Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
D.R.I.V.E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 1019865" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>bluhdmc;</p><p></p><p>The administration did NOT (got that? *NOT*) "bail out GM, banks brokerage houses, etc." Using "GM" as an example, THE COMPANY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS!!!! What remains of it is zip, nada, nothing. Instead, what exists today is an entirely new entity; "New GM" as it's called. The company - meaning the shareholders - were left with absolutely nothing. Not only that, the secured debt holders - those who legally and historically had first dibs on ANYTHING of value that remained of the company until their debt was satisfied - got the shaft as well. So who DID profit...or at least break even? Well, it wasn't the company; again, it went out of existence and lost everything. And it wasn't the debt holders; they ended-up with virtually nothing as well. Was it workers generally? I suspect that if you put it to those employed by entities that DIDN'T receive a handout, they'd say "no"; in fact, their competitive bargaining position was diminished. So who made out? I submit that IT WAS THE UNION! Union members retained jobs that they deserved to lose. The union ended up with ownership of entities that were the spawn of companies they put out of business.</p><p></p><p>You equate the "automakers" going down with the INDUSTRY as a WHOLE going down. Nothing could be farther from reality. In fact, vast parts of the industry were thriving; look at all those plants of manufacturers who DIDN'T receive a subsidy who kept pumping-out cars...and stood ready, willing, and able to absorb the production of the bankrupt companies. Why weren't THEY allowed to buy the bankrupted facilities? (allowing that Fiat WAS able to!...but only because Chrysler had been "bailed out" of bankruptcy TWICE, and it was getting a little two obvious for even the government!) Why weren't THEY permitted to show how to operate in an efficient NON-subsidized manner instead of having the business handed over to those who had already PROVEN that they were incapable of maintaining it?</p><p></p><p>As for the banks, I didn't support their bail-out as well. But at least the government hasn't lost significant amounts of money on them (not all that surprising, since for the most part it was simply advancement of credit, not actual deposits of fund). "GM" on the other hand? I doubt if the nation's taxpayers will EVER see that money again. It's been squandered on the very people who created the crisis to begin with. BTW, in terms of the people who "work" for the industry "in Ohio, or Indiana, wherever", I'm reminded of the "old GM" (Chevy, I believe) plant in Indianapolis, in which, under "New GM" the UAW old-timers there voted AGAINST approving a contract as part of a sale of the plant which would have kept it open. They PREFERRED it to be closed down - and the younger workers being deprived of their jobs - if it meant their not being able to squander THEIR "share" of the subsidy available to the UAW. Result? The plant DID shut down, and those younger workers (virtually ALL the "local" work force of the plant; the "seniority" people originated in at other closed plants primarily out-of-state) all LOST THEIR JOBS! That's the "concession" the UAW made in that instance.</p><p></p><p>Which brings us to the topic of "the concessions the unions made". Pray tell; just WHAT "concessions" did they make? Just what did they have to concede to begin with? The companies were bankrupt. On that basis, the union members were out of jobs. So what did they "concede"? Heck, as far as I can tell, they didn't "concede" a darn thing; by way of vote buying, they simply had things HANDED to them on a virtual silver platter. Everyone ought to have the chance to make such "concessions" in their life. Unfortunately, few do...particularly those who think the ought to deserve their existence.</p><p></p><p>Lastly, I was around in 1987, and was invested in the stock market at that time. I bought and sold houses in that year as well....and I'll tell you flat-out that the situation then - at least in the real estate market - it wasn't ANYTHING like it's been over the past four years. And if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have "created" a lot of wealth, then I'd sure as the Devil like to see just WHERE they "created" it, because all I've seen of their "creation" of late is a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 1019865, member: 16651"] bluhdmc; The administration did NOT (got that? *NOT*) "bail out GM, banks brokerage houses, etc." Using "GM" as an example, THE COMPANY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS!!!! What remains of it is zip, nada, nothing. Instead, what exists today is an entirely new entity; "New GM" as it's called. The company - meaning the shareholders - were left with absolutely nothing. Not only that, the secured debt holders - those who legally and historically had first dibs on ANYTHING of value that remained of the company until their debt was satisfied - got the shaft as well. So who DID profit...or at least break even? Well, it wasn't the company; again, it went out of existence and lost everything. And it wasn't the debt holders; they ended-up with virtually nothing as well. Was it workers generally? I suspect that if you put it to those employed by entities that DIDN'T receive a handout, they'd say "no"; in fact, their competitive bargaining position was diminished. So who made out? I submit that IT WAS THE UNION! Union members retained jobs that they deserved to lose. The union ended up with ownership of entities that were the spawn of companies they put out of business. You equate the "automakers" going down with the INDUSTRY as a WHOLE going down. Nothing could be farther from reality. In fact, vast parts of the industry were thriving; look at all those plants of manufacturers who DIDN'T receive a subsidy who kept pumping-out cars...and stood ready, willing, and able to absorb the production of the bankrupt companies. Why weren't THEY allowed to buy the bankrupted facilities? (allowing that Fiat WAS able to!...but only because Chrysler had been "bailed out" of bankruptcy TWICE, and it was getting a little two obvious for even the government!) Why weren't THEY permitted to show how to operate in an efficient NON-subsidized manner instead of having the business handed over to those who had already PROVEN that they were incapable of maintaining it? As for the banks, I didn't support their bail-out as well. But at least the government hasn't lost significant amounts of money on them (not all that surprising, since for the most part it was simply advancement of credit, not actual deposits of fund). "GM" on the other hand? I doubt if the nation's taxpayers will EVER see that money again. It's been squandered on the very people who created the crisis to begin with. BTW, in terms of the people who "work" for the industry "in Ohio, or Indiana, wherever", I'm reminded of the "old GM" (Chevy, I believe) plant in Indianapolis, in which, under "New GM" the UAW old-timers there voted AGAINST approving a contract as part of a sale of the plant which would have kept it open. They PREFERRED it to be closed down - and the younger workers being deprived of their jobs - if it meant their not being able to squander THEIR "share" of the subsidy available to the UAW. Result? The plant DID shut down, and those younger workers (virtually ALL the "local" work force of the plant; the "seniority" people originated in at other closed plants primarily out-of-state) all LOST THEIR JOBS! That's the "concession" the UAW made in that instance. Which brings us to the topic of "the concessions the unions made". Pray tell; just WHAT "concessions" did they make? Just what did they have to concede to begin with? The companies were bankrupt. On that basis, the union members were out of jobs. So what did they "concede"? Heck, as far as I can tell, they didn't "concede" a darn thing; by way of vote buying, they simply had things HANDED to them on a virtual silver platter. Everyone ought to have the chance to make such "concessions" in their life. Unfortunately, few do...particularly those who think the ought to deserve their existence. Lastly, I was around in 1987, and was invested in the stock market at that time. I bought and sold houses in that year as well....and I'll tell you flat-out that the situation then - at least in the real estate market - it wasn't ANYTHING like it's been over the past four years. And if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have "created" a lot of wealth, then I'd sure as the Devil like to see just WHERE they "created" it, because all I've seen of their "creation" of late is a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
D.R.I.V.E
Top