my Twitter feed? Laaaaazzzyyy.
|4.30.09 @ 3:44PM|#
That's all well and good kinnath, but the Genesis and Camaro have back seats. I need to have one of those in my car.
|4.30.09 @ 3:45PM|#
No, you beef curtain, not a dream car, but one that is
reasonably attainable at my lowly station in life.
But...a Camaro? That's what Naga drives. Are you an Italian Retard
Out Cruising?
Xeones|4.30.09 @ 3:46PM|#
and damn it if you didn't just waste your time reading this
one.
[shakes fist at phalkor]
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 3:48PM|#
I live in Seattle now. I used to live in NYC.
No wonder you're so cranky. If I were in a sodden and
exceptionally-effeminate city, I'd be cranky too.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 3:48PM|#
That's all well and good kinnath, but the Genesis and Camaro
have back seats. I need to have one of those in my car.
No, you just need two cars ;-)
The Infinity G37 is the same basic car (same drive train) stretched
to put in a back seat. Comes in 2-door and 4-door. Prices run from
low 30's to low 40's last time I checked.
|4.30.09 @ 3:50PM|#
But...a Camaro? That's what Naga drives. Are you an Italian
Retard Out Cruising?
Oh, fuck no, not an Idiot Redneck On Coke.
Have you seen the new ones? I have more class and pride than Naga
does.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 3:50PM|#
Or for a mere $75K or so, you can get the Nissan GT-R (Mototrend 2009 car of the year). It has a back seat too.
|4.30.09 @ 3:51PM|#
The Infinity G37 is the same basic car (same drive train)
stretched to put in a back seat. Comes in 2-door and 4-door. Prices
run from low 30's to low 40's last time I checked.
Oh, the G's are nice, no question, but I need something under $30K.
And something I can cram a kid into.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 3:52PM|#
Have you seen the new ones?
I had a 69 Camaro the first time it came out.
|4.30.09 @ 3:52PM|#
I'm only paying attention to Infiniti talk if Jonathan Pryce is doing the talking.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Oh, the G's are nice, no question, but I need something
under $30K. And something I can cram a kid into.
Try pre-owned then. They run flawlessly for ever.
Guess My Bra Size|4.30.09 @ 3:54PM|#
"Oh, the G's are nice, no question, but I need something under
$30K. And something I can cram a kid into."
G's don't have trunks?
|4.30.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Have you seen the new ones? I have more class and pride than
Naga does.
Impossible. Naga is the epitome of suave and debonair. He's like
Tom Cruise in Cocktail!
|4.30.09 @ 3:55PM|#
The Treasury, which is owed $16.2 billion, would receive 50%
of the stock and $8.1 billion in debt -- as much as 87
cents on the dollar.
It's time for a FLASHBACK!
MNG | December 10, 2008, 1:48pm | #
"Why are you convinced that spending $15B will avoid the $70B cost of a bankruptcy?"
Why are you convinced it will not? I mean, we got money back with interest when we bailed out Chrysler in 79 and they actually rebounded for a while.
|4.30.09 @ 3:58PM|#
Ask not what your government can do for you; ask what the government is doing for itself.
|4.30.09 @ 3:58PM|#
I had a 69 Camaro the first time it came out.
Nice!
He's like Tom Cruise in Cocktail!
You sure about that? I had him pegged more like Corey Feldman in
The Goonies.
|4.30.09 @ 3:59PM|#
Ask not what your government can do for you; ask what the
government is doing for itself.
Or doing to you.
Paul|4.30.09 @ 4:01PM|#
I'd be happy if he stopped having a press conference or a
televised speech every week.
The all-Obama all the time news cycle is getting
irritating.
It breaks up the Paul Krugman segments on NPR. So, pick your
poison.
|4.30.09 @ 4:02PM|#
You sure about that? I had him pegged more like Corey
Feldman in The Goonies.
Just for that, JW, you now have to do the truffle shuffle.
"Sloth...love...Chunk..."
"Rocky...Road?"
|4.30.09 @ 4:03PM|#
JW,
I had typed that, too, but decided against it because it was off
topic. In this case, the government is doing what it usually
does--promoting its own interests. People that want a large,
unlimited central government apparently don't get this "feature" of
Leviathan.
Paul|4.30.09 @ 4:03PM|#
Or for a mere $75K or so, you can get the Nissan GT-R
(Mototrend 2009 car of the year).
That car is wicked bad. That thing pulls some serious gee forces.
It outperforms almost all the exotics, including Ferrari,
Lamborghini and Maserati-- and at that sweet *almost* affordable
$75k.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 4:05PM|#
and at that sweet *almost* affordable $75k.
It's close enough that you start thinking thoughts you shouln't
think . . . sell the Z and the back up Xterra . . get a second
mortgage on the house . . it's right there at the finger tips . . .
.
|4.30.09 @ 4:09PM|#
In a genuine Chapter 11 bankruptcy, these three groups of
creditors would all be similarly situated -- because all three are,
for the most part, unsecured creditors of GM. And yet according to
the formula presented Monday, those with the largest claim -- the
bondholders -- get the smallest piece of the restructured company
by a huge margin.
Somebody (certainly not that ignoramus Lebeau, by the way) was
tiptoeing around this point in the Chrysler coverage on CNBC this
morning. Just as they refuse to admit Chrysler's huge "incentives"
are likely to prevent Ford from making enough money to avoid being
sucked under, they delicately avoid the fact that the UAW is
getting a vastly better deal than they would actually expect to get
in a *real* bankruptcy. And unsecured latecomers like TARP (WHO??)
would be S O L.
And- My aged, mid-engined Porsche has *two* trunks. So there.
Paul|4.30.09 @ 4:10PM|#
get a second mortgage on the house . . it's right there at
the finger tips . . . .
So true, and it would be patriotic! All this "holding back and
saving" is bad for America and the economy. Or at least that's what
Paul Krugman and Robert Reich said...
Gilbert Martin|4.30.09 @ 4:10PM|#
Quit pussyfooting around with those production cars and get
yourself one of those jet powered drag racers.
You'll be faster than anything else on the road plus you'll melt
the front end of any car that tries to tailgate you in traffic!
DADIODADDY|4.30.09 @ 4:17PM|#
looks like my next car is a chevy, wheteher I want one or not...imagine having to drive a Malibu...at gunpoint
|4.30.09 @ 4:20PM|#
This is wierd ...
While Obama voiced his support for Chrysler and the deal with
Fiat, he was pointed in his criticism of the investors who did not
agree to this deal.
"I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees and
their families and communities," the president said. "I don't stand
with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices.
That's why I'm supporting Chrysler's plans to use our bankruptcy
laws to clear away its remaining obligations."
I'm a bit confused. If Obama is pro-Chapter-11 for Chrysler, why
the last minute negotiations to prevent it? Wasn't it the
bondholders, not the UAW that forced bankruptcy?
And does Obama think that he can manipulate the bankruptcy process
in UAW's favor? The courts are in charge now. Presumably executive
overreach hasn't extended (yet) to ordering bankruptcy judges
around.
Taking up the Tony/MNG slack|4.30.09 @ 4:23PM|#
The entire country driving Malibus at gunpoint would be preferable to one courageous UAW worker losing a single dime of extorted benefits.
Paul|4.30.09 @ 4:26PM|#
I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees
and their families and communities," the president said. "I don't
stand with those who held out when everybody else is making
sacrifices.
Forgive me, but fuck him. So he doesn't stand with Chrysler's
creditors, employees, or their families and communities? This is
the lowest form of political pandering to an interest group I've
seen in a long time.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 4:27PM|#
When people bitch that the bailouts would be just as bad under McCain, they neglect to point out that McCain would have helped the auto companies use bankrupcty to destroy the UAW and to ensure that bond holders got their money first. Which is probably a lot closer to how it should be going down.
Mike M.|4.30.09 @ 4:27PM|#
I'm a bit confused. If Obama is pro-Chapter-11 for Chrysler,
why the last minute negotiations to prevent it?
Let me see if I try to alleviate some of your confusion: he's a
liar. Does that help?
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 4:31PM|#
OK, look hier. Tell me that is not a beautiful
machine.
And that my friend is what a 69 Camaro looked like.
I have huge issues with the Dodges and the Camaro so blazenly
copied from old sheet metal designs. Yeah, the drive trains may be
new, but ripping off your own design book shows nothing but stagnat
engineering.
|4.30.09 @ 4:32PM|#
I'm a bit confused. If Obama is pro-Chapter-11 for Chrysler,
why the last minute negotiations to prevent it?
Hazel, take my advice.
It's a real time-saver
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 4:33PM|#
The senior design engineer at Chevy brought his classic 69 into the design labs at GM. The engineering staff basically copied it with a few tweaks added.
Paul|4.30.09 @ 4:34PM|#
have helped the auto companies use bankrupcty to destroy the
UAW and to ensure that bond holders got their money first. Which is
probably a lot closer to how it should be going down.
Except I don't see why it has to even look that way. Wouldn't the
UAW workers be better off employed in a fresher, stronger, new auto
industry, not bogged down by the byzantine rules it's set for
itself vis. the UAW? I mean, if the UAW can't survive without
government bailouts, that suggests the whole model is fucked.
|4.30.09 @ 4:35PM|#
And that my friend is what a 69 Camaro looked like.
I have huge issues with the Dodges and the Camaro so blazenly
copied from old sheet metal designs. Yeah, the drive trains may be
new, but ripping off your own design book shows nothing but stagnat
engineering.
I know that. Those are classic lines they are riffing off of.
Still, that's one helluva an update.
I hear you, but I don't have trouble with *this* kind of
generational theft, as long as you break even or, hell, improve on
the original.
Gilbert Martin|4.30.09 @ 4:35PM|#
"I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and
communities," the president said."
Actually Obama stands bent over with his nose stuck up Ron
Gettlefingers ass.
Guess My Bra Size|4.30.09 @ 4:35PM|#
"Why not get something trick?"
Who would do that to an AMC Pacer? That's FU'd.
|4.30.09 @ 4:37PM|#
The senior design engineer at Chevy brought his classic 69
into the design labs at GM. The engineering staff basically copied
it with a few tweaks added.
Besides, I can't *get* a '69, unless I bump off a rich uncle on the
way to Barrett-Jackson.
|4.30.09 @ 4:38PM|#
The senior design engineer at Chevy brought his classic 69
into the design labs at GM. The engineering staff basically copied
it with a few tweaks added.
They pretty much did that with the PT Cruiser Neon
station wagon, too. Call it the "HR" I believe.
|4.30.09 @ 4:39PM|#
FYI, coutnerproposal by GM's bondholders in the works:
link
G.M.'s unsecured bondholders would receive a 58 percent equity
stake in the restructured company in exchange for tearing up their
$27 billion in G.M. bonds, which are now trading at about one-tenth
of that value. The United Auto Workers, through an entity known as
a VEBA that holds workers' health-care obligations, would get about
41 percent, and G.M.'s existing shareholders would receive 1
percent.
The government, which has extended billions of dollars in emergency
loans to G.M., would receive no equity under the bondholders' plan.
Instead, it would remain a secured creditor of the reorganized
company.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 4:40PM|#
I hear you, but I don't have trouble with *this* kind of
generational theft, as long as you break even or, hell, improve on
the original.
The big three respond to declining sales by ripping off their own
classic sheet metal designs from the muscle car era. They succeed
in doing this just as oil prices skyrocket crushing the market for
high-performanc vehicles and SUV/Cargo-carriers.
They have their eyes focussed on the past, while the future is
barreling towards them.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 4:41PM|#
Most people here opposed both bailouts for AIG et al and the auto companies, but to those who voted or supported the former and not the latter, I call reverse class warfare and bullshit.
|4.30.09 @ 4:41PM|#
Also ...
The bondholder committee quickly rejected G.M.'s proposal,
calling it "a blatant disregard of fairness" that was "neither
reasonable nor adequate."
...
"We do not believe that nationalizing one of America's largest and
most important companies is the right policy decision for our
country," Eric Siegert of Houlihan Lokey Howard and Zukin, a
financial adviser to the bondholder committee, said Thursday in a
statement announcing the counterproposal.
|4.30.09 @ 4:42PM|#
Who would do that to an AMC Pacer?
If a Pacer could do that, AMC would still be in business.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 4:42PM|#
Besides, I can't *get* a '69, unless I bump off a rich uncle
on the way to Barrett-Jackson.
You need to accept that you were born in the wrong era then.
Triumph|4.30.09 @ 4:44PM|#
"OK, look hier. Tell me that is not a beautiful machine."
Oh my yes, what a beautiful machine! So sleek! So powerful! And so
hot that it will impress all of the ladies and who would not like
that? Damn! That is the sweetest, hottest, most powerful,
chick-magnet I have ever seen. My balls will be forever wet and my
cock forever drained dry. I plan to buy one this weekend. Fuck my
kids' college funds. They can labor in the fields. I absolutely
must have this incredible 2009 Camero. For me to poop on.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 4:45PM|#
"When people bitch that the bailouts would be just as bad under
McCain, they neglect to point out that McCain would have helped the
auto companies use bankrupcty to destroy the UAW and to ensure that
bond holders got their money first. Which is probably a lot closer
to how it should be going down."
Yeah, no anti-union bias in this one. Fuck the contracts with the
employees (the union) and their well being, as long as their
creditors get paid!
What's funny about this false conscioussness is that if kinnath
makes over 30,000 a year then I am a fucking monkey's uncle...
MNG|4.30.09 @ 4:46PM|#
""We do not believe that nationalizing one of America's largest
and most important companies is the right policy decision for our
country," Eric Siegert of Houlihan Lokey Howard and Zukin, a
financial adviser to the bondholder committee, said Thursday in a
statement announcing the counterproposal."
I'm sure they spoke out as strongly against the financial sector
bailouts....
|4.30.09 @ 4:46PM|#
The big three respond to declining sales by ripping off
their own classic sheet metal designs from the muscle car era. They
succeed in doing this just as oil prices skyrocket crushing the
market for high-performance vehicles and
SUV/Cargo-carriers.
I don't see why a car company can't have both high-performance and
fuel-efficient cars. Just don't bank the whole company on one or
the other, like the dumb asses did with SUVs, And don't expect the
high-performance line to be more than a low-volume boutique
line.
Ford's got a long way to go, but they are definitely ahead
design-wise than the other 1.5.
|4.30.09 @ 4:47PM|#
MNG,
I'd like to destroy GM, Chrysler, and UAW, if it makes you
feel any better. Ditto the various financial services companies
that drank deeply from America's neck.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 4:48PM|#
Pro
Why would you like to destroy a company? They're just trying to
maximize their holder's interests. WTF?
|4.30.09 @ 4:49PM|#
There was some buffoon on Bloomberg earlier, expressing his
surprise that Chrysler filed their papers in New York instead of
Detroit.
Like Ratner is going to live in Detroit for the next five
months years.
The general consensus of opinion was that federal bankruptcy judges
are immune to political influence.
That still makes me chuckle.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 4:50PM|#
I'm sure they spoke out as strongly against the financial sector bailouts....
*Does quick check*
Nope, that's still an irrelevant comment. And of course, regardless
of whether he's a hypocrite, he can still be right in this
regard.
Fuck the contracts with the employees (the union) and their well being, as long as their creditors get paid!
Do you, uh, know how normal bankruptcy works? I can only assume
that you're eschewing normal bankruptcy because you're a
pro-union hack because GM's "TOO BIG TO FAIL!!
ZOMGWTFBBQ!!"
MNG|4.30.09 @ 4:53PM|#
I think its un-American to want to see the Big three fail...It's
like rooting against a U.S. olympic team of something.
And some of the same people rent their garbs and nashed their teeth
at Obama bowing to the Saudi king. Man, a funny patriotism...
|4.30.09 @ 4:54PM|#
if kinnath makes over 30,000 a year then I am a fucking
monkey's uncle...
Don't feel bad, Kinnath; MaunderingNannyGoat makes more money than
I do, too. He makes more money than *everybody* (combined!).
|4.30.09 @ 4:54PM|#
MNG,
Allow me to rephrase: I'd like to permit the deaths of GM,
Chrysler, and the UAW.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 4:55PM|#
TAO
Regardless of "normal bankruptcy" you don't think the company
should make good on all its contracts, including those of
employees?
"And of course, regardless of whether he's a hypocrite, he can
still be right in this regard."
Or wrong in this regard. Talk about irrelevant...
|4.30.09 @ 4:56PM|#
Also, I'm not sure the U.S. couldn't reboot an automobile manufacturing industry. Tesla and some other new technology options might eventually become significant players. And Ford may survive.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 4:58PM|#
"He makes more money than *everybody* (combined!)."
Naah, but I do OK.
Most liberals do, ironically.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 4:59PM|#
An American should want to see American companies and American workers do good relative to other companies and workers.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 5:00PM|#
What's funny about this false conscioussness is that if
kinnath makes over 30,000 a year then I am a fucking monkey's
uncle...
So do you enjoy fucking monkeys? Or were you raped by one?
$150k last year, although it looks to be about 20% less this year.
And our fucking congress is directly responsible for a large part
of that decline.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:00PM|#
I think its un-American to want to see the Big three
fail...It's like rooting against a U.S. olympic team of
something.
You're a bizarre little man. Much of GM's stuff is made in Mexico,
and a lot of Honda and Toyota's stuff is made here. You're
basically saying that we're unpatriotic because GM happens to be
headquartered in Detroit. Of course, I don't consider it
unpatriotic to take from the masses and give to an elite few, but
if fascistic tendecies = patriotism in your book, who am I to stop
you?
Regardless of "normal bankruptcy" you don't think the company should make good on all its contracts, including those of employees?
Yes. And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Welcome to
reality, sir, where money doesn't grow on trees. We created
bankruptcy as a way to make sure that creditors at least got a
slice of what they put into a company, and now even THAT isn't good
enough when (coincidentally, I'm sure) the Fundraising Arm of the
Democratic Party is involved.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:01PM|#
"because you're a pro-union hack because GM's "TOO BIG TO
FAIL"
There's an awful lot of non-union jobs that will be effected if GM
and/or Chrysler do poorly.
Warty|4.30.09 @ 5:01PM|#
What's funny about this false conscioussness is that if
kinnath makes over 30,000 a year then I am a fucking monkey's
uncle...
I made a humorously low guess about your income. Your argument is
invalid.
|4.30.09 @ 5:02PM|#
In the speculation about asset disposal, everybody politely avoids mentioning that Chrysler's plants (which some other manufacturer may or may not want to buy for pennies on the dollar) are located for the most part in Michigan; both R Gettlefinger and Governor Granholm will expect to be taken on as partners.
|4.30.09 @ 5:03PM|#
I suppose in an abstract sense that I do want American companies to succeed, being American and everything. However, that doesn't mean that I want to prop up failure just because it has the U.S. label on it. That's a losing strategy in the long run.
Guess My Bra Size|4.30.09 @ 5:03PM|#
"An American should want to see American companies and American
workers do good relative to other companies and workers."
Goddamn nativist.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:04PM|#
It's not even an argument; it's an ad hominem. How is kinnath's
income remotely relevant? I make 0$ per year and I still don't
think "Burn and Eat the Rich" like MNG does...because I'm not a
prick.
An American should want to see American companies and American workers do good relative to other companies and workers.
I expect to hear that out of you in the next Wal*Mart thread.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:05PM|#
"Welcome to reality"
Well, that "reality", i.e., the bankruptcy rules, are artificial
constructs created and enforced by the state bro, and if the state
wants to change them to help working people, then amen says I.
Amen.
" Much of GM's stuff is made in Mexico, and a lot of Honda and
Toyota's stuff is made here. You're basically saying that we're
unpatriotic because GM happens to be headquartered in
Detroit."
Because they are an American company, yes.
Your Favorite Queer|4.30.09 @ 5:05PM|#
"Yes. And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle."
Not necessarily.
Kiss, kiss!
YFQ
|4.30.09 @ 5:06PM|#
Actually, I was just thinking of the bevy of failed--and not bailed out--retailers. Why let them die and not the auto manufacturers?
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:07PM|#
I'm not anti-Wal Mart, I shop there. I wish it would treat its
employees better, but I'm not Chad.
"How is kinnath's income remotely relevant?"
Because it shows he is a fool who doesn't know his own
interests?
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 5:07PM|#
An American should want to see American companies and
American workers do good relative to other companies and
workers.
A good person should want to see talented people produce good
products and sell them at reasonable prices. Everyone benefits from
this.
Nationality is irrelevant.
Appealing to nationality as a reason to supporting a business that
it dieing of self-inflicted wounds make you a fucking bigot.
|4.30.09 @ 5:08PM|#
Hazel,
That's going to be tough when Card Check passes. Specter is going
to have to change his position if he wants to win the
Democratic primary.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 5:10PM|#
Because it shows he is a fool who doesn't know his own
interests?
I know exactly where my interests are: a robust, healthy, global
economy. Federal intervention into failing industries is actually
counter-productive in many ways.
|4.30.09 @ 5:11PM|#
Because it shows he is a fool who doesn't know his own
interests?
And you claim it's the rich who are "greedy".
According to your logic, the poor should support unjust policies
because its in their interest to take money from wealthier
people.
What's more greedy - wanting the government to tax other people's
earnings and give them to you, or wanting to keep your own
earnings?
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:11PM|#
"Appealing to nationality as a reason to supporting a business
that it dieing of self-inflicted wounds make you a fucking
bigot."
So you think the U.S. should lose any war where the other nation
has a superior claim to right? Otherwise I guess you are a fucking
bigot...
"That's going to be tough when Card Check passes."
That's simply not going to happen, though of course I wish it
would.
Guess My Bra Size|4.30.09 @ 5:11PM|#
"That's going to be tough when Card Check passes. Specter is
going to have to change his position if he wants to win the
Democratic primary."
No. All he has to do is vote for cloture, and then vote against the
bill, which doesn't need his vote to pass.
|4.30.09 @ 5:12PM|#
Federal intervention into failing industries is actually
counter-productive in many ways.
Think of all the buggy whip makers, starving in the streets!
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:12PM|#
Because they are an American company, yes.
So, if 99% of the manufacturing is done in Mexico, but the company
retains its HQ and 1% here, that magically makes it an American
company?
Well, that "reality", i.e., the bankruptcy rules, are artificial constructs created and enforced by the state bro, and if the state wants to change them to help working people, then amen says I. Amen.
You didn't believe this about the financial industry (do those
people not work?), so your cries of hypocrisy need to be directed
towards the nearest mirror.
And this isn't "changing the rules"; if you want to change the
rules for everybody else, we can debate that. This is a special
plan just for the auto industry and no one else...is that
what justice and fairness look like to you? Arbitrarily changing
the rules for one industry and making everyone else foot the
bill?
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:13PM|#
Did I claim rich people are greedy? Or rather that it is somehow
wrong for them to be?
I expect them to be greedy. I also expect those who are not rich to
be greedy and vote accordingly.
Warty|4.30.09 @ 5:13PM|#
So you think the U.S. should lose any war where the other
nation has a superior claim to right?
That sounds reasonable to me.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 5:13PM|#
So you think the U.S. should lose any war where the other
nation has a superior claim to right? Otherwise I guess you are a
fucking bigot...
Let's see: supporting a failing US business is exactly like
repelling an invading army.
Either you're getting frustrated or you're far more stupid than I
expected.
Warty|4.30.09 @ 5:14PM|#
Also, why are you comparing economics to war? It's the fucking opposite of war, MNG, you big silly goose.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:15PM|#
Because it shows he is a fool who doesn't know his own interests?
Alternatively, he's wise enough to differentiate between his
short-term whims and his long-term goals. Hypothetical middle-class
person might desire a free-market system because he knows that in
those types of system, upward mobility for people in his bracket is
much more likely than if you entrench old interests (like, say, the
UAW) and force us all to pay for their jobs...a la France (where
the young immigrants cannot enter the workforce because the old
white interests have entrenched themselves in the law.)
|4.30.09 @ 5:15PM|#
Well, at least the slogan is easy:
"GM, the people's car company"
or
"Suburban, the people's car."
I never want to hear anyone in charge talking about how teens are
irresponsible or don't care/think about the future. In order to
prevent a company from failing due to various reasons, the
government is doing the equivalent of trying to stop rain from
falling by borrowing (without really explaining from whom) to buy
GM stocks and just printing money.
So, aside from the burden this will place on all of us of
voting/drinking age right now (I'm 28), the generation after mine
and the one after them will most likely be paying lion's share of
this thanks to the triple whammy that comes from continued
inflation, debts coming due, and the loans, grants and tax breaks
in perpetuity that will be required to keep "People's Auto"
afloat.
Fuck it, just rename it to American Motors and we can call it
AMauto. Hell, let's get our kids and grand kids to buy Greyhound
and we can fold it into AMAuto as well. Then we can put AMauto next
to AMtrak under parent company AMtravel.
Now that I think about there's probably an airline board of
directors that wouldn't mind the government buying their
failed/failing airline so they can retire with 7-10 figures in the
bank. AMflight and/or AMair would certainly make a fine addition to
the AMtravel family.
|4.30.09 @ 5:15PM|#
Specter's going to lose some voters who think he's too full of
shit to be in office. That usually is the case with switchovers. So
he'll have to do something to shore up the Democratic base. If he
stays opposed to Card Check, I figure he stands a chance of losing
his Senate seat.
MNG,
Why don't you think Card Check will pass, especially if Specter
switches his position?
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 5:16PM|#
A quick fact check. My wife's brand new Forrester was assembled in the US with greater than 50% US content. In MNG eyes, I am fucking over the mexicans or candadiens that build Ford and GM products that I didn't buy and this somehow makes me un-American.
phalkor|4.30.09 @ 5:16PM|#
Hazel,
you are ignoring an important point. money corrupts all things. you
see, the poor person who wants money given to him through patriotic
taxation is noble because he lacks the necessary assets to be
greedy or evil. after all, why would they be poor if they were evil
and greedy?
the government is saving the souls of high income workers by taking
their assets and thus mitigating the corrupting influence of being
self-sufficient.
simple.
Gilbert Martin|4.30.09 @ 5:16PM|#
In a normal (i.e legitmate) bankruptcy, one unsecured creditor (the UAW) doesn't get 10 times as much or more relative to the nominal dollar amount they are owed than the other unsecured creditors (the bondholders) do.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:17PM|#
"So, if 99% of the manufacturing is done in Mexico, but the
company retains its HQ and 1% here, that magically makes it an
American company?"
They have agreed to play by American rules of incorporation, so
that is important, but either way neither GM or Chrysler is
described in your hypo.
"You didn't believe this about the financial industry"
Really? Go back and check, I opposed the bullshit changing of the
incentive bonuses for the same reason: they were promises made to
employees. Contracts.
"is that what justice and fairness look like to you?"
If it has an overall good effect on our economy and our working
people, then I say yes. And I think those companies going out would
hurt many, many people.
I supported the financial bailouts too, remember?
Paul|4.30.09 @ 5:17PM|#
Allow me to rephrase: I'd like to permit the [natural]
deaths of GM, Chrysler, and the UAW. [instead of draining the
lifeblood of healthy, productive people to sustain said companies
and organizations, unconscious, brain-dead, but alive]
Fixed.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:18PM|#
"Alternatively, he's wise enough to differentiate between his
short-term whims and his long-term goals."
Oh bullshit, he'll be in the about the same income bracket twenty
years from now. I'd bet my car on it.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:20PM|#
They can't get enough right-to-work state Democrats Pro. Never going to happen. A compromise is the best one can hope for, shortening the election periods, stiffening penalties and such. That'll probably pass.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 5:20PM|#
Oh bullshit, he'll be in the about the same income bracket
twenty years from now.
20 years from now I'll be retired from engineering and making wine
in my boutique winery.
Unless I need to work until I'm eighty-fucking-five because the
Obama adminstration destroys the US economy over the next four
years.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:21PM|#
"Let's see: supporting a failing US business is exactly like
repelling an invading army."
That's right, because I said exactly, didn't I?
No? That's right.
But a common river runs through it...It's not evil to prefer the
well being of your nation and its citizens.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:22PM|#
kinnath
Good luck bro, but let's just say I won't save a place for you at
the country club...
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:22PM|#
And I think those companies going out would hurt many, many people.
OK, why these companies and not other companies? How many people
does an industry have to employ before it gets a bailout?
Also, if it's that crucial to the economy that these companies get
this government money, why is it that you do not support
forcing that money on them? After all, it's about the good
of the country!
They have agreed to play by American rules of incorporation, so that is important, but either way neither GM or Chrysler is described in your hypo.
Logically speaking, they are. you don't have a logical line for
determining what is and is not an American company, and your "so
long as they are headquartered here" is asinine, because if it's
Americans you care about, you care about the companies that hire
the most Americans, regardless of where they are headquartered.
|4.30.09 @ 5:25PM|#
What is this, Edit Pro Libertate Day?
MNG,
About the incorporated-in-a-U.S.-state thing. In my work, one of
the nice-to-haves in our strategic partners is a substantial
presence in the U.S., not necessarily a U.S. charter. That's
because a company with lots of U.S. assets is much more amenable to
U.S. law, and, of course, those assets can be reached in the U.S.
court system. I think that might be what you really are looking
for, rather than U.S.-based incorporation per se. Nationalism
issues aside.
About Card Check, is that true? I thought most of the votes were
there, and nearly half the states are right-to-work states.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:25PM|#
Oh bullshit, he'll be in the about the same income bracket twenty years from now. I'd bet my car on it.
Not if you play the odds, he won't be. Have you ever looked at an
income-mobility chart?
phalkor|4.30.09 @ 5:25PM|#
Divergent crossroads for me:
I am an engineer now:
Should I
A: Continue on a dull but solid career, pay my taxes, buy a house,
retire when I'm 80.
B: Or say fuck it, hang out, have fun. Because soon I'm going to
get free health care and whatnot so why keep going to work? I could
travel west and eventually be homeless in Hawaii (by the time I get
to the west coast STIMULUS III will have paid for a bridge from LA
to Honolulu).
Life is full of difficult choices.
|4.30.09 @ 5:27PM|#
I expect them to be greedy. I also expect those who are not
rich to be greedy and vote accordingly.
So do I. It's why I want the powers of government strictly
limited.
You, apparently, have no problem with the majority voting itself
whatever it wants, and enforcing it through the barrel of a
gun.
This doesn't seem like a prescription for a just society or a
healthy economy to me.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:27PM|#
If you're not any wealthier after twenty years, it's probably your fault. You might have started out at such a disadvantage that you could never escape, but I doubt it. Even modest, conservative investment plans will put you in another quintile of the populace. Good gravy! So will owning a home.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:28PM|#
The auto industry is big with many connected spokes to its
wheels, that is a big factor, and it also pays well, that's
another.
And it's unionized, yes, which I think is a good thing for all
workers in the U.S.
So I've got several reasons to favor their bailout.
"so long as they are headquartered here" is asinine"
Perhaps, but I don't think I ever said that was my criteria. If
there were a company headqurtered in the US but employing 99%
outside of the nation then yes, that would likely not be one I am
rooting for (though there still is value to the fact that they
incorporated here, and the owner/founder(s) being American has
value to me too). Chrysler and GM still employe a shit load of
Americans at better pay and benefits than many other companies.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 5:28PM|#
It's not evil to prefer the well being of your nation and
its citizens.
I work for a global company. We have employees scattered around the
world.
I care far more for the people I have worked with directly in
England, France, Russia, and Singapore than I am ever going to care
about you.
I also believe my children and grand-children will have much better
lives when the GLOBAL FUCKING ECONOMY recovers.
So to make it clear:
Fuck the executives at the Big Three US auto companies with global
production assets that drove their businesses into the ground
Fuck the engineers at the big three US auto companies that let the
rest of the world (including the fucking Koreans) out engineer
them.
And a specially big FUCK YOU to the UAW for locking in benefits to
screw in screws 8 hours a day that in many ways exceed what I get
as a 20+ year engineer
So no, I don't care about American companies, because any company
of any significant size has global holdings.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:29PM|#
When someone else is paying for dinner, I invariably order the
lower-priced things on the menu, and I don't order
drinks...it's called being fucking polite.
Feel free to take this lesson and apply to your voting habits
accordingly.
Guess My Bra Size|4.30.09 @ 5:31PM|#
"If it has an overall good effect on our economy and our working
people, then I say yes. And I think those companies going out would
hurt many, many people."
Wasn't there a link somewhere around here today about people with
brain damage and how easy it is for them to make decisions like
this?
|4.30.09 @ 5:31PM|#
When someone else is paying for dinner, I invariably order
the lower-priced things on the menu, and I don't order
drinks...it's called being fucking polite.
Feel free to take this lesson and apply to your voting habits
accordingly.
False Consciousness!
ZOMGWTFBBQCHEESE!!!
phalkor|4.30.09 @ 5:31PM|#
Being polite won't let me sleep in everyday and get free health care. Nobody cares about being polite because we're getting better at disguising our rudeness.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:32PM|#
Pro
Companies incorporated in the US would face jurisdiction in the
U.S., regardless of their substantial presence (I know about
International Shoe).
"I thought most of the votes were there"
Not what I've read, and I'd be shocked if it were true.
"about the same income bracket"
I mean relatively TAO...Of course he will make more money. But he
ain't going to be "rich."
"You, apparently, have no problem with the majority voting itself
whatever it wants, and enforcing it through the barrel of a
gun."
Oh don't be so hysterical, you don't mind enforcing what you want
(say, property rights or contract enforcment) at the barrel of a
gun, so get over it.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:33PM|#
Chrysler and GMWe the Taxpayer now employ a shit load of Americans at better pay and benefits than many other companies.
And that's my whole point, MNG. GM and Chrysler's bloated business
models are not sustainable. Unless the UAW contracts are
renegotiated or rescinded (a la bankruptcy), they never
will be. So, the question is, do you want a
Weekend-at-Bernie's-type Auto Industry propped up temporarily by
Taxpayer Boards and Sticks, or do you want an (undoubtedly smaller,
but more streamlined, responsive, effective and best of all
profitable) American Auto Industry?
|4.30.09 @ 5:33PM|#
Chrysler and GM still employe a shit load of Americans at
better pay and benefits than many other companies.
This is an interesting point; are those people sufficiently
productive to justify their compensation? If that is true, why the
fuck are they broke?
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:34PM|#
Well, TAO, as you know you and I have a bit of a different view on how just property distributions are, so you're dinner proposal doesn't work on me (but you sound like a mannerly date, High Every Body might be interested).
|4.30.09 @ 5:34PM|#
Oh don't be so hysterical, you don't mind enforcing what you
want (say, property rights or contract enforcment) at the barrel of
a gun, so get over it.
Yeah, quaint ideas like justice, fairness, and rights, don't
deserve to be backed by force. It's all morally equivalent to
taking whatever you want from whoever you want by majority vote
anyway.
Might makes right! Might makes right! I have the guns and the
bigger army! I kill you unless you do as I say!
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:34PM|#
I can universalize enforcement of property rights; I can
universalize enforcement of contracts.
Can you universalize corporate bailouts? Can you universalize
arbitrary changes to the rules to benefit labor groups (of course
not...by definition this one isn't universalizable...to coin a
word).
|4.30.09 @ 5:35PM|#
"Yeah, no anti-union bias in this one. Fuck the contracts with
the employees (the union) and their well being, as long as their
creditors get paid!"
That is basically the definition of bankruptcy. You figure out what
the company is worth (either through re-organization or
liquidation) and then their is an absolute list of people who get
paid back first.
1) DIP Financing
2) Bankruptcy Lawyers
3) Secured Creditors
...Equity Holders
If you are a creditor (or you own any bonds) it is absolutely your
right to demand full payment before anyone lower on the list gets
anything. What the admin is trying to do is re-order the list via
their political preferences.
For such an intelligent lawyer to do this is a bit confusing.
It is like 10 people all have a mortgage on the same house, unions
hold the 9th, equity holders the 10th and secured creditors the
first.
Why should the unions sitting in 9th place get more than the
creditors standing in 1st place?
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:35PM|#
are those people sufficiently productive to justify their
compensation?
No.
And now you know why they are broke. And knowing is half the
battle.
kinnath|4.30.09 @ 5:37PM|#
Do you root against the American athletes at the
olympics?
I stood up and cheered when Olga Korbut did a back flip on the
parallel bars.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:37PM|#
"I can universalize enforcement of property rights"
First of all, you can't (if I were facing a tornado you'd let me
break into your home to save my life, you've said that
before)
Secondly, you're not a Kantian so whats up with that anyway?
Thirdly, I can universalize the bailouts I support easily: the
right action is always and everywhere that which maximizes overall
good, and I argue they both do and did.
Paul|4.30.09 @ 5:37PM|#
kinnath
Good luck bro, but let's just say I won't save a place for you at
the country club...
Don't be so quick to judge. I'll may just have a place at the
country club. Some still employ bathroom attendants, you know.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:38PM|#
"Why should the unions sitting in 9th place get more than the
creditors standing in 1st place?"
This is begging the question. I think employees should be treated
as preferred creditors.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:39PM|#
"Some still employ bathroom attendants, you know."
Paul
I'm a good man. I'll try not to stink up your office too much after
my tennis match.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:41PM|#
"Might makes right!"
I don't think might makes right. But I have some definite interests
in what makes right. I also think that if everyone in a democracy
voted along their own interests it would look a lot like that
right.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:42PM|#
First of all, you can't (if I were facing a tornado you'd let me break into your home to save my life, you've said that before)
Just because I would let you do a thing doesn't mean I believe that
others should be forced to do that thing. The essential
stick in the bundle of property rights is the right to exclude;
it's logically worthless without that.
Secondly, you're not a Kantian so whats up with that
anyway?
Well, note that I am not divorcing the universals from their
context. Kant would have said "Don't lie, regardless of to whom and
how"; I like to think that I am setting down rules that,
if strictly followed, maximize human happiness more than your
willy-nilly moment-to-moment decisions.
the right action is always and everywhere that which maximizes overall good, and I argue they both do and did.
I know that you MUST know what a cop-out this is. I think that the
right rule is that which, generally speaking, maximizes human
happiness and, as such, letting the markets operate without
interference from the government has a much better track record
than the other way around.
You cannot universalize it no matter what cop-out words you use,
dude.
|4.30.09 @ 5:43PM|#
the right action is always and everywhere that which
maximizes overall good, and I argue they both do and
did.
How about we play the bailout game in iterated form?
How will the players behavior adapt? What effect will it have in
the future? What maximizes the long term payoff rather than the
short-term one-shot payoff?
|4.30.09 @ 5:43PM|#
"This is begging the question. I think employees should be
treated as preferred creditors."
I think I should only pay 10% on my income taxes.
But in America we have a set of laws that we all abide by. One of
these laws is that in bankruptcy court, union claims are not
treated as secured creditors and are junior to those claims.
This is black letter law.
You can want lots of things, wishing hard does not make them
so.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:44PM|#
This is begging the question. I think employees should be treated as preferred creditors.
1. Then change the bankruptcy rules for everybody. Don't do just
arbitrarily change the rule of law for one industry and
2. Why? Employees are not creditors! A bargaining
agreement is predicated on the company's continued viability...what
"credit" is it that the employees contend they gave the company and
deserve partial recoupment on?
Guess My Bra Size|4.30.09 @ 5:44PM|#
"Good luck bro, but let's just say I won't save a place for you
at the country club..."
Things a self-important prick says?
Guess My Bra Size|4.30.09 @ 5:46PM|#
"I think employees should be treated as preferred
creditors."
Why? If they are not working, they're not owed a goddamn thing.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:46PM|#
Oh please TAO, you don't believe in the necessity justification
as a general policy? You're full of shit if you are going to argue
that way back then you were just saying you as an individual
property owner would have not filed suit.
And that is not a cop out. I'm a utilitarian, we have one big
general rule that dictates all the other ones.
"You cannot universalize it no matter what cop-out words you
use"
I just did. For that matter, so did you. We just disagree now on
what maximizes human happiness.
|4.30.09 @ 5:47PM|#
I think employees should be treated as preferred
creditors.
You read a lot of stuff with the term "stakeholder" in it, don't
you?
Employees who work for wages are not entitled to think they somehow
magically "own" the company.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:49PM|#
"Then change the bankruptcy rules for everybody"
Well, I do support that.
"what "credit" is it that the employees contend they gave the
company and deserve partial recoupment on"
Maybe we misunderstand each other. If the company promised benefits
to an employee, they should have the status of a preferred
creditor, and if they promised employment at wage x for y years,
they should be held to that too. Why are these promises any less
important than a promise to pay back money loaned?
|4.30.09 @ 5:50PM|#
But I have some definite interests in what makes right. I
also think that if everyone in a democracy voted along their own
interests it would look a lot like that right.
Wow. WOW.
I think I have found the absolute core of your stupidity. You
believe in "democracy" like its some kind of magic totem.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that democratic
voting produces optimal decision making or maximizes overall
well-being?
There is NOT. In fact, the vast majority of human experience shows
that democratic systems rapidly break down into tyranny unless
there are strict limits imposed on what the state can do.
Democracies are NOT systems that mesh well with self-interest. They
almost intrinsically rely on the assumption that people and
politicians will vote for the "greater good", NOT their personal
interests.
The notion that a democracy could function well, unchecked, with
everyone voting in their own interest, is just so ludicrously
stupid I am absolutely shocked that anyone could be dumb enough to
believe it.
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:51PM|#
Hazel
I guess you're getting at the moral hazard idea. There's some merit
to that, but its nuanced, because people don't gamble thinking
"it's ok if I lose because I will be bailed out", they often think
"I'm going to win big baby!"
MNG|4.30.09 @ 5:52PM|#
Hazel
Don't misunderstand me. I don't say that it would be right BECAUSE
a majority supports it, I say that I think what a majority
supporting its interests would produce would be something very
close to the right.
Jordan|4.30.09 @ 5:54PM|#
So you think the U.S. should lose any war where the other nation has a superior claim to right?
Is this supposed to be a difficult question? My answer is "yes."
Next.
|4.30.09 @ 5:54PM|#
"Maybe we misunderstand each other. If the company promised
benefits to an employee, they should have the status of a preferred
creditor, and if they promised employment at wage x for y years,
they should be held to that too. Why are these promises any less
important than a promise to pay back money loaned?"
Because that is what the law says. Everyone entered into their
contracts knowing what the rules were, and now the Obama
Administration is trying to change the rules at the last
minute.
I have been told that to win the Superbowl you need to outscore
your opponent. As a fan of the NE Patriots, I was distressed by
their loss to the NY Giants. But accepted that fact because those
are the rules.
This is like trying to change the loss to a victory via re-writing
the rules and stating that the Patriots get a free 14 point
cushion, therefore they actually won.
|4.30.09 @ 5:54PM|#
I don't say that it would be right BECAUSE a majority
supports it, I say that I think what a majority supporting its
interests would produce would be something very close to the
right.
I do understand you. I'm just completely aghast that you ACTUALLY
BELIEVE that a pure democracy would produce optimal results with
everyone simply voting their self interest.
Good God, I didn't think anyone was that stupid.
I'm flabbergasted.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 5:54PM|#
if they promised employment at wage x for y years, they should be held to that too.
you look WAY down deep in the agreements and I guarantee you that
GM never told Individual Worker X "you'll be here for 20 years at X
salary with Y benefits". They are collective labor agreements, not
individual contracts.
I just did. For that matter, so did you.
It's a copout! "my rule is: whatever works and is good for
everybody"...I mean, try a little harder.
Jordan|4.30.09 @ 5:56PM|#
Chrysler and GM still employe a shit load of Americans at better pay and benefits than many other companies.
Chrysler and GM don't employ anyone. Other workers (i.e. taxpayers)
employ them. How is this fair? Why are UAW workers gods among
men?
|4.30.09 @ 6:00PM|#
Let's say I work for MaunderingNannyGoat. Every week, I come mow
his lawn and clean his pool. This goes on for a period of time, and
we have a contract, either verbal or written.
One day, MaunderingNannyGoat gets caught leaning the wrong way on a
commodities trade, and suddenly, he can't afford to pay me my going
rate; have I somehow acquired the "right" to show up every week and
coerce him to keep paying me?
Is he justified in attempting to renegotiate our deal? [yes]
Am I justified in turning it down? [yes]
Am I justified in "demanding" he continue to pay, even when he
can't afford it? [no]
|4.30.09 @ 6:04PM|#
I suppose there's something to be said for the idea of "the
greatest good for the greatest number", but that philosophy breaks
down in practice. First, what is the greatest good, and who gets to
define it?
Second, in a republic operated largely through democratic and
representative means, what does the "greatest number" really mean?
Isn't it actually just enough people to allow a political party to
win elections--i.e., 51%? The majority doesn't typically look out
for minority rights, unless those minorities are part of the
majority's coalition in some way. Or when protection of those
rights is hardwired into the system (in the U.S., that
happens--well, happened--through the Constitution).
To me, the inability to have perfect wisdom and perfect knowledge,
coupled with the utter corruptibility of the species and of
government, means that the only rational system for us as things
stand today is limited government--with checks on any power, even
the majority's--and largely free markets.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 6:07PM|#
And PL just terminated Political Philosophy as a useful course
of study. Well-said sir.
*golf claps*
|4.30.09 @ 6:11PM|#
and largely free markets.
It may not be the optimal(!) solution, but at least in a free
market system, like this country in the early-mid years of the
twentieth century, an oppressed or disfavored minority can opt out,
and establish their own parallel economy.
Blacks who were turned away from white-owned businesses still were
able to patronize the businesses of other blacks, and the
businesses of whites who were willing to accept them.
An economy run by the government is unlikely to tolerate the
competition.
The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 6:13PM|#
Three rules to becoming a libertarian:
1. Utopia is not possible.
2. TANSTAAFL (or: resources are limited)
3. RC's law (Any laws that you want today will be used against you
tomorrow)
|4.30.09 @ 6:36PM|#
TAO,
Well, yes, I suppose I am dismissing thousands of years of thinking
with a single wave of my hand. Still, a market economy with a
limited government seems to be--by far--the best the race has come
up with in its thousands of years of playing with political and
economic systems. At least in practice, where assumptions don't
make as much hay as they do in theory.
I think there may be a time, with sufficient technological and
philosophical advancement, that a more utopian model might work.
Especially if we eliminate humans and replace ourselves with
robots.
Fluffy|4.30.09 @ 6:47PM|#
Why are these promises any less important than a promise to
pay back money loaned?
They actually aren't. Employees who are owed benefits, deferred
compensation, accrued payroll, etc., are already considered
creditors, and they are judged to be just as important as every
other creditor in their class of creditor.
But employment agreements are not secured by any particular asset,
so if there are creditors whose agreements are secured by
underlying assets, the employees are behind those creditors.
"I will pay you $X" and "I will pay you $X and I will execute a
deed of trust for my fixed property allowing you to foreclose if I
don't pay" aren't the same promise. The second promise isn't "more
important" per se - it's of an entirely different kind,
though.
Fluffy|4.30.09 @ 6:50PM|#
if I were facing a tornado you'd let me break into your home
to save my life, you've said that before
This isn't an abridgment of the property right. If I have a
property right, one of the things I can decide to do with my
property is let you into it if a tornado comes.
Seward|4.30.09 @ 6:56PM|#
The GM deal just illustrates how much government has gotten out of the bounds that it needs to be in. This is the government explicitly picking the winners and losers, not setting neutral ground rules.
|4.30.09 @ 9:13PM|#
I suppose there's something to be said for the idea of "the
greatest good for the greatest number", but that philosophy breaks
down in practice.
It certainly does. I'm still bowled over by how MNG can believe
that simple majority votes could actually produce "the greatest
good for the greatest number". As if the political process
functioned in such a simplistic way.
Seriously, half of what we argue on this board is how the political
process gets corrupted by the self-interest of politicians and
interest groups.
It's like he still has a kindergarten level conception of how
democracies work.
You can't collectivize decision making and then expect individual
level self-interest to drive it and expect anything other than
gross abuses of power.
|4.30.09 @ 9:18PM|#
I think there may be a time, with sufficient technological
and philosophical advancement, that a more utopian model might
work. Especially if we eliminate humans and replace ourselves with
robots.
Right, because only robots can make perfect utilitarian
calculations about the greater good without letting bothersome
things like morality get in the way.
|4.30.09 @ 9:20PM|#
I think its un-American to want to see the Big three fail...
I don't know anyone who actually wants to see the Big
three fail.
But anyone who doesn't recognize that two of them have already
failed is whistling past the graveyard.
It's not evil to prefer the well being of your nation and its citizens.
It may not be exactly evil, but it certainly is narrow minded and
bigoted. And stupid as well if it involves be held for ransom by
them.
Chrysler and GM still employe a shit load of Americans at better pay and benefits than many other companies.
And for that and many other reasons those companies are
bankrupt.
There may be some potentially profitable brands there, if they are
allowed to devolve into competent management. Better to salvage
what's there.
Ripping the bandaid off quickly is usually the best policy.
jk|4.30.09 @ 11:24PM|#
I watched Ted Kopple's Discovery channel series on China a few weeks ago. Until recently at least, Chrysler luxury sedans were popular among the newly wealthy there. The cars were assembled in China and were a profitable segment of Chrysler. I wonder how the entrepreneur-in-chief is going to reconcile that little detail with the UAW.
Bingo|4.30.09 @ 11:25PM|#
This is killing me. I was thinking about buying a new Camaro for my 50th, but this is pretty much screwing that idea.
Hahahaha, boomer alert!
R. Daneel Olivaw|5.1.09 @ 12:13AM|#
Right, because only robots can make perfect utilitarian
calculations about the greater good without letting bothersome
things like morality get in the way.
Actually, it's harder than it looks.
|5.1.09 @ 7:45AM|#
The GM deal just illustrates how much government has gotten out of the bounds that it needs to be in. This is the government explicitly picking the winners and losers, not setting neutral ground rules.
It's interesting, the only possible justification for a government
subsidy to any business or industry is that without the subsidy
there would be some shortage of essential goods or absence of
essential services. And further, that this shortage or absence
would occasion widespread suffering or would threaten National
security.
Seems to me that anyone trying to craft an argument that any of
these conditions will be met by a GM or Chrysler bailout has his
work cut out.
|5.1.09 @ 8:01AM|#
Hahahaha, boomer alert!
Fuck you, slacker. GenX elder here. Show some respect, boy, or I'll
do donuts on your lawn.
MNG|5.1.09 @ 8:01AM|#
"you look WAY down deep in the agreements and I guarantee you
that GM never told Individual Worker X "you'll be here for 20 years
at X salary with Y benefits". They are collective labor agreements,
not individual contracts."
I don't see why the fact that they are collective, i.e. with a
bunch of individuals bargaining as one, is any different than if
they had made a contract with a L.L.C. or a partnership, i.e. a
bunch of individuals bargaining as one. If they said "in agreement
with you working under conditions x and y we promise z amount of
your workers benefit a and b and employment through d years at f
rate of pay" then that's no different than if you contracted with
someone for a similar agreement. There's an expectancy and reliance
interest there that should be protected either way. You just have
some hang up about "collective" contracts, when they involve
employees, it seems (but not when they involve other collective
business enterprises).
"It's a copout! "my rule is: whatever works and is good for
everybody"..."
Again, it's not a cop-out, because I specify what I mean by
"whatever works" (maximizes utility, I mean I could have said a
host of things, there are many things that welfare is not you know)
and I didn't say everybody (maximizing overall welfare is certainly
not the same as "everybody"). And you can't argue its not
universalizable. But more importantly I then gave you criteria for
what I think would meet that criteria (strong unions are good for
workers, and there are more workers than employers and such; the
existence of high paying high benefit jobs is good for this
nation's workers in many ways [exerts a pull on other workers
wages/benefits by setting a push on the norm upwards, those making
the wage/benefits buy stuff, etc.).
|5.1.09 @ 10:59AM|#
You just have some hang up about "collective" contracts,
when they involve employees, it seems (but not when they involve
other collective business enterprises).
Not at all, MNG. We are saying that contracts with unions and
employees should be treated exactly the same as other contracts
with unsecured creditors in bankruptcy. You're the one pushing for
special treatment.
|5.1.09 @ 11:06AM|#
3. RC's law (Any laws that you want today will be used
against you tomorrow)
Technically, TAO, RC'z Law is the one about typos. As a scholar of
this forum, you are referring to RC'z Iron Laws,
which all support a minarchist approach to governance. The Iron
Laws are:
1. You get more of what you reward and less of what you
punish.
2. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.
3. The less you know about something, the easier it is.
4. You aren't free unless you are free to be wrong.
5. Any power used for you today will be used against you
tomorrow.
6. Money and power will always find each other.
By RC's decree, the Iron Laws are always presented in bold-face
type.
Gilbert Martin|5.1.09 @ 12:09PM|#
"Again, it's not a cop-out, because I specify what I mean by
"whatever works" (maximizes utility"
The concept of utilitarianism can only be employed as an arguement
as to what is the best way to advance a stated, desired
outcome.
It cannot be employed to validate value judgments that individuals
place on outcomes.
There are many different and competing ideas that people have about
desired outcomes. Utilitarianism cannot prove any one of them to be
right, wrong, superior or inferior.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245