"Boater" wrote in message
...


Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall street
and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of real
working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry. I don't
buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work for
Chrysler, Ford or GM.



Most of the members of Congress now realize that in their rush to do
something, they really screwed up the TARP bailout. They won't make that
mistake again.

The fairest and most efficient means to save the auto industry is through a
government (taxpayer) supported, pre-packaged Chapter 11 filing. They
don't go immediately out of business.
Current workers continue working. But, a federal judge will arbitrate new
contracts, vendor payments, and the negotiations required to accomplish
these. Government (taxpayer) financial support can be given subject to
specific uses for the money, as overseen by the bankrupcy court.

It works.

Eisboch

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:42:35 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


The fairest and most efficient means to save the auto industry is
through a government (taxpayer) supported, pre-packaged Chapter 11
filing. They don't go immediately out of business. Current workers
continue working. But, a federal judge will arbitrate new contracts,
vendor payments, and the negotiations required to accomplish these.
Government (taxpayer) financial support can be given subject to specific
uses for the money, as overseen by the bankrupcy court.

It works.

I'm not sure bankruptcy court would work in this case. Bankruptcy court
is good for getting people to do the same things, only cheaper.
Detroit's supply chain, is already working on very thin margins, as
evidenced by the number of in-bankruptcy companies, e.g., Delphi. It
seems to me, a more innovative approach is needed for long term
viability. Bankruptcy courts are not known for being innovative. I tend
to prefer Frank's bill.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...ss111708.shtml

wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:42:35 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


The fairest and most efficient means to save the auto industry is
through a government (taxpayer) supported, pre-packaged Chapter 11
filing. They don't go immediately out of business. Current workers
continue working. But, a federal judge will arbitrate new contracts,
vendor payments, and the negotiations required to accomplish these.
Government (taxpayer) financial support can be given subject to specific
uses for the money, as overseen by the bankrupcy court.

It works.

I'm not sure bankruptcy court would work in this case. Bankruptcy court
is good for getting people to do the same things, only cheaper.
Detroit's supply chain, is already working on very thin margins, as
evidenced by the number of in-bankruptcy companies, e.g., Delphi. It
seems to me, a more innovative approach is needed for long term
viability. Bankruptcy courts are not known for being innovative. I tend
to prefer Frank's bill.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...ss111708.shtml

That is because they all have the same problem. Slack incompetant
management and union. Detroit has already spun off divisions and business
in a complex non-value added web. But they are related to the issues.
These contracts and management "buddy" relationships need to become more
competative.

They are correct this is an industry issue, and to let GM go into chapter 11
is really a necessity to send the shot out that it isn't going to pay to beg
on the public purse. It is now a mater of principle and GM has screwed
itself too far into the ground. Tehy should ditto this to banks, if they
can't make it work then it should be no different.

Hands in my pocket and they are not mine.

wrote in message
t...

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:42:35 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


The fairest and most efficient means to save the auto industry is
through a government (taxpayer) supported, pre-packaged Chapter 11
filing. They don't go immediately out of business. Current workers
continue working. But, a federal judge will arbitrate new contracts,
vendor payments, and the negotiations required to accomplish these.
Government (taxpayer) financial support can be given subject to specific
uses for the money, as overseen by the bankrupcy court.

It works.

I'm not sure bankruptcy court would work in this case. Bankruptcy court
is good for getting people to do the same things, only cheaper.
Detroit's supply chain, is already working on very thin margins, as
evidenced by the number of in-bankruptcy companies, e.g., Delphi. It
seems to me, a more innovative approach is needed for long term
viability. Bankruptcy courts are not known for being innovative. I tend
to prefer Frank's bill.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...ss111708.shtml



A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and certainly
is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things, only cheaper".
All it does is protects the company from involuntary bankrupcy by putting
the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at bay while an effort is
made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical obligations via
negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is developed to
reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in GM's case -
obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the plan, agreed to
by all concerned parties is generated and when implimentated, the company
emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot be produced that is approved by
all concerned parties, the company usually goes belly up in Chapter 7.

Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole. Six-eight
months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need a
complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in today's
global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a government
bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process, makes sense to
me.

Eisboch

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need a
complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in today's
global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a government
bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process, makes sense to
me.

While I understand the idea, I don't want money going to GM. Ford
doesn't want the money, just a backup which is one hell of a lot less
expensive.

Let GM sink. If they can't get through Chapter 11, tough. Let them
go Chapter 7 and disappear.

Ford, Toyota, Honda and others will take up the slack.

Survival of the fittest.

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need a
complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in today's
global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a government
bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process, makes sense to
me.

While I understand the idea, I don't want money going to GM. Ford
doesn't want the money, just a backup which is one hell of a lot less
expensive.

Let GM sink. If they can't get through Chapter 11, tough. Let them
go Chapter 7 and disappear.

Ford, Toyota, Honda and others will take up the slack.

Survival of the fittest.


I think you are grossly minimizing the impact of a GM sinking. It's not
just GM that will sink.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:12:02 -0500, Boater wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need a
complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in today's
global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a government
bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process, makes sense to
me.

While I understand the idea, I don't want money going to GM. Ford
doesn't want the money, just a backup which is one hell of a lot less
expensive.

Let GM sink. If they can't get through Chapter 11, tough. Let them
go Chapter 7 and disappear.

Ford, Toyota, Honda and others will take up the slack.

Survival of the fittest.


I think you are grossly minimizing the impact of a GM sinking. It's not
just GM that will sink.

There is, undoubtedly, someone out there in Never-Never Land who gives a
schitt (your word) about what you think.
--
John H.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.

While I understand the idea, I don't want money going to GM. Ford
doesn't want the money, just a backup which is one hell of a lot less
expensive.

Let GM sink. If they can't get through Chapter 11, tough. Let them
go Chapter 7 and disappear.

Ford, Toyota, Honda and others will take up the slack.

Survival of the fittest.


I think you are grossly minimizing the impact of a GM sinking. It's not
just GM that will sink.


Harry, the fallacy of simple bailout for GM is that it only serves to extend
the inevitable for GM and for those other businesses that rely on it without
major and immediate changes to GM's structure. Bankruptcy or no
bankruptcy, Chapter 11, or Chapter 7, the relationships are going to
change and jobs and benefits are going to be lost. Whatever market share GM
ends up with following a reorganization or the lost market share that will
be picked up by Ford, Toyota or Honda if GM goes belly-up will determine
what level business and therefore employment that the related companies
maintain.

The problem may be exasperated by the economic meltdown, but it existed well
before September 15th.
Collectively, GM, Ford and Chrysler have structures and capacities that are
too big to support their shrinking market share. Ford has recognized this
and has been streamlining their business and cutting back on the number of
different vechicles they produce. GM has not. Chrylser barely exists as it
is.

A bailout simply extends existing relationships and contracts until they run
out of money again.

Eisboch

Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business
need a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive
entity in today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization,
prepackaged with a government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing
during the process, makes sense to me.

While I understand the idea, I don't want money going to GM. Ford
doesn't want the money, just a backup which is one hell of a lot less
expensive.

Let GM sink. If they can't get through Chapter 11, tough. Let them
go Chapter 7 and disappear.

Ford, Toyota, Honda and others will take up the slack.

Survival of the fittest.


I think you are grossly minimizing the impact of a GM sinking. It's not
just GM that will sink.

In the end it will be GM executives and management and UAW management
and union members who will suffer the most, but they have had the
biggest gain over the last 40 years. The sale of raw materials will move
from GM to Ford, Toyota, Honda and other manufactures in the US. The
economy will take a hit for a few years but will will survived just like
we did when the steel industry collapsed.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:12:02 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need a
complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in today's
global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a government
bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process, makes sense to
me.

While I understand the idea, I don't want money going to GM. Ford
doesn't want the money, just a backup which is one hell of a lot less
expensive.

Let GM sink. If they can't get through Chapter 11, tough. Let them
go Chapter 7 and disappear.

Ford, Toyota, Honda and others will take up the slack.

Survival of the fittest.

I think you are grossly minimizing the impact of a GM sinking. It's not
just GM that will sink.

Yeah - the UAW and that's a good thing.

Delphi has been operating under Chapter 11 rules for a long tmie -
it's still around.

Nobody else is going to be seriously hurt if GM goes down. Whoever is
left over, namely Ford, will be stronger, leaner and more able to
compete with Honda, Toyota, BMW, yada, yada, yada. Ford's cost to
build a car or truck is now down to around $60/hr from $85/hr which is
GM's cost. Honda, et.al., are around $43/hr on average.

Simple fact. GM is a dinosaur, Wagoner is an idiot, the UAW was
greedy and GM's board was derelict in it's fudiciary duty.

Let them die and the UAW with them.

--

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that
a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes
that it will also make better soup."

H.L. Mencken