"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

Going into bankruptcy and receivership is not necessarily failure. Under
bankruptcy the companies can be restructured, some debts eliminated and
contracts renegotiated. Here's an article you can read and add to your
vast repertoire of MBA knowledge (unless you want to continue parroting
the false dilemma of "allow the Big Three to fail") :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrup..._United_States



You're attempting to educate Gaynze about bankruptcy?
Bwwahahahhahahahhahah!

Hey, he's morally bankrupt so surely he knows all about it.

Wilbur Hubbard


Here's the education----

GM's net assets are listed he

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=GM

As of June 08, they have net assets of $136 billion. The largest
bankruptcy in history occurred in Sept 08 with assets of over $600
billion. It's right on the bankruptcy link. So why is the concern over GM
bankruptcy, which is only 20% of the largest? Throw in the 2 other
automakers and it still is much less than a $600 billion + bankruptcy.

It's all about having the public subsidize the plush union benefits at the
expense of those who have much, much less.

BINGO! The unions have done what they do best. They have priced themselves
out of the marketplace but, since Democrats are beholden to and dependent
upon their Union voting block, Democrat leglislators are going to to do
their best to spread the debt from the union looters to the productive,
non-union private sector. If unions can't recruit somebody legitmately
they're very good at stealing what they want - always have been.


Look for the union label on the baseball bat coming through the
windshield!

Ganz can't be educated. He merely repeats what he is told, very little -
if any - thinking goes on between his ears. But that's Dave's puppet
show - an enjoyable one indeed!

Thankfully we have brilliant, masterful people such as you, Wilbur
Hubbard, to counteract the masses of drooling, unthinking, knee jerk
liberals.

I pale in comparison to you, Dear Sir!!! Keep up the good work.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

Going into bankruptcy and receivership is not necessarily failure.
Under bankruptcy the companies can be restructured, some debts
eliminated and contracts renegotiated. Here's an article you can read
and add to your vast repertoire of MBA knowledge (unless you want to
continue parroting the false dilemma of "allow the Big Three to fail")
:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrup..._United_States



You're attempting to educate Gaynze about bankruptcy?
Bwwahahahhahahahhahah!

Hey, he's morally bankrupt so surely he knows all about it.

Wilbur Hubbard


Here's the education----

GM's net assets are listed he

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=GM

As of June 08, they have net assets of $136 billion. The largest
bankruptcy in history occurred in Sept 08 with assets of over $600
billion. It's right on the bankruptcy link. So why is the concern over GM
bankruptcy, which is only 20% of the largest? Throw in the 2 other
automakers and it still is much less than a $600 billion + bankruptcy.

It's all about having the public subsidize the plush union benefits at
the expense of those who have much, much less.

BINGO! The unions have done what they do best. They have priced themselves
out of the marketplace but, since Democrats are beholden to and dependent
upon their Union voting block, Democrat leglislators are going to to do
their best to spread the debt from the union looters to the productive,
non-union private sector. If unions can't recruit somebody legitmately
they're very good at stealing what they want - always have been.


Look for the union label on the baseball bat coming through the
windshield!

Ganz can't be educated. He merely repeats what he is told, very little -
if any - thinking goes on between his ears. But that's Dave's puppet
show - an enjoyable one indeed!

Thankfully we have brilliant, masterful people such as you, Wilbur
Hubbard, to counteract the masses of drooling, unthinking, knee jerk
liberals.

I pale in comparison to you, Dear Sir!!! Keep up the good work.

Wilbur Hubbard

Good Wilbur, it is not the torch bearers but the torch itself.

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

Going into bankruptcy and receivership is not necessarily failure.
Under bankruptcy the companies can be restructured, some debts
eliminated and contracts renegotiated. Here's an article you can read
and add to your vast repertoire of MBA knowledge (unless you want to
continue parroting the false dilemma of "allow the Big Three to fail")
:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrup..._United_States



You're attempting to educate Gaynze about bankruptcy?
Bwwahahahhahahahhahah!

Hey, he's morally bankrupt so surely he knows all about it.

Wilbur Hubbard


Here's the education----

GM's net assets are listed he

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=GM

As of June 08, they have net assets of $136 billion. The largest
bankruptcy in history occurred in Sept 08 with assets of over $600
billion. It's right on the bankruptcy link. So why is the concern over
GM bankruptcy, which is only 20% of the largest? Throw in the 2 other
automakers and it still is much less than a $600 billion + bankruptcy.

It's all about having the public subsidize the plush union benefits at
the expense of those who have much, much less.

BINGO! The unions have done what they do best. They have priced
themselves out of the marketplace but, since Democrats are beholden to
and dependent upon their Union voting block, Democrat leglislators are
going to to do their best to spread the debt from the union looters to
the productive, non-union private sector. If unions can't recruit
somebody legitmately they're very good at stealing what they want -
always have been.


Look for the union label on the baseball bat coming through the
windshield!

Ganz can't be educated. He merely repeats what he is told, very little -
if any - thinking goes on between his ears. But that's Dave's puppet
show - an enjoyable one indeed!

Thankfully we have brilliant, masterful people such as you, Wilbur
Hubbard, to counteract the masses of drooling, unthinking, knee jerk
liberals.

I pale in comparison to you, Dear Sir!!! Keep up the good work.

Wilbur Hubbard

Good Wilbur, it is not the torch bearers but the torch itself.



Speaking of torch bearers, when are those fires ever going to get to
Orangevale?

Wilbur Hubbard

wrote in message
news troll sh*t removed

Oh boy, Momsen, the long windup is great. I can hardly wait for the
pitch!


Sad people. Clearly obsessed. I feel sorry for them.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:10:45 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
troll sh*t removed

And now Harry and Nancy want to use it to bail out the UAW.


Do you believe that we should allow the Big Three to fail? I'm kinda on
the
fence about this... on the one hand, I think we should, because they got
themselves into this mess. On the other hand, this would displace millions
of people.... not exactly the best thing to do in the current economy.

Absolutely. The big three will never be competitive with the built in
costs
of what they've given away in the past, including bloated wages,
unsustainable pensions, ongoing payments to former workers not to work,
capital costs of non-operating plants...you name it. Throwing more money
at
them just postpones the reckoning and increases its ultimate cost. When
the
Japanese have a $30 an hour advantage in the amount they pay their U.S.
workers, the big 3 are never going to compete.

Yes, the stockholders would get wiped out, or more likely squeezed down to
a
very small percentage of ownership, with creditors becoming the equity
owners. And management would likely be tossed our. But companies in
Chapter
11 don't generally go out of business (though some do). They continue in
business under new owners. If the car companies could shed nonproductive
assets, get rid of legacy costs and costs of paying people not to work,
reduce their debt service costs and costs of capital, and relocate
operations to right to work states there's no reason they couldn't become
competitive, and without a taxpayer bailout.


Well, I agree that companies don't necessarily go completely under, but my
main concern, which was voiced by both conservative and liberal economists,
is that people would likely not want to buy such a big-ticket item from
companies with uncertain futures. For example, I was considering a
big-screen tv... couple of grand, from Circuit City. But, they're in Chap.
11, so the question is should I be concerned, even though the warranty is
thru the manufacturer. Probably not. But, with autos it's a bit different.
If consumers decided not to risk it, then the sales would go to zero or
close to zero (not that they're going gangbusters now). Then, we would have
massive layoffs, not just the UAW, but throughout the stream of suppliers,
dealers, etc. It run into the millions. If this were to happen in good
economic times, then I would be less concerned. But, this isn't the
situation.

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the problems
and renegotiate their packages.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into the
unemployment lines?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:12:45 -0500, said:


Total, unmitigated baloney. If costs are the problem, why are Chevys
so much cheaper to buy than Toyotas? Are they selling them for less
than they cost to make?

I suspect so in many cases. Thanks to the enviros, they are required to
sell
a bunch of cars the people don't want to buy in order to be able to sell
enough of the larger cars that people do want. To get people to buy they
have to drop the price on the ones no one wants to buy in order to get
them
sold.


Huh?? Forced to sell cars that don't sell? Nonsense. They may be dumb but
they're not stupid. LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 17 Nov 2008 15:08:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:12:45 -0500, said:


Total, unmitigated baloney. If costs are the problem, why are Chevys
so much cheaper to buy than Toyotas? Are they selling them for less
than they cost to make?

I suspect so in many cases. Thanks to the enviros, they are required to sell
a bunch of cars the people don't want to buy in order to be able to sell
enough of the larger cars that people do want. To get people to buy they
have to drop the price on the ones no one wants to buy in order to get them
sold.

More baloney. Toyota is obviously making cars that people want, and
they have to meet all the same standards as Chevy and everybody else.
Toyota is selling more cars, despite charging substantially more for
similarly sized and equipped models. Please explain how that is
possible. They may be paying their labor less money, but they sure
aren't competing on price, so labor costs are obviously not a factor.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:28:14 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
news troll sh*t removed

Oh boy, Momsen, the long windup is great. I can hardly wait for the
pitch!


Sad people. Clearly obsessed. I feel sorry for them.

I think you are missing something on this one, Jon. Just be patient...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:28:14 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
news troll sh*t removed

Oh boy, Momsen, the long windup is great. I can hardly wait for the
pitch!


Sad people. Clearly obsessed. I feel sorry for them.

I think you are missing something on this one, Jon. Just be patient...



I miss a lot these days. LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying
to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the
problems
and renegotiate their packages.

I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big
three
pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think the
UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour wage
gap? I don't think so.

I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not to
work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit costs,
which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's the
percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their
wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a bit
less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into
the
unemployment lines?

We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for the
former.

Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can stand
right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or more?
You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite a
bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it later.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com