SOCIALISM Step 7 - Bank Error, Bankruptcy

About: teabagwashington.com official tea shirt of the revolution. a celebration of capitalism and the free market.

~It is amazing how much money was poured into Chrysler & it went bankrupt the Obama way (any way!); mostly giving priority to the Unions rather than the investors in the sale of assets; giving them a seat on the board & majority stock ownership.  If it ever makes a car again it will be interesting to see if anyone will want to buy it unless more of our tax dollars are thrown in to subsidize or discount the sticker price. Let's see if Obama & the unions can actually build a car.

Tags

  1. bank error
  2. bank robbers
  3. bankruptcy
  4. chrysler
  5. government motors
  6. capitalism
  7. threefold
  8. auto industry
  9. socialism
  10. government investments
  11. proposals

Comments


Mark de LA says
I'm not sure what this account of White House arm twisting on the Chrysler deal means, but it would be interesting to have it investigated thoroughly.  Right now it appears that everyone except the originator has denied it.  This is where we need real reporting. If Obama is threatening investment companies to accept less value for assets contrary to bankruptcy law then I say there are grounds for impeachment especially since the UAW (a heavy Obama contributor) stands to benefit ahead of normal bankruptcy claims to assets & the control of the company that emerges from bankruptcy.
 

Mark de LA says
Likewise for GM (Government Motors) - see this.

Mark de LA says
Googling around found these references:

Mark de LA says
What is public seems to be supported in this NYTimes article - all that's left is for the WH to do the spin to characterize it as something else.
source: ...

But now the two men, along with a handful of other financiers, are being blamed for precipitating the bankruptcy of an American icon. As Chrysler’s fate hung in the balance Wednesday night, this group refused to bend to the Obama administration and accept steep losses on their investments while more junior investors, including the United Automobile Workers union, were offered favorable terms.

In a rare flash of anger, the president scolded the group Thursday as Chrysler, its options exhausted, filed for bankruptcy protection. “I don’t stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices,” Mr. Obama said.

Chastened, and under intense pressure from the White House, the investment firm run by Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Perella, Perella Weinberg Partners, abruptly reversed course. In a terse statement issued shortly before 6 p.m. Thursday, Perella Weinberg Partners announced it would accept the government’s terms.

It was too late.

...So inverstors in Chyrsler's debt are responsible for Chrysler's bankruptcy? You can't blame them for not wanting to be fucked in the ass by Obama unless you believe the spin. Why the UAW is kept whole or the most whole & investors who tried to keep Chrysler afloat while it was proceeding towards bankruptcy already is a miracle of lies & deceit.


Mark de LA says
Whitehouse Denies - url http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/white-house-perella-weinberg-deny-claims-of-threat-to-firm/?hp

Mark de LA says
~
Rush Morning Update: ... What none of them mentioned was the bondholders were being pressured by Obama's henchmen to accept a deal that would benefit union workers and leave their own investors sucking air -- the kind of deal Hugo Chavez and his goons regularly impose on businesses they take over. No mention was made of the sacrifice bondholders made already. They invested, and lost billions in Chrysler. But, unlike Obama, they can't print money they don't have to fake their way out of problems
...


Seth says
Well we could jump into the middle of this he-said/she-said tempest and determine whether this bankruptcy lawyer, Thomas E Lauria , who lost his client, Perella Weinberg Partners, and is now making some allegations that his former client denies, shaded the truth or not.  But i would like to take a step back.  I wish i could get a perspective on what was the crux of the issues going into negotiations.  If we assume that the objective was to leave Chrysler with the possiblity of continueing to function as a major American manufacturer, then it falls that everybody will be getting hair cuts, and on the table were hair cuts all around.  But what we are missing in the analysis are the quantification of all of those cuts;  and, more importantly, the effect of the particular cuts on the viability of the company emerging from Chapter 11.  Sans that overall quantative analysis, i don't intend to take a partisan position on what could have happened short of bankrupsy. 

As to Obama's part ... i heard his press conference live ... and i was glad that he informed me that it was the hedge funds who were the final hold-outs.  Apparently their senior position  gives them more to gain by a liquidation ... the employees, suppliers, and the future of the company be damned.  Based upon  that i can well understand why Obama stood where he did and i stand with him.

Mark de LA says
So you are glad to have bankruptcy positions redefined without law, Congress or even a judge this time around.  In effect he is saying that with his bully pulpit & the ability to demonize & ruin a company's reputation (he has already done that to the hedge fund companies in your mind by your own admission) that he can force those who have made secured loans to a company are fucked & anyone he deems "in the country's interest" (or Unions like his own interest) can come first anyway?   Who from the private sector does Obama think will ever loan a struggling company money anymore? Do you think you can get a home loan if at bankruptcy you can say well I have too much credit card debt & they (MC/Visa or whoever contributes to the Demos) come first before the bank because "Obama says ......".

Seth says
M 2009-05-04 10:50:13 11899
..
"So you are glad to have bankruptcy positions redefined without law, Congress or even a judge this time around."
I see no evidence of that happening and i certainly did not suggest it.  These were negotiations prior to Chapter 11 which failed.  Now that they failed, the courts will take over and we will see what the final agreements will be.  Note that where the parties agree there is no "redefinition of the law".
In effect he is saying that with his bully pulpit & the ability to demonize & ruin a company's reputation (he has already done that to the hedge fund companies in your mind by your own admission) that he can force those who have made secured loans to a company are fucked & anyone he deems "in the country's interest" (or Unions like his own interest) can come first anyway?
Long loaded question, not quite sure what it asks.  For one thing Obama's intent to  "ruin a company's reputation" has been denied and without more evidence i am not willing to assume that it exists, and another thing i though these were unsecured loans, not secured ones ... so you need to justify that phrase if you want it to mean something.  But what i think you are really asking is: am at peace with favoring the employees over the at risk capital investments?  And the answer is: yes i am.  The whole point of at risk capital is to win if the enterprise wins and to loose it if the enterprise looses.  Well, Doah, the  enterprise lost.  That is the basis of capitalism. That is why it works well.  On the other side we have employees who will end up owning more of the business in which they toil ... not a bad thing i think. 
Who from the private sector does Obama think will ever loan a struggling company money anymore?
Well you may be right in that these car compainies are going to find it harder to borrow money.  That may be a good thing.  Since my company essentially stoped borrowing to print excessive numers of catalogs, we have become more profitable. 

Mark de LA says
I suspect if any former Chrysler employees vested in the union retirement funds etc. are partially conscious they will have a huge internal urge to cash in as much as they can because they will be next when they figure out they can't really make & sell cars Obama wants them to make. See 11914 for some clues. There are companies that will cash out settlements, annuities & other cyclic payouts of futures for immediate cash. I recommend they take it. OTOH, I recommend against investing in any of the union retirement funds credit default swap instruments.


Seth says
M 2009-05-03 18:54:32 11899
I'm not sure what this account of White House arm twisting on the Chrysler deal means, but it would be interesting to have it investigated thoroughly.  Right now it appears that everyone except the originator has denied it.  This is where we need real reporting. If Obama is threatening investment companies to accept less value for assets contrary to bankruptcy law then I say there are grounds for impeachment especially since the UAW (a heavy Obama contributor) stands to benefit ahead of normal bankruptcy claims to assets & the control of the company that emerges from bankruptcy.
 
And now even the "originator" refuses to talk about the story.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-05-05 09:16:44 11899
M 2009-05-03 18:54:32 11899
I'm not sure what this account of White House arm twisting on the Chrysler deal means, but it would be interesting to have it investigated thoroughly.  Right now it appears that everyone except the originator has denied it.  This is where we need real reporting. If Obama is threatening investment companies to accept less value for assets contrary to bankruptcy law then I say there are grounds for impeachment especially since the UAW (a heavy Obama contributor) stands to benefit ahead of normal bankruptcy claims to assets & the control of the company that emerges from bankruptcy.
 
And now even the "originator" refuses to talk about the story.

Yep, not surprising since what he was claiming is already happening in the left-wing media like your article.
Bloomberg: ...

The approval came over the objection of a group of Chrysler secured lenders, calling itself Chrysler’s non-TARP lenders, in reference to the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The group’s attorney, Thomas Lauria, said the loan would be a bridge to an illegal sale of assets that would pay lower-ranking creditors more than senior lenders.

Bridge, Pier

“We’re concerned we’re starting construction of a bridge that may turn out to be a pier,” he said, adding the bankruptcy loan was inextricably tied to Chrysler’s proposed sale.


 
...I suspect that he doesn't talk because of potential lawsuits to come.


Mark de LA says
Another point of view is spelled out here (HotAir.com: Senior creditors: Chrysler deal violates 5th Amendment).  The PDF of the whole motion mentioned is here.
source: ...

17. Finally, that the Treasury Department would take these unconstitutional actions to help the United States address difficult economic times is not an answer. Indeed, the same justification was expressly rejected in Radford, where Justice Brandeis noted that a statute which violated secured creditors’ rights, but which was passed for sound public purposes relating to the Great Depression, could not be saved because “the Fifth Amendment commands that, however great the nation’s need, private property shall not be thus taken even for a wholly public use without just compensation.” Id. at 602.

18. What is really striking here is that what is being proposed by the Sale Motion would strip the Collateral away and allow it to be put to use as new capital in New Chrysler for the benefit of existing and other creditors – even though the Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders have been given no opportunity to realize upon that Collateral to the point of full repayment ahead of at least $14 billion of selectively identified unsecured creditors.
 

... Lauria mentioned to Megyn Kelly he would have to file a motion to keep his clients' names under seal because they were receiving death threats. The above may be it.


Mark de LA says
Apparently the UAW itself wants to sell it's shares of Chrysler as soon as possible.
source: ...

Chrysler’s union plans to sell its shares in the struggling carmaker as quickly as possible, the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) president revealed today, as the company prepared for its third hearing in bankruptcy court.

Under a restructuring plan set out by Chrysler, the UAW would receive a 55 per cent stake in the reorganised company in return for wiping out about half of the $10 billion that Chrysler owes a union-affiliated healthcare trust.

... - What? - no union run company?

Seth says
Apparently you are rooting for the vultures to liquidate the company.  Apparently, to you, it is better for Americans not to make cars, but rather to make profits on just their money.  What a brilliant idealist and crusader for the three fold state you have become.

Mark de LA says
Remember this from Obama?
WASHINGTON " Wall Street is not going to play as dominant a role in the economy as regulations reduce "some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking that had become so common," President Barack Obama says.
...Well...
I SAY: ...
When people finally wake up then Washington is not going to play as dominant a role in the economy, education, politics & the like when freedom, brotherhood & equality become more common



Seth says
Well i just have problems reconciling RS's term "the control must originate with the political state" with your term "economics - free from politics".  Let us face it RS's plan does not use the free-market to regulate relative prices - he uses politics independent from economics.  He uses some form of producer negotiation - that is politics.  So me thinks that your 2009-05-05 14:43:20 plan is not the RS plan. 

Seth says
In other auto industry related news Ford announces it will build an electric Focus.  Here we have an American company, even with the help of the UAW, which has refused the government loans and continues to survive.  I've been looking for an all electric car ... perhaps there is a Ford in my future.

Mark de LA says

We might also identify which things seem to be moving in the right direction in spite of politics as usual.

Seth says
I can't help thinking that RS would have hailed Obama's struggle against the excesses that typify the heart of the capitalists system where making money on money, brotherhood be damned, is the absolute credo of the culture.  I don't understand why you do not see this too.  Is not part of your mind so poisoned against Obama that you cannot see the very thrust of his policies that act in the same direction as your chosen Threefold State?

Mark de LA says
One thing that can help some of these processes is with computerization of skills & services database & the employment opportunities country wide. However other things have to change such that it does not become a commodities market as the private sector versions of such have made it.  Used as a communications center rather than a commodities market it can become something of value to threefoldness.


Mark de LA says
~ it is little reported that the UAW had a large part in the auto industry not being solvent because of their retirement plans.  What company could remain solvent if after it's employees retired they got 90% or so of their regular wages? The government OTOH, what standards their cars had to make - that's the second piece. It still pisses me off to think that out of the whole Chrysler mess the Unions & the government were the winners & the losers were those who invested it the auto industry.  Without capital no industry will survive for long. 


Seth says
Well i will acknowledge that the UAW strikes and their settlements which escalated benefits beyond to the point where profitability was possible was most of the cause of the demise of the American auto industry.  Both labor and management must share the blame.  Could they not have seen this coming?

Mark de LA says
Yes the article is very interesting.  I don't see why the investor names have to be made public rather than just to the court.  I would guess that someone wants to put pressure on them, maybe even the white house press corpse, eh?
Arthur Gonzales the NY Bankruptcy judge bio is in WikipediaI wonder who appointed him?  In NY it would probably not be a Republican. His contact & official bio is here.

Seth says
source: MR above
Lauria mentioned to Megyn Kelly he would have to file a motion to keep his clients' names under seal because they were receiving death threats. The above may be it.
... I can't figure out what your it was in your 2009-05-05 11:42:06 comment; but we find out today that the "death threat" were [probably] comments on a blog ...
source:
    * "these hedge fund managers are criminals and their firms are nothing more than criminal enterprises. What they do is nothing short of treason, using loopholes in the law to avoid prosecution. Will someone please explain to me why we don't execute these vermin."
    * "These aristocrats should be lined up against the wall and executed."
    * "I'm sick and tired of being blackmailed by all these financial wizards. I never had any sympathy for them to start with, but now I have lost patience with them entirely. Too bad we can't rid the world of them all."
    * "Hedge funds are floating crap games that are capable of taking down entire nations. They should be criminalized."
    * "Hedge funds are criminal associations."

... hardly credible. There are more specifics in this Bloomberg article today if you want to track specifics.  They say they do not hold any credit default swaps which would have the tendency to force Chrysler into bankruptcy by betting against the company, and meaning  that Obama's characterization of them was understated.  But i tend not to believe these pepole. Those swaps could have been hidden in some dummy Corporation.  It would be interesting to have an unbiased fact finding investigation of this deal that would come up with a judgment whether Obama's words were justified.

Mark de LA says

America Awash in Red Ink

URGENT: Deficit for current budget year will top $1.8 trillion as Uncle Sam borrows 50 cents for every dollar spent


Mark de LA says
~
Washington Post: ...

According to an outline the company has been sharing privately with Washington legislators, the number of cars that GM sells in the United States and builds in Mexico, China and South Korea will roughly double.

The proportion of GM cars sold domestically and manufactured in those low-wage countries will rise from 15 percent to 23 percent over the next five years, according to the figures contained in a 12-page presentation offered to lawmakers in response to their questions about overseas production.

Labor costs in those countries are far lower. While paying a U.S. autoworker with benefits costs about $54 an hour, a South Korean worker earns about $22 an hour, a Mexican worker earns less than $10 an hour and some Chinese workers can earn as little as $3 an hour, industry sources said.

...
With global companies you get global competition for labor as well as capital. It's a nice challenge for the unionist Obama & his labor unions.
Hmmmm.....again just Why did we taxpayers bail Chrysler & GM ? & why is Ford still solvent?


Mark de LA says
Seth (above): ...
seth 2009-05-06 09:50:01 11899 I can't help thinking that RS would have hailed Obama's struggle against the excesses that typify the heart of the capitalists system where making money on money, brotherhood be damned, is the absolute credo of the culture.  I don't understand why you do not see this too.  Is not part of your mind so poisoned against Obama that you cannot see the very thrust of his policies that act in the same direction as your chosen Threefold State?
...Well, I see it more like Greg Mankiw's Blog does:
source: ...

"Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing."

"The President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along."

"The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power."

...


Mark de LA says
~ ... the Godfather of it all ...no pressure here, eh?


Mark de LA says
source: ... (WSJ) ... review the Constitution Mr. Obama (You swore to defend)! Uphold the law don't break it!

The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.

By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?
The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.
...IOW, who is going to want to buy the GM debt to help out if they get treated similar to Chrysler's creditors? Or later on when Obama demonizes & creates socialized medicine to competes with current businesses in the health care industry & therefore cause them to go near bankruptcy?
~~~


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-05-13 11:29:20 11899
The more i think about it them more i suspect that both Chrysler and GM will end up being lost causes.  So all the tax payer money that went to their bailout was for wasted.  It would have been better to put that same money into a capitol pool for new car companies like Tesla.

Yep! good idea

Mark de LA says
...OTOH, maybe some deal was cut to increase Chinese Imports.  The article is muddled in that it seems like GM would be building locally (in China) for a Chinese market.  OTOH, it also has the UAW bemoaning importing more Chinese cars. Qui Bono? i.e. who gets the handjob & who gets fucked?
source: ... Shaiken said GM needs to lower costs, which is accomplished with cheaper overseas labor. But it must also address concerns of the U.S. government, which wants to preserve American jobs.

"GM is getting funding from U.S. taxpayers to help save the company," Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said. "Taxpayers deserve more than Chinese imports in return. Taxpayer funds should be used to build the next generation of fuel-efficient vehicles in the U.S., not abroad. This is about creating jobs and rebuilding our economy."

GM, though, says the percentage of cars made and sold in the U.S. will remain stable

...

Mark de LA says
GM & Chrysler are apparently not too valuable to fail. They have very little value now & are failing. Tesla is a high end market item like Mercedes Benz, Ferrari & Cadillac.  I can't see that market being a problem for them. They just won't expand in the lower markets for a while. The way to make them profitable again is to remove the CAFE standards & quit beating up on SUVs; backing out of the regulation to extinction process meanwhile getting off the global warming boondoggle & carbon credits ponzi scheme bullshit.  Then, while the economy recovers work on cars & trucks in a smooth transition way to less pollution & independence from foreign oil. The clean coal thingy apparently has no legs but, we have more coal equivalent to all of our foreign oil imports than the public realizes. I predict that whatever comes out of the detritus of GM & Chrysler will not find a market here without massive subsidy & tax incentives & when those go away the perfect storm of idiocy will begin again.


Seth says
source: MR above
Grants & subsidies are useful to accelerate progress in some areas. Requiring progress & a good business plan throughout the lifecycle of the subsidy (just like normal capital investment requires) must be tied to the funds; otherwise it is just another throwing away of taxpayer $$$ for pie in the sky, thinking a problem is getting fixed.
I agree that grants subsidies are useful.  My point is why not leverage the taxpayers money to even greater advantage ... why not trow less of it away, by also making investments rather than only grants.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-05-21 10:54:14 11899
source: MR above
Grants & subsidies are useful to accelerate progress in some areas. Requiring progress & a good business plan throughout the lifecycle of the subsidy (just like normal capital investment requires) must be tied to the funds; otherwise it is just another throwing away of taxpayer $$$ for pie in the sky, thinking a problem is getting fixed.
I agree that grants subsidies are useful.  My point is why not leverage the taxpayers money to even greater advantage ... why not trow less of it away, by also making investments rather than only grants.
How would you structure such investments that are distinct from grants & subsidies? What strings are attached? Can Obama hire & fire the boards of directors? The government is notoriously horrible at running a business, what makes you think it knows how to invest?

Seth says
MR 2009-05-21 10:57:45 11899
seth 2009-05-21 10:54:14 11899
source: MR above
Grants & subsidies are useful to accelerate progress in some areas. Requiring progress & a good business plan throughout the lifecycle of the subsidy (just like normal capital investment requires) must be tied to the funds; otherwise it is just another throwing away of taxpayer $$$ for pie in the sky, thinking a problem is getting fixed.
I agree that grants subsidies are useful.  My point is why not leverage the taxpayers money to even greater advantage ... why not trow less of it away, by also making investments rather than only grants.
How would you structure such investments that are distinct from grants & subsidies? What strings are attached? Can Obama hire & fire the boards of directors? The government is notoriously horrible at running a business, what makes you think it knows how to invest?
Good questions.  What i am proposing here would be traditional legislation which allocates funds (but with the possibility of long term returns) and sets the criteria for which projects are permissible and which are not.  Since i am proposing the direct purchase of stock, these investments would come with the same right that a private individual would have to vote in a stock holders meeting.  However it might be prudent to limit such votes to upholding the terms of the purchase agreement exclusively.  No, we don't want the government running these businesses after the investments have been made.

Now, does the government knows how to invest?  Well if it knows how to grant, then it must also know how to invest.   In fact there are things which make no sense as private investments, in that the investment would be too large, the risk too great, and the payback too far in the future to entice private capitol.   We see these kinds of projects all the time: building huge dams, developing nuclear energy, mapping the genome, space shuttles, etc.  Traditionally the government's capitol has made these projects happen - not private capitol however much it may have been desired.  My proposal only adds the one extra leverage for our taxpayers dollars of creating profits from such investments when they pay off in the long run.   And the stock can be sold at whatever point the private capitol recognizes a prudent investment - in fact it might be a good idea to burn a "sell stock as soon as there is a market" clause into the bill.

Seth says
It just occurred to me that my proposal is actually a privatization initiative.  Some institutions like NASA, which are usually 100% supported by grants from the government could be converted over to privately owned corporations.  Even perhaps the post office could work like this, and maybe also TVA.

Mark de LA says
Traditionally, the government invests in things such as the University in order to foster things which may or not have a business purpose such as war related research.  That the private sector gets the rewards is a bonus as long as the government gets the research results.  Once we have the government owning stock in private corporations things get sticky.  Remember the privatization of social security was beat up on by the demos because the government would be said to "pick winners & losers" in the stock market. The government really has no Constitutional business doing this at all. The less regulations, meddling & taxation the government does the more resources will be available to the public to invest. If something is viable then it will be ruled by business sense & not politics as usual.

Seth says
M 2009-05-04 10:50:13 11899
So you are glad to have bankruptcy positions redefined without law, Congress or even a judge this time around.  In effect he is saying that with his bully pulpit & the ability to demonize & ruin a company's reputation (he has already done that to the hedge fund companies in your mind by your own admission) that he can force those who have made secured loans to a company are fucked & anyone he deems "in the country's interest" (or Unions like his own interest) can come first anyway?  
Well the conservative stacked Supreme Court has finally signed off on this transaction, proving that it is within the law

More light is shed ..
source: CNN
Edward Morrison, a bankruptcy law professor at Columbia Law School, said in an e-mail to Fortune that the New Chrysler appears to be paying a reasonable price for the Old Chrysler's assets.

"This would have been a very different case if there were proof that the sale price is artificially low [and, therefore] . . . that the government is diverting wealth from the senior bondholders to the workers. But there's not enough proof here. No other bidders showed up at the auction," wrote Morrison.

In fact, according to bankruptcy judge Arthur J. Gonzalez, who oversaw the Chrysler bankruptcy and held a three-day hearing on the sale in late May, the value of Chrysler's assets in liquidation would have only come to about $800 million, rather than the $2 billion in going-concern value that they're fetching in the sale. Accordingly, secured creditors, including the Indiana pension plans, are doing better in the sale than they could have done otherwise.
... emphasis mine.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-09 19:16:19 11899
M 2009-05-04 10:50:13 11899
So you are glad to have bankruptcy positions redefined without law, Congress or even a judge this time around.  In effect he is saying that with his bully pulpit & the ability to demonize & ruin a company's reputation (he has already done that to the hedge fund companies in your mind by your own admission) that he can force those who have made secured loans to a company are fucked & anyone he deems "in the country's interest" (or Unions like his own interest) can come first anyway?  
Well the conservative stacked Supreme Court has finally signed off on this transaction, proving that it is within the law

More light is shed ..
source: CNN
Edward Morrison, a bankruptcy law professor at Columbia Law School, said in an e-mail to Fortune that the New Chrysler appears to be paying a reasonable price for the Old Chrysler's assets.

"This would have been a very different case if there were proof that the sale price is artificially low [and, therefore] . . . that the government is diverting wealth from the senior bondholders to the workers. But there's not enough proof here. No other bidders showed up at the auction," wrote Morrison.

In fact, according to bankruptcy judge Arthur J. Gonzalez, who oversaw the Chrysler bankruptcy and held a three-day hearing on the sale in late May, the value of Chrysler's assets in liquidation would have only come to about $800 million, rather than the $2 billion in going-concern value that they're fetching in the sale. Accordingly, secured creditors, including the Indiana pension plans, are doing better in the sale than they could have done otherwise.
... emphasis mine.
Something stinks here. Where is SCOTUS opinion. I wonder whyu no other bidders showed up at the auction

Seth says
MR 2009-06-09 20:14:57 11899
seth 2009-06-09 19:16:19 11899
M 2009-05-04 10:50:13 11899
So you are glad to have bankruptcy positions redefined without law, Congress or even a judge this time around.  In effect he is saying that with his bully pulpit & the ability to demonize & ruin a company's reputation (he has already done that to the hedge fund companies in your mind by your own admission) that he can force those who have made secured loans to a company are fucked & anyone he deems "in the country's interest" (or Unions like his own interest) can come first anyway?  
Well the conservative stacked Supreme Court has finally signed off on this transaction, proving that it is within the law

More light is shed ..
source: CNN
Edward Morrison, a bankruptcy law professor at Columbia Law School, said in an e-mail to Fortune that the New Chrysler appears to be paying a reasonable price for the Old Chrysler's assets.

"This would have been a very different case if there were proof that the sale price is artificially low [and, therefore] . . . that the government is diverting wealth from the senior bondholders to the workers. But there's not enough proof here. No other bidders showed up at the auction," wrote Morrison.

In fact, according to bankruptcy judge Arthur J. Gonzalez, who oversaw the Chrysler bankruptcy and held a three-day hearing on the sale in late May, the value of Chrysler's assets in liquidation would have only come to about $800 million, rather than the $2 billion in going-concern value that they're fetching in the sale. Accordingly, secured creditors, including the Indiana pension plans, are doing better in the sale than they could have done otherwise.
... emphasis mine.
Something stinks here. Where is SCOTUS opinion. I wonder whyu no other bidders showed up at the auction
There was no opinion rendered ... they simply lifted the injunction refusing to acknowledge that the complainant had a case.  As to why no other bidders, well i'm sure that was a liberal conspiracy.

Mark de LA says
... More like when the president out bids you with the treasury in his back pocket you are fucked either way!


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-16 11:09:13 11899
source: MR above
Most of your comments are either ad hominem or you insult the messenger as in your above comment.
Well several times i've offered to estanblish sensible rules of argumentation ... rules that would bit against bothe me and you.  Till you agree with that your ad hominem against my ad hominem, i suppose, must persist as the best we can do.
Usually when the RWG gets too intense and far overshadows content I mention it & create a couplet or two.


Mark de LA says
~
source: ...

The Federal Reserve, already arguably the most powerful agency in the U.S. government, will get sweeping new authority to regulate any company whose failure could endanger the U.S. economy and markets under the Obama administration's regulatory overhaul plan.

The final plan due to be released on Wednesday -- which originally aimed to streamline and consolidate banking and securities regulation in one or two agencies -- now is expected to sidestep most jurisdictional disputes and simply impose across the board standards to be applied by all financial regulators, according to administration and industry sources.

... While this proposal seems to regulate financial institutions only; I am concerned that it may include insurance companies beyond just AIG.  Obama is running around calling the health care crisis equivalent to GM. What if the government, which already regulates insurance companies, decides to press that idea further to the to point of taking over health insurance companies under the guise that they are failing?  That would certainly be the coup de grace on independent health insurance the first move towards socialized medicine. I know, Obama says that he doesn't want to socialize medicine. But, you grab hold of the money side of health care (since it is not totally independent of such) & you begin to regulate what health care providers can & can't do.  Medicare proves that strongly in that it's hard to find a doctor who wants to jump through the hoops that Medicare requires to treat you. Also there are requirements on the doctors as to who they can treat once they become medicare doctors.
This is a prediction & commentary & a small extrapolation from what this administration has been doing openly since January.


Mark de LA says
In support of the above assertion this article from Reuters
source: ...

"If we do not fix our healthcare system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke," Obama said, likening the healthcare system to struggling carmaker General Motors, which has filed for bankruptcy protection.


...

Seth says
source: MR above
What if the government, which already regulates insurance companies, decides to press that idea further to the to point of taking over health insurance companies under the guise that they are failing?
I still don't understand how your fear fantasies form any kind of legitimate criticism.    I'm afraid that foxnews's stoking of hate will incite more right wing hate groups to acts of violence. Is that a legitimate criticism of foxnews? 

Maybe we (or i) should make a list of illegitimate forms of argument and have some kind of bot delete them before they have a chance to corrupt our dialogue.

Mark de LA says
A suitable analogy is like watching Obama lead the country down the path to it's Decline & Fall is like watching a slow hand job.  It might be fun, if it's you getting the hand-job, but at each step there is little question what the outcome is likely to be.


Seth says
source: MR above
Most of your comments are either ad hominem or you insult the messenger as in your above comment.
Well several times i've offered to estanblish sensible rules of argumentation ... rules that would bit against bothe me and you.  Till you agree with that your ad hominem against my ad hominem, i suppose, must persist as the best we can do.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-16 10:02:03 11899
source: MR above
What if the government, which already regulates insurance companies, decides to press that idea further to the to point of taking over health insurance companies under the guise that they are failing?
I still don't understand how your fear fantasies form any kind of legitimate criticism.    I'm afraid that foxnews's stoking of hate will incite more right wing hate groups to acts of violence. Is that a legitimate criticism of foxnews? 

Maybe we (or i) should make a list of illegitimate forms of argument and have some kind of bot delete them before they have a chance to corrupt our dialogue.
This being my commentary on my group at fastblogit & considering the first amendment I would presume I can say what I like until state run Obamamedia takes that away. I have labeled this piece as prediction. That should give you a clue. You don't seem to be capable of arguing the points anymore when it comes to Obama. Most of your comments are either ad hominem or you insult the messenger as in your above comment.  The day I take your decision as to what is credible a news source will be the day I sign off fastblogit forever & you can talk to yourself & the wonderful cartoonists that otherwise populate this blog. It is interesting that most polls show almost an even split as to whether Obama is leading the country in the right direction or the wrong direction. That should suggest to the sometimes open minded that dissent should be hear instead of stiffled.


Seth says
source: MR above
Btw, you might have noticed that 12089 was structured after the MacroVU style of discourse over Can Computers Think? thingy. I don't think fbi is wholly suitable for that structure; pure rhetoric & rational trains of thought were hard to maintain.
Yes, i noticed the structure of 12089 and complied.  I don't seen any structural reason why fbi could not sustain the MacroVU style discourse.  All it takes is the time and concentration to do so.

Mark de LA says
MR 2009-06-16 11:18:00 11899
seth 2009-06-16 11:09:13 11899
source: MR above
Most of your comments are either ad hominem or you insult the messenger as in your above comment.
Well several times i've offered to estanblish sensible rules of argumentation ... rules that would bit against bothe me and you.  Till you agree with that your ad hominem against my ad hominem, i suppose, must persist as the best we can do.
Usually when the RWG gets too intense and far overshadows content I mention it & create a couplet or two.

Btw, you might have noticed that 12089 was structured after the MacroVU style of discourse over Can Computers Think? thingy. I don't think fbi is wholly suitable for that structure; pure rhetoric & rational trains of thought were hard to maintain. Politics generates more juice that is why our favorite buttons get more attention. Since neither of us is a first line reporter for a reputable news source all of this is commentary.


Mark de LA says
This is a snapshot of Real Clear Politics website showing the results of asking whether the country is going in the right direction or the wrong dircetion - it is a tie, not a mandate for Obama! Note it is an average of a bunch of polls and not one particular partisan viewpoint.


See Also

  1. Thought Economics, Value, & Price with 232 viewings related by tag "capitalism".
  2. Thought Socialist Stumbling-Blocks with 8 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  3. Thought The NEW SLAVERY with 7 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  4. Thought Here, Kitty ... Kitty ...Kitty with 5 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  5. Thought Threefold Stuff with 5 viewings related by tag "threefold".
  6. Thought Simplicity with 4 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  7. Thought Trickle Up Poverty with 3 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  8. Thought SOCIALISM Step 8, COMMUNISM Step 1 with 3 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  9. Thought Memed Again with 2 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  10. Thought about: ALLIED by Jeneane Sessum: Dysfunction Junction: BigPR, BigMediaList Keepers, and the Solo Practitioner -- An Eye on Bacon's and Vocus with 2 viewings related by tag "proposals".
  11. Thought SOCIALISM Step 9, COMMUNISM Step 2 with 2 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  12. Thought The Soul of Capitalism with 2 viewings related by tag "capitalism".
  13. Thought The Individual fights VS The Group (was Libertarianism) with 1 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  14. Thought Obama socialism & Democrat Socialism with 1 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  15. Thought [title (18723)] with 0 viewings related by tag "capitalism".
  16. Thought Capital & Credit with 0 viewings related by tag "capitalism".
  17. Thought a method of providing for private tags with 0 viewings related by tag "proposals".
  18. Thought What Is Wrong With Capitalism? with 0 viewings related by tag "capitalism".
  19. Thought Educational Freedom with 0 viewings related by tag "threefold".
  20. Thought Socialism Step 6 - Government Controls the Banks with 0 viewings related by tag "bank robbers".
  21. Thought Threefold Headlessness with 0 viewings related by tag "threefold".
  22. Thought about: resource-based economy - occupyconcepts with 0 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  23. Thought Politics with 0 viewings related by tag "threefold".
  24. Thought Seattle Trash Police with 0 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  25. Thought New Coin - TSUBAMA with 0 viewings related by tag "bankruptcy".
  26. Thought Obama - tax like a maniac & spend like a drunken sailor with 0 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  27. Thought Obama the Socialist with 0 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  28. Thought Preview of Obama & the State of the Union with 0 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  29. Thought about: A Business Revolution that has warped both Wall Street and the social fabric with 0 viewings related by tag "capitalism".
  30. Thought Barney Frank Tax & Spend REDISTRIBUTIONIST! with 0 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  31. Thought STEP 1 (SOCIALISM) - Government Takes over GM & Fires CEO with 0 viewings related by tag "auto industry".
  32. Thought STEP 2 (SOCIALISM) - Government Determines your wages with 0 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  33. Thought STEP 3 (SOCIALISM) - Silence the Opposition with 0 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  34. Thought SOCIALISM Step 4 - Give your power away with 0 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  35. Thought Notes on Some Dynamics of Capitalism with 0 viewings related by tag "capitalism".