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….
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . . . .
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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...
""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....
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.
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.
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!!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
Chrysler and GM We 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?
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).
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!
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).
"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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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?
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.
"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?
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.
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!"
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Right, because only robots can make perfect utilitarian calculations about the greater good without letting bothersome things like morality get in the way.
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.
"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.).
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.
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.
"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.
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!
I want to have Mickey Kaus's baby.
This is killing me. I was thinking about buying a new Camaro for my 50th, but this is pretty much screwing that idea.
Phalkor,
To hell with libertarianism, that's a form of socialism I would support.
Like I said when I mentioned this article on the other thread, Obama is a labor union butt-boy.
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.
I've never been happier in my life that GM told Nissan to fuck off and killed any further discussions on merged operations.
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.
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.
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.
I was thinking about buying a new Camaro for my 50th
And to think I used to think you were cool.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The new Camaro is just so fucking awesome that I was willing to overlook the fact that it was made by GM.
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.
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.
See? Even kinnath agrees with me.
hmm, looks like I pushed the wrong button somehwhere
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.
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.
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."
*moratorium, even.
Don't you live in NYC, Epi? I mean, do you even know how to drive?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"YAY! FREE BLOWJOBS FOR EVERYONE!"
A chicken in every twat.
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?
I want an Audi R8.
and damn it if you didn't just waste your time reading this one.
[shakes fist at phalkor]
I want my NSX. Why did Honda take it away from me?
No wonder you're so cranky. If I were in a sodden and exceptionally-effeminate city, I'd be cranky too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have you seen the new ones?
I had a 69 Camaro the first time it came out.
I'm only paying attention to Infiniti talk if Jonathan Pryce is doing the talking.
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.
"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?
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!
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!
Ask not what your government can do for you; ask what the government is doing for itself.
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.
Ask not what your government can do for you; ask what the government is doing for itself.
Or doing to you.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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 . . . .
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.
I, of course, defer to to your better judgment ProL.
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...
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!
looks like my next car is a chevy, wheteher I want one or not...imagine having to drive a Malibu...at gunpoint
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.
oops, link
Camaro??????
Why not get something trick?
The entire country driving Malibus at gunpoint would be preferable to one courageous UAW worker losing a single dime of extorted benefits.
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.
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.
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?
Camaro??????
OK, look hier. Tell me that is not a beautiful machine.
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.
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
Gay.
Drive it down a dirt road at 100mph, and see what *doesn't* fall off.
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.
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.
Pushrods?
"Live" axle?
Keep it.
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.
"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.
"Why not get something trick?"
Who would do that to an AMC Pacer? That's FU'd.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who would do that to an AMC Pacer?
If a Pacer could do that, AMC would still be in business.
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.
"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.
"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...
""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....
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.
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.
Pro
Why would you like to destroy a company? They're just trying to maximize their holder's interests. WTF?
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.
*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.
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!!"
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...
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!).
MNG,
Allow me to rephrase: I'd like to permit the deaths of GM, Chrysler, and the UAW.
Fuck the USOC!
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...
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.
"He makes more money than *everybody* (combined!)."
Naah, but I do OK.
Most liberals do, ironically.
An American should want to see American companies and American workers do good relative to other companies and workers.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"An American should want to see American companies and American workers do good relative to other companies and workers."
Goddamn nativist.
Today a liberal smiled at me. I felt blessed.
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.
I expect to hear that out of you in the next Wal*Mart thread.
"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.
"Yes. And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle."
Not necessarily.
Kiss, kiss!
YFQ
Actually, I was just thinking of the bevy of failed--and not bailed out--retailers. Why let them die and not the auto manufacturers?
Lesson to investors: Never ever buy stock in a unionized company.
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?
Forgot to add:
Never ever buy bonds from a unionized company.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
"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.
Federal intervention into failing industries is actually counter-productive in many ways.
Think of all the buggy whip makers, starving in the streets!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Also, why are you comparing economics to war? It's the fucking opposite of war, MNG, you big silly goose.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
kinnath
Good luck bro, but let's just say I won't save a place for you at the country club...
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!
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.
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.
Not if you play the odds, he won't be. Have you ever looked at an income-mobility chart?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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!!!
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.
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.
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?
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?
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).
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!
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).
kinnath
Do you root against the American athletes at the olympics?
"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?
adios
are those people sufficiently productive to justify their compensation?
No.
And now you know why they are broke. And knowing is half the battle.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
And knowing is half the battle.
G.I. JOE!!!
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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?
"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?
"I think employees should be treated as preferred creditors."
Why? If they are not working, they're not owed a goddamn thing.
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.
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.
"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?
Gotta run in about two minutes, so get your licks in quick...
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.
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!"
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.
Alright dudes, gotta run.
Is this supposed to be a difficult question? My answer is "yes." Next.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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]
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.
And PL just terminated Political Philosophy as a useful course of study. Well-said sir.
*golf claps*
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Hahahaha, boomer alert!
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.
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.
Hahahaha, boomer alert!
Fuck you, slacker. GenX elder here. Show some respect, boy, or I'll do donuts on your lawn.
"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.).
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.
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.
"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.