Why don't you just go ahead and state that you don't have any idea what you're saying in here and just save yourself the trouble of posting and us of reading.

11/14/2008 5:41:18 PM

I didn't realize you were suddenly an auto industry expert, whereas almost everyone else in this thread shares the same sentiments as me. Just stop trolling.

11/15/2008 1:48:15 AM

It is true that buyers should be reluctant to buy cars from bankrupt car-makers. However, this is a poor argument for keeping them out of bankruptcy. Afterall, people should be almost as reluctant to buy cars from a soon-to-be bankrupt car-maker. It seems to me, people might even feel better after a bankruptcy when they see that the dealerships are still there, warranties are still being honored, and news reports turn to scrapped contracts and improving financial conditions at GM for an emergence from bankruptcy.

And, the auto industry failing is not even a possibility. More than half the auto industry is still profitable (mostly foreign owned manufacturers in the south), of the rest only GM is guaranteed to run out of money.

And since it is the management that is at fault, bankruptcy is the perfect solution: the guilty management gets fired immediately. Of everyone at the company, they are the only ones guaranteed to lose their jobs in bankruptcy.

11/15/2008 10:15:03 AM

^

I think that Chapter 11 is a bit of a red herring here. It is, in my opinion, very imprudent to go down the road towards bankruptcy if you are not prepared fro Chapter 7. There is nothing about GMs situation that make me confident they would be able to turn things around once in bankruptcy.

As pointed out sales will be harder and its not exactly clear how they are going to get short term financing for operations.

If the government is taking a hands off approach then that needs to be based on the notion that we are prepared for a liquidation of GM.

11/15/2008 6:59:15 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4AD08120081116

Quote :

"Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl told "Fox New Sunday" the Democrats appeared to be trying to score political points by pushing the bill now "since it's pretty clear that it's not going to pass." He said they should wait until next year. "The people who would be paying the bill for this, the average worker in the United States, I don't think should be burdened with bailing out the auto companies that have been sick for a long time," he said. Kyl is the second ranking Republican in the Senate."

This guy voted FOR the TARP bill.

Quote :

"Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota conceded it "might be the case" that Congress would only be able to pass a more modest plan to expand unemployment benefits during the lame duck session before the new Congress is seated on January 6. "We're going to try to do more," he told Fox News and repeated his party's argument that millions of jobs were at risk and that a fraction of the $700 billion was a small price to pay to maintain U.S. manufacturing viability. "This is not just about an industry or three companies. This is about jobs -- 350,000 direct, probably as much as three to five million jobs in total," he said. "I don't think you long remain a strong economic power in this world unless you have a manufacturing base," added Dorgan."

This guy voted AGAINST the TARP bill.

Now tell me who the republicans are looking out for. Not you and I, that's for damn sure.

11/16/2008 2:15:45 PM

^ It's idiotic to look at this from a jobs standpoint.

It sucks badly that some of those people are going to lose their jobs, but bailing out the car companies is just a temporary patchwork solution. It's like trying to put a band-aid on a bullet wound.

It might save jobs in the short term, but in the long term, it's going to force the cycle to repeat.

11/16/2008 2:21:52 PM

If the Big 3 were to fail. Would not something emerge that would take their place? I can't imagine that not being the case. You would have a ton of well trained workers, cheap equipment and space, preexisting distribution and supply network, etc. It would be an excellent opportunity to produce a trimmed down and efficient auto company.

11/16/2008 2:46:29 PM

as long as we're motherfalcon SUBSIDIZING cheap oil with our dollar and the blood of our young people, and as long as we're propping up wall street, it makes a lot of goddamned sense to prevent a half a million more households from losing a breadwinner, especially in the current job loss environmnent. put this $25 billion in context of the $700 billion (let alone the $100 billion that AIG alone needs). throw in the potential for deflation and its effects on worsening unemployment, and you see that at this time the bailout makes a shitload of sense.

11/16/2008 4:25:01 PM

That's a very reactionary point of view. It's usually best to take time and response to a crisis rationally and methodically, rather than react to it without thinking through long term consequences. Of course, this is our government we are talking about and politicians only deal in short term, politically expedient, solutions.

11/16/2008 4:46:04 PM

maybe the oil companies will be some sweeties and bail out the auto industries

11/16/2008 4:57:20 PM

Exxon has an after tax income of something like $40 billion / year. It would be a tall glass even for them.

They can't borrow infinitely like our government.

11/16/2008 5:07:06 PM

^^^unless I'm missing something, since when is the US gov't subsidizing oil for us? What are you talking about?

11/16/2008 5:10:08 PM

11/16/2008 6:01:31 PM

^^ what happens to the current Saudi regime if we pull all our bases from that country?

we don't call it a "subsidy", we call it "long term military presence", and its done out of necessity. that necessity can be made null through investment in technology here. it will take leadership that thinks past business as usual.

btw, watch 60 minutes right now - Obama is on

11/16/2008 7:51:18 PM

Quote :

"If the Big 3 were to fail. Would not something emerge that would take their place? I can't imagine that not being the case. You would have a ton of well trained workers, cheap equipment and space, preexisting distribution and supply network, etc."

In a healthy economy this would happen, although perhaps slowly for something as large and unique as GM. However, the nature of recessions is that capital is under utilized and labor markets fail to clear. In this case if GM is not using those resources most likely no one will. Not until we can get the underlying recession under control and the collapse of GM could make that much harder.

11/16/2008 8:17:31 PM

^ Ah, but debt holders are not idiots. It is in their interest to keep the plants operating under chapter 11 until the recession ends and they can recoup all their principle from a controlled liquidation when conditions improve.

In my uneducated opinion, unless things get substantially worse than they are, they are going to keep making cars.

[Edited on November 16, 2008 at 9:06 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/16/2008 9:06:23 PM

Quote :

"^^ what happens to the current Saudi regime if we pull all our bases from that country? we don't call it a "subsidy", we call it "long term military presence", and its done out of necessity. that necessity can be made null through investment in technology here. it will take leadership that thinks past business as usual."

Will you please take this BS somewhere else, this thread's been going pretty well.

I wasn't aware we had a military presense in Canada, the place where we get most of our oil

11/16/2008 11:41:23 PM

My dad was in the special forces and he was deployed for two years to Canada.

That said; while it should go unsaid, Saudi Arabia had no trouble defending its oil before America set up its bases in the early 90s.

11/17/2008 12:36:12 AM

^^^

The question is whether or not that is possible.

We have two big issues.

1) GM does not have enough cash to fund operations. So its needs new funding which is very difficult for it to get at this point, in this credit market. So, it seems they are on the path to liquidation regardless.

In a better credit market they could have junk bond issue or get some other type of Debtor-In-Possession financing. But its not clear where that will come from at this point.

2) Bankruptcy filing will probably impact sales. My guess, though I am not sure, is that fleet sales are going to be rough in an environment where GM cannot guarantee warranties. Ultimately, warranty holders are unsecured creditors so they have to get in the back of the line.

From the looks of it, GM is headed towards Chapter 7 unless they can get some type additional financing either from the government or elsewhere. Now, admittedly these types of predictions are hard, but the possibility seems real. At this point I tend to look at financing for GM as risk management.

Now that is not to say that if GM gets financing from the Feds that we shouldn't take a pound of flesh in return. I would like to see everyone savaged. Shareholders wiped out. Wagoner fired. UAW contracts canceled. If possible I would like to see the interest payment to bondholders restructured. Though I am not sure what the legal possibilities are there.

I'd like to see the government get warrants at $0.25 or so. Enough to ensure that virtually all the upside goes to taxpayers.

If we make this thing painful enough I think we could minimize moral hazard.

11/17/2008 9:56:35 AM

You could always increase tariffs on foreign cars/offer tax breaks to those who buy US cars.

11/17/2008 10:10:21 AM

brilliant!

Quote :

"So the oil companies are once again boasting record profits and yet the auto makers are asking for some government cheese. Does anyone else see the irony here? So I’ve got a little trickle down theory of my own. As long as Detroit continues to make cars for the Gas-Capades let the oil companies bail them out. It’s a “robbing Peter to pay Paul” kind of thing except in this case Peter and Paul seem to be riding the short bus… and it’s not to save on gas."

http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/government-cheese-of-a-different-kind/

11/17/2008 10:14:00 AM

Quote :

"1) GM does not have enough cash to fund operations."

And what company entering chapter 11 does? If a company had enough money to continue it would not be in chapter 11. There is a process in place here, all we need to do is follow that process. How do other companies in chapter 11 obtain financing? This is not the world's first recession and this is not the world's first bankruptcy to occur during a recession.

Quote :

"2) Bankruptcy filing will probably impact sales."

They already have. As far as car buyers are concerned right now GM is as good as bankrupt. Afterall, all they hear in the news is that GM is on the verge of not just bankruptcy but shutting down completely in an effort to force congress' hand. Like I said above, actual bankruptcy might actually help sales when potential customers see the dealerships are still open and servicing warranties. And, more importantly, hearing in the news that GM was able to restore solvency thanks to the powers afforded by bankruptcy would eliminate all fear of warranty repudiation, not just put them off for six months until GM burns through the governments money.

I think a good compromise between our two positions would be to give GM the money under the condition that they enter chapter 11.

[Edited on November 17, 2008 at 10:25 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/17/2008 10:22:03 AM

Quote :

"And what company entering chapter 11 does?"

Well some companies can fund operations but cannot meet their debt service. If you suspend the debt service for a while then they can come back to life.

Also, in better times companies that cannot fund operations could still find additional financing under Chapter 11.

Quote :

"Like I said above, actual bankruptcy might actually help sales when potential customers see the dealerships are still open and servicing warranties. And, more importantly, hearing in the news that GM was able to restore solvency thanks to the powers afforded by bankruptcy would eliminate all fear of warranty repudiation, not just put them off for six months until GM burns through the governments money."

Yeah, its hard to say. I think high information customers certainly realize this. My concern is over low information customers. For example I last week had a number of emails from people who asked, "shouldn't I be buying GM stock right now, its so cheap and GM is never going away" So, I am not sure which way it cuts.

Quote :

"I think a good compromise between our two positions would be to give GM the money under the condition that they enter chapter 11."

I could live with that. I think a big enough public relations campaign to say "Look this is just a reorganization. No one is shutting down dealerships or parts suppliers, etc." could soothe the public.

11/17/2008 12:29:34 PM

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/how-many-jobs-depend-on-the-big-three/

Quote :

"“The auto industry supports one of every 10 jobs in the United States,” Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan wrote in a CNN.com plea for a bailout of Detroit’s Big Three. The day before, she told “The Early Show” on CBS that “this industry supports one in 10 jobs in the country,” adding, “If this industry is allowed to fail, there will be a ripple effect throughout the nation.” Many others have used the same statistic."

But really...

Quote :

"That statistic is nowhere close to 1 in 10 American jobs, but it’s nothing to sneeze at. "

Just thought I'd add that.

11/18/2008 2:38:18 PM

Quote :

" BofA CEO: '1 too many' Detroit car makers By JEFF KAROUB AP Business Writer Posted: Today at 1:42 p.m. DETROIT — Bank of America Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis says two of the struggling Detroit automakers should combine and prove to the government they are worthy of a $25 billion rescue package. The CEO of the Charlotte, N.C.-based bank said after a speech in Detroit on Tuesday "there are one too many" automakers, and he would require consolidation if he was deciding on a bailout. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress earlier in the day the administration remains firmly opposed to dipping into the government's $700 billion financial bailout fund for General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC. Auto executives insist they need $25 billion in emergency bridge loans to avert a collapse of one or more of their companies."

wow it would be interesting to have these companies merge into one american auto maker.

11/18/2008 3:08:34 PM

^So are you not aware that GM and Chrysler have been talking about merging for the last 2 months?

Here's a good article from the WSJ that echoes my thoughts pretty well on why GM needs to file for Chapter 11:

Quote :

"Why Bankruptcy Is the Best Option for GM Chapter 11 would better preserve the valuable parts of the company than an ad hoc bailout.By MICHAEL E. LEVINE General Motors is a once-great company caught in a web of relationships designed for another era. It should not be fed while still caught, because that will leave it trapped until we get tired of feeding it. Then it will die. The only possibility of saving it is to take the risk of cutting it free. In other words, GM should be allowed to go bankrupt. Consider the costs of tackling GM's problems with some kind of bailout plan. After 42 years of eroding U.S. market share (from 53% to 20%) and countless announcements of "change," GM still has eight U.S. brands (Cadillac, Saab, Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Saturn, Chevrolet and Hummer). As for its more successful competitors, Toyota (19% market share) has three, and Honda (11%) has two. GM has about 7,000 dealers. Toyota has fewer than 1,500. Honda has about 1,000. These fewer and larger dealers are better able to advertise, stock and service the cars they sell. GM knows it needs fewer brands and dealers, but the dealers are protected from termination by state laws. This makes eliminating them and the brands they sell very expensive. It would cost GM billions of dollars and many years to reduce the number of dealers it has to a number near Toyota's."

You can read the whole article at this link, its too long to post the whole thing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122688631448632421.html

11/18/2008 4:27:23 PM

not going to touch certain parts of this argument with a 10 foot pole with packs of rabid libertarians lurking about ready to turn the whole argument into a fight, BUT...

Remember back in the 1970s when the steel industry was outclassed massively by European, Japanese, and eventually Korean steelmakers? Steel's a very energy-intensive product. Our mills (still to this day in some cases) were still running the old blast furnace technology while Europe and Asia, looking to regain lost ground, were building lower-capital electric arc furnaces. It was a more cost-effective method and everyone played along with it and eventually American steel companies could not compete in a cost-effective manner. Gradually we've adapted, but we aren't on top anymore and steel isn't what it used to be, but it's on very stable footing for having been shocked like that(this goes for southern cos. like Nucor and unionized cos. like USS).

The Big 3 need to adopt the production practices of the successful companies. Management has to bring in more cost-effective production methods like the ones used in non-Big 3 factories.

But then you say "oh, but would the unions cooperate?". Well, unions are a helluva lot more involved in politics and business in Japan and Europe. How do you think those companies were able to innovate and still have a union presence. Well, they have good labor relations and a culture of cooperation between the parties. In Germany, union reps get to sit in on board meetings and give input. In Japan, labor relations are built on a culture that already strives for harmony, and negotiations are hardly contentious.

In summary, labor relations and industrial culture in the United States are F'd up the A.

Then there's also the issue of health care costs being cheaper there, but that's an argument I'm not gonna touch right now.

Oh, and let me go on record as saying that American cars, from strictly a stylistic, mechanical, and functional standpoint blow goats right now.

Now commence explaining why American auto cos. would be fine if we killed the Wagner Act /strawman

11/18/2008 4:41:41 PM

^Yeah that new Malibu is a real POS. So is every Cadillac sold, oh yeah don't forget the Corvette, total shitbox.

[Edited on November 18, 2008 at 11:01 PM. Reason : insightful post until you went outside your knowledge base.]

11/18/2008 11:00:44 PM

Quote :

"Well, unions are a helluva lot more involved in politics and business in Japan and Europe. How do you think those companies were able to innovate and still have a union presence. Well, they have good labor relations and a culture of cooperation between the parties. In Germany, union reps get to sit in on board meetings and give input. In Japan, labor relations are built on a culture that already strives for harmony, and negotiations are hardly contentious."

Ok, I'm no expert on foreign labor relations. But what I do know is that it is far more complicated than you are accepting. In both Japan and Germany labor unions are not autonomous entities like they are in America. They are created by the government and their leadership is manned by government approved representatives. As such, under the Japanese or German model of unionization this never would have happened: the government reps would not have allowed for such ruinous labor contracts.

11/18/2008 11:51:26 PM

They should take the money the automakers are asking for and parlay it into a bullet train infrastructure.

11/19/2008 12:49:50 AM

they should take that 25 billion and do some kinda manhatten project thing where they figure out a cure for energy

11/19/2008 12:59:18 AM

Quote :

"But then you say "oh, but would the unions cooperate?". Well, unions are a helluva lot more involved in politics and business in Japan and Europe."

I'm fairly sure that Japan's 'unions' are pretty powerless compared to the stuff we have here.

11/19/2008 8:31:20 AM

I really dont know a lot how these bailouts work but my $.02 is this...

it sucks for the automakers and the people who will lose their jobs, but we have to draw the line somewhere. are we going to bail out circuit city next? what if subway doesnt sell a lot of sandwiches?

the American companies have an inferior business model and have gotten their asses kicked by the foreign ones. sometimes a forest fire is needed to re-grow the forest.

11/19/2008 9:07:46 AM

Quote :

"they should take that 25 billion and do some kinda manhatten project thing where they figure out a cure for energy"

it will happen within the next 8 years.


..and this $25 billion is in the form of loans. loans that will be senior/non-subordinated. there are other strings attached too. its not like all $25 billion worth of value vanishes into thin air - and i don't want to hear shit about inflation right now.

i just can't come to grips with lending AIG alone $100 billion, and then shafting GM & Ford.

Chrysler can go ahead and get the shaft - they already got their bailout in the 70s - GM can take over and make Jeeps in their place. Also, did these private equity douchebags not see how Nardelli screwed up Home Depot?

11/19/2008 10:18:46 AM

Quote :

"You could always increase tariffs on foreign cars/offer tax breaks to those who buy US cars."

I think the Big 3's problems are far beyond anything that protectionism can do. Besides, with the current mix of supply chains, whose to say that an "American car" is all that much more American than a Japanese one assembled in Kentucky or Alabama?

Quote :

"In Japan, labor relations are built on a culture that already strives for harmony, and negotiations are hardly contentious."

You probably need to look into the history of the Japanese labor movement a bit more. The reason it ended up like this was because the conservatives broke the backs of the more aggressive and militant unions back in the 1950s and 1960s and promoted more business friendly ones in their place.

11/19/2008 11:23:36 AM

I found this on Facebook:

Quote :

" Let the Big Three Burn "There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets land in Washington D.C., containing executives holding tin cups. It's like seeing people in tuxedos and top hats at a soup kitchen. Had you even bothered to down grade to even first class on a jet liner, you might have shown America that you get-it. But you don't. How can you say you are going to streamline your companies, when streamlining should start with you?" Right now on CNN Live, you can watch GM, Ford and Chrysler beg on their knees for government money. YOU"RE DOING IT WRONG. You're barking up the wrong tree, and I don't think you get it. If you want some money to keep building what people aren't buying, maybe you should call up some oil companies, the same ones that have been lobbying against emissions controls, fuel efficiency goals, and electric vehicles. Yes, unemployment will go up an unprecedented amount. Pension benefits and health insurance will drop of the face of the planet for all of these employees. While that may suck, these companies have done it to themselves. We can keep delaying the inevitable, but these companies are going to go out of buisness anyways sooner or later. They are too out of touch. These companies haven't actually MADE MONEY in years. We can spend money now, and deal with this unemployment six months later, or we can let these companies claim bankruptcy(which should've happened years ago) and go ahead and deal with the unemployment now. The bottom line is, these companies did not manage themselves correctly. These employees (both white collar and blue collar) are simply paid way to much, due to greedy executives and horribly negotiated labor contracts. I don't feel sorry for the high paid executives who bankruptcy really won't effect, nor do I feel sorry for the blue collar workers who's automotive unions have demanded union-guaranteed jobs. Thats right, union guaranteed jobs. While robotic efficiency has slowly invaded manufacturing plants, employees who would have been laid off instead go to work and sit in a cafeteria all day. I'll say it again: thousands of Big Three employees sit in a cafeteria all day. Look it up. Sure, thats a great benefit as soon as your laid off, but these workers aren't even attempting to try to find a job somewhere else. I don't feel sorry for them. And the employees that actually do work are employees in other countries. Why is that these companies are closing manufacturing plants in the U.S., keeping their manufacturing plants in Mexico, and people are complaining that they worry about the Big Three blue collar workers, when many of these workers aren't Americans? If so much of these companies manufacturing is in Mexico, why aren't you asking Mexico to bail you out? Any amount of money that we could possibly think about giving these companies needs to be given to companies like Tesla and Aptera, who are currently putting electric vehicles on the road, who are years ahead of the big three in terms of research, development, and manufacturing. Let them take over the manufacturing plants that the Big Three will be liquidating, and build the American cars of the future, the American cars that people will actually buy. Many of these unemployed can be hired back by a new American car industry. As for their health insurance that will be dropped for who knows how long into the future, this large amount of soon-to-be unemployed sounds like an excellent starter base for the upcoming inexpensive and universal U.S. Citizen Health Care Plan."

11/19/2008 2:18:14 PM

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10448991/2/bears-roar-into-finish-dow-closes-below-8000.html

Quote :

""There's been no sign from any of the three auto companies that they are willing to change any significant aspect of their business models or their business plans," said Fred Dickson, director of private client research at DA Davidson. "It's basically, 'Here's what we've done in the past; it should be good enough.'""

Why is it that I seem to hear a vote of no-confidence towards GM from... well just about everybody?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/autos.ceo.jets/index.html

Quote :

"He added, "couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it.""

ahahahahahaha

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 5:18 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2008 5:07:07 PM

the abcnews vid...complete with video
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/story?id=6285739&page=1

of note is that even the ceo of Ford, doesn't drive one of his own crappy cars

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 5:33 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2008 5:31:12 PM

so whats the deal with this?

i keep hearing if they get the bailout nothing will change and they will be in the same position later...if they go bankrupt, they will restructure and not be so bad...i vote for that option

11/19/2008 5:42:29 PM

If they go bankrupt, they may be forced to liquidate. Also, unemployment would likely spike and the recession would worsen. It's not as simple as when the airlines went into Chapter 11.

11/19/2008 5:55:34 PM

^however I'm inclined to think that they can't survive without major restructuring of their labor union agreements. And with all the Pro-Union Democrats I DO NOT see that happening with a government bailout. Bankruptcy would SUCK, but it would probably be the bottoming out for the recession and as the companies reorganize life will be given back to the economy. Life that is sustainable.

BTW did you guys know that every Chevrolet sold has a tire pressure monitoring system standard? I had no idea. I'm actually a little impressed that they went that extra mile for a feature that helps save a little gas mileage (since most people are too dumb to maintain correct pressure themselves).

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 7:16 PM. Reason : k]

11/19/2008 7:15:54 PM

They already had a major restructuring of their labor agreements, back in 2007. The problem for them is that it doesn't go into effect until 2010.

Experts speculate that there will not be enough DIP financing available for these guys to emerge from a Chapter 11. Sure, plenty of big companies file for bankruptcy in recessions, but this is no ordinary recession. The credit crunch would likely doom them because all the money is on the sideline until people figure out which direction we are going.

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 7:24 PM. Reason : 2]

11/19/2008 7:23:26 PM

Then if they want to save their precious unions they need to change that 2010 date to January 2009.

11/19/2008 7:30:28 PM

Quote :

"One way out of this mess that no one has proposed is the US Govt stepping in as the debtor-in-possession financier. Anti-interventionists claim that the Big 3 should go through the bankruptcy process to scrap management, get labor costs in line with other manufacturers, avoid moral hazard, and to not waste govt money on businesses that will only fail again further down the line without the structural changes needed to become competitive, all of which are true. Interventionists claim millions of auto-related jobs will be lost through bankruptcy since no DIP financing could be found and even if it could no one would buy a car from a bankrupt company. With the US on the brink of the deepest recession in generations, this is not the time to let a huge section of the US manufacturing base tank, they say. These are all legitimate claims, so how do we reconcile the two sides? The US acting as DIP financier takes care of all of the above. Bankruptcy? Check. Union contracts slashed? Check. Management gone? Check. Shareholders wiped out? Check. DIP financing to restructure? Check Now would consumers still purchase cars from a bankrupt Big 3? I would argue the govt backing the bankruptcy is as strong a signal of strength as you could ask for (however I would also question whether consumers really would be less likely to purchase cars from a bankrupt manufacturer as compared to a manufacturer on the brink of bankruptcy as the Big 3 have been operating for the past year). On a final note, as a taxpayer this is exactly how I want to govt to intervene. From wikipedia, “Usually, this security is more senior than debt, equity, and any other securities issued by a company” meaning the govt gets it’s money back first."

11/19/2008 8:34:00 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803510.html?sub=new

Quote :

"Congress could also authorize the General Services Administration to negotiate an advance order, with a big down payment, for millions of new fuel-efficient cars and trucks to be delivered over the next decade as the government's fleet needs replacing. Such an order could not only prod the companies in the direction of more fuel-efficient cars, but also help to finance the research and development necessary to achieve breakthroughs in battery and other technologies. Another $25 billion in loans has been authorized to retool factories to produce the new vehicles. "

11/19/2008 10:25:45 PM

^agreed to a degree. But enough with this FLEX-FUEL bullshit. Its a waste of everyone's time. Just stop already!

Quote :

"no one would buy a car from a bankrupt company"

I'm not so sure thats true.

11/19/2008 10:34:15 PM

Quote :

"i just can't come to grips with lending AIG alone $100 billion, and then shafting GM & Ford. "

So, because we did something stupid in one case, we should continue going out and doing more stupid things? Is that what you are arguing?

11/19/2008 10:45:30 PM

Let 'em burn and allow some foreign investors to restructure us.

11/19/2008 11:39:21 PM

Quote :

"no one would buy a car warranty from a bankrupt company"

fixed that for you

11/19/2008 11:47:01 PM

- allow the companies to fail
- but offer good credit terms to any company willing to buy the bankrupt companies
- provide help to buyout pensions, any other help to get rid of pension obligations
- deprecate the unions

11/19/2008 11:59:20 PM