On Sat, 9 May 2009 18:40:53 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

What do you mean "legal?"
Are laws being broken?
I haven't looked at the details, but I thought this was still in
court.

--Vic


It's in court, but the bond holders threw in the towel for any claim. This
removes any conflicts and allows the bankruptcy court to proceed with
dividing up Chrysler per the desires of the Fed.

The investors/bond holders were being pressured to go public with their
names and/or organizations and
they determined that the public opinion damage done by Obama may put them at
risk, either business-wise or literally physically. Many people have
lumped *all* financial institutions into the scum of the earth category
lately, if you haven't noticed. (although they are, at the same time, being
begged to start lending again).


Personally, I think investors/bondholders should have stayed the course. I
am not advocating them or the other parties involved. I am disturbed that
binding contracts become meaningless due to political power and influence.
I thought we were supposed to be experiencing a shift to honest, transparent
and open leadership.

Here's a different take.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/bu...html?_r=1&dlbk

This ending comment should make many here happy.

"This may come to be seen as Mr. Obama’s Nixon in China moment. Just
as it took a conservative Republican to open relations with the
largest Communist country in the world, it took a liberal Democrat to
break the U.A.W."

I do think this announcement of the UAW's death is premature.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

Here's a different take.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/bu...html?_r=1&dlbk

This ending comment should make many here happy.

"This may come to be seen as Mr. Obama’s Nixon in China moment. Just
as it took a conservative Republican to open relations with the
largest Communist country in the world, it took a liberal Democrat to
break the U.A.W."

I do think this announcement of the UAW's death is premature.

--Vic


Consider this.

If the Fed had not provided bailout money to Chrysler (and GM) this story
would have an entirely different ending.
What we are witnessing is the government controlling the destiny of a public
corporation and screw the courts and bankruptcy laws.

More to come.

Eisboch

On Sat, 9 May 2009 19:32:35 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

Here's a different take.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/bu...html?_r=1&dlbk

This ending comment should make many here happy.

"This may come to be seen as Mr. Obama’s Nixon in China moment. Just
as it took a conservative Republican to open relations with the
largest Communist country in the world, it took a liberal Democrat to
break the U.A.W."

I do think this announcement of the UAW's death is premature.

--Vic


Consider this.

If the Fed had not provided bailout money to Chrysler (and GM) this story
would have an entirely different ending.
What we are witnessing is the government controlling the destiny of a public
corporation and screw the courts and bankruptcy laws.

More to come.

No doubt more to come, but consider this;

Major banks are failing left and right.
Hundred of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs.
The survival of the financial markets are in jeopardy.
The Dow Jones is in a precipitous dive, and trillions of dollars
of American wealth is being lost.
Home prices are in free fall and foreclosures are setting records
as more $trillions of American equity evaporates.
Suddenly, GM and Chrysler announce they can't operate
without government aid. They must shutter operations.
Perhaps millions of more American in the automotive industry and its
ancillary industries will get pink slips.
So George W. Bush and Hank Paulson bail them out.
What would you have done then?

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 May 2009 19:32:35 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..

Here's a different take.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/bu...html?_r=1&dlbk

This ending comment should make many here happy.

"This may come to be seen as Mr. Obama’s Nixon in China moment. Just
as it took a conservative Republican to open relations with the
largest Communist country in the world, it took a liberal Democrat to
break the U.A.W."

I do think this announcement of the UAW's death is premature.

--Vic


Consider this.

If the Fed had not provided bailout money to Chrysler (and GM) this
story
would have an entirely different ending.
What we are witnessing is the government controlling the destiny of a
public
corporation and screw the courts and bankruptcy laws.

More to come.

No doubt more to come, but consider this;

Major banks are failing left and right.
Hundred of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs.
The survival of the financial markets are in jeopardy.
The Dow Jones is in a precipitous dive, and trillions of dollars
of American wealth is being lost.
Home prices are in free fall and foreclosures are setting records
as more $trillions of American equity evaporates.
Suddenly, GM and Chrysler announce they can't operate
without government aid. They must shutter operations.
Perhaps millions of more American in the automotive industry and its
ancillary industries will get pink slips.
So George W. Bush and Hank Paulson bail them out.
What would you have done then?

--Vic

Bullying a settlement isn't going to work. Who's going to give the new
Chrysler financing (other than the government).
The unions?
Chrysler was DOA and should have been allowed a decent burial.

But, to your comments:

Major banks are not failing. They have more money than is good for them and
the economy. In fact, bank failures were higher back in the S&L crisis.
Unemployment comes and goes for all kinds of reasons. There's reason to
believe we've turned the corner.
It will be a while yet, but I think we are in recovery mode.
The financial markets will adjust.
Wall Street will adjust. It already has begun.
Home prices have adjusted for reality and for the market. The trillions of
dollars of "equity" never existed in the first place.
GM and Chrysler have been insolvent for at least a decade or more. Same
with Ford, but they are surviving the old fashioned way.

Now, if *I* were king, I think I'd put a major focus on correcting our trade
deficits. Screw being a nice guy. We need motivation, financial and
otherwise, to encourage a rebirth of manufacturing here, not there.
Increase tariffs on imported goods. Fight fire with fire. That in itself
would go a long ways to revitalizing our manufacturing base. I'd focus on
giving our proven system the tools it needs to compete in a global economy.
Good for China if it can produce a TV for 33 cents. We can't, and we aren't
going to try. The Chinese TV is going to have to cost about what ours sell
for. Besides, the Chinese haven't figured out how to make a power supply yet
that doesn't blow up or catch fire.

We experienced a severe shock to the system due to the phony mortgage
security derivatives that a bunch of crafty but sleazy financial types
invented.
That and greed in specific cases like the criminal Bernie Madoff.

But, we'll survive. I am much more optimistic than I was a few months ago.
Obama and his policies may help ease the pain temporarily, but it will be
our free market, capitalistic system that will ensure our long term survival
and prosperity.

Eisboch

On Sat, 9 May 2009 21:02:29 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



But, to your comments:

Major banks are not failing.

I should have said financial houses, but they are all tied together.
But you had Countrywide, Indymac, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, etc, etc.
My timing might be off on some, but my memory of what faced Bush and
Company isn't. It looked real, real, bad.

They have more money than is good for them and
the economy. In fact, bank failures were higher back in the S&L crisis.
Unemployment comes and goes for all kinds of reasons. There's reason to
believe we've turned the corner.
It will be a while yet, but I think we are in recovery mode.
The financial markets will adjust.
Wall Street will adjust. It already has begun.
Home prices have adjusted for reality and for the market. The trillions of
dollars of "equity" never existed in the first place.
GM and Chrysler have been insolvent for at least a decade or more. Same
with Ford, but they are surviving the old fashioned way.

Yeah, building in Mexico. Not that they haven't managed to stay ahead
of the game. The game that's killing us.
I see U.S Honda and Toyota as better models.

Now, if *I* were king, I think I'd put a major focus on correcting our trade
deficits. Screw being a nice guy. We need motivation, financial and
otherwise, to encourage a rebirth of manufacturing here, not there.
Increase tariffs on imported goods. Fight fire with fire. That in itself
would go a long ways to revitalizing our manufacturing base. I'd focus on
giving our proven system the tools it needs to compete in a global economy.
Good for China if it can produce a TV for 33 cents. We can't, and we aren't
going to try. The Chinese TV is going to have to cost about what ours sell
for. Besides, the Chinese haven't figured out how to make a power supply yet
that doesn't blow up or catch fire.

I've been beating that drum for years. But it's running into a buzz
saw. You'll see. There was "buy America" language in the stimulus
package. Holy hell was raised about it, and it was dropped or
modified. And that's American TAXPAYER money!
See what Wall street says about that.
Get ready to hear the bull**** about Smoot-Hawley.

We experienced a severe shock to the system due to the phony mortgage
security derivatives that a bunch of crafty but sleazy financial types
invented.
That and greed in specific cases like the criminal Bernie Madoff.

But, we'll survive. I am much more optimistic than I was a few months ago.
Obama and his policies may help ease the pain temporarily, but it will be
our free market, capitalistic system that will ensure our long term survival
and prosperity.

Agreed. But Wall Street will call *any* restriction to "free trade"
commie. Didn't know you were a commie. Surprises me, frankly.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


Agreed. But Wall Street will call *any* restriction to "free trade"
commie. Didn't know you were a commie. Surprises me, frankly.

--Vic


It's the Pat Buchanan in me.

Eisboch

On Sat, 9 May 2009 21:02:29 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


Now, if *I* were king, I think I'd put a major focus on correcting our trade
deficits. Screw being a nice guy. We need motivation, financial and
otherwise, to encourage a rebirth of manufacturing here, not there.
Increase tariffs on imported goods. Fight fire with fire. That in itself
would go a long ways to revitalizing our manufacturing base. I'd focus on
giving our proven system the tools it needs to compete in a global economy.
Good for China if it can produce a TV for 33 cents. We can't, and we aren't
going to try. The Chinese TV is going to have to cost about what ours sell
for. Besides, the Chinese haven't figured out how to make a power supply yet
that doesn't blow up or catch fire.

Please reconcile the above with the below...

But, we'll survive. I am much more optimistic than I was a few months ago.
Obama and his policies may help ease the pain temporarily, but it will be
our free market, capitalistic system that will ensure our long term survival
and prosperity.

I'm in agreement with your first statement above but cannot imagine it
happening under our "free market system."

American industry has been undercut by foreign competition and the
race to find the cheapest labor, no matter the locale.

Capitalism may work but free market is only a fantasy for India and
Bangladesh. It's a nightmare for the US.