America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Again, the U.S. government did not wipe away that debt.

The bondholders could have gotten something of potential value, albeit minimal on the dollar. Those who refused to play got zipped. They "played chicken" and lost.

From a macro business perspective, they probably would have gotten nothing had there been a straightforward, total liquidation. They were probably the last in line and did not have secured interests.

And, assuming for you that it is a case of first impression, why does that matter? There is nothing wrong in my mind with tailoring the law and social systems to meet modern times.

If you look into the general matter just a little further, you will see that bankruptcy courts totally screws creditors over with nothing to pennies on the dollar- every single day.

Someone has to take the hit when liabilities grossly outweigh assets. Those who are last in line, like the bondholders, stake holders who have nothing to offer in the event there is a reorganization and the corporation emerges in a better financial position to succeed- get hurt the worst. It is much cheaper and conceptually easier to screw bondholders than a critical supplier of goods or labor, which will be forced out of business if they take too big of a hit. This, in turn could lead reduced chance of success for the corporation emerging from re-organization. And, that is all just the cost of business and investing these days.

Look, I don't generally advocate not fulfilling obligations, including debt. But, my opinion and reality can be and are very different things- particularly here. The intent of the GM bankruptcy was to allow it to have a chance at survival and future growth that on the whole, would benefit American society greater than simply liquidating the assets would.

"The jury is still out" and we likely won't know the results for several years to a decade or more, but the "profit" is good news for American society on the whole. I just hope it continues and pays-of socially and monetarily via loan repayment to the U.S. government.

Robert its not that I don't see the validity in your argument. And I do hope for success for GM.

Jade I don't harbor ill will towards union members as a whole (though first and second hand experience leave me uh....jaded) and like I said the bonuses themselves don't anger me.

You wont catch me buying a GM product though.

Um, thanks? :)

Maybe so but I was arguing!

Koom bye Ahhhhh......

I'm not a Union guy either. I spent a long time in one and hated every second of it. But with all the doom and gloom in today's world, it is nice to hear of a success story and I like hearing about the little guy getting a little piece of the pie. Where the hell else would you rather our tax dollars go, if not to help keep Americans in jobs? (Unless you are like DMV and seem to somehow think that American auto workers are all unworthy scumbags.) We need those jobs. We need roads and bridges and power grid upgrades. We need to get back to building things. As I said in an earlier post. We need to stop sending ANY money to other countries and focus here at home.

The best candidates for seats on a board of directors are those who can bring new ideas, perspectives and thoughts. Even better when a director has the ability to influence non-directors. If the union has the goods, I see no problem at all.

At first I thought you had something valid to say, you don't.

Stop personalizing what I'm saying and perhaps the coin will drop. GM put itself in the place it is by promising "cradle-to-grave" entitlements. Executives and the Unions both ate the "golden goose" from both sides. The more they made the more voracious the appetite. They made bold purchases to expand their brand and influence like grabbing Hughes and Electronic Data Systems and folding it into their nameplate. The UAW bought golf courses and resorts. They became monolithic and trodded towards their demise like the dinosaur death march from the Disney ride. They couldn't help themselves, BUT they were going to charge more to make up the difference.

Now, they took American taxpayer money to keep their brand alive. They haven't paid the debt off...watch the YouTube I posted earlier...it's done a lot better and more concise than I could put it!...they haven't addressed the entitlements...but now all of a sudden they claim they make RECORD PROFITS and offer up bonuses. Lets put it in a way you "might" understand, because you seem to think I loathe the union workers and have gone waaaay out of your way to try to make that point when it's not even there...A neighbor hits you up for 1000.00 bucks. Says he really needs it...needs an operation...repairs...whatever the excuse. You've loaned him your hedgeclippers before...he returned them. You loaned him your power washer...he returned them. So, against the will of your spouse you decide to loan him the money. He says thanks and he's good for it and all. Even gives you a 250.00 payment back and says he's good for it. Then he pulls up with balloons and candy for the children on your street...even brings in a clown for the kids. The entire neighborhood thinks he's one swell dude. He hasn't made another payment to you since the 250.00. NOW...he says that the entire house is going to need to be upgraded with new plumbing and electricity and wants to hit you up for ANOTHER loan. THAT is exactly what GM is doing. The part of the taxpayer is played by your spouse and to some extent...you. The neighbor...GM and the neighborhood that thinks he's swell...Wall Street. See, GM is going to get MORE breaks on updating their manufacturing plants. Tax breaks on the ones they already have and no timetable to pay the debt off, but you go ahead and try to blame a bad attitude on me. It doesn't wash for a second.

Like I stated in a post before you took a header into the unfilled pool...when we repeal NAFTA and get serious about getting the taxpayer's money back then we can move forward towards restoring any sembalance of a strong manufacturing sector. Until then it's all propped up with IOU's on the backs of kids that had no part of the debts and the unborn that aren't even here yet! You keep on thinking we're bitching about the unions though. Really. That pig doesn't fly.

So are the genius iginuitive union board members the ones who were pushing that wonderful Volt?

Your missing my point, I'm not saying its wrong in anyway... I admire that the Ford family went all in with Ford Motor Company, there was some real talk that they would blow off their holding and exit, but that obviously never happened. Very few families would have, look at what happened with Budweiser. They took he money and ran, their family decision was not to fight to maintain control of the family business. Bill Ford is a good guy and was smart enough to realize he wasn't smart enough to save the company on his own....

But the comments that Ford was in any way noble, pro America etc is just wrong... And yes if there was no Ford family still involved with Ford they would have gone down the same path as GM (it was the better business move) GM is cleaner now with far less baggage as compared to Ford.. The path Ford took was ONLY because it was in the best interest of the Ford family.. Again, not that there is anything wrong with that...

Well we at least agree on half of the above

Iacocca was the quite the frontman, wrote a couple of good books too... As far as the New Chrysler, who know, the guy that now runs it along with Fiat Group group is VERY sharp and a smart smart car guy... They seem to have a plan, and thanks to the current need for vehicles is giving them a good start...

It will in the long term come down to one thing. PRODUCT, (it always does) will the new Chrysler bring to marker vehicles that sell... No more no less.... Time will tell, I wouldn't bet against them and if I had the right opertunity would have no issue investing in a Chrysler brand store now...(I wouldn't have said that 2 years ago)

The "merger" of the old Chrysler with Daimler was a disaster from day one There was ZERO cinagy between the two companies and the infighting was rediculas. It was truly doomed from the start...

The deal with Fiat has lots more going for it and truly has lots of opertunity for parts and platform sharing... There are really some opertunities for cost savings etc.. The Fiat management doesnt seem to look down at the Chrysler guys like the Germans did.. There were many cases in the Daimler days when there was a disagreement and a couple of days later the Amercan senior manager "resigned" When a executive stood up and said something on behalf of the Amercan dealer it was odds on he would be gone shortly...

What was done to the Chrysler dealers was a travesty, many of my friends lost there stores, I had one friend who had just compleTed a $5,000,000 renovation and received the termination latter less han 60 days after!! He lost everything as did many dealers.. My partners lost there Chrysler branded stores which was what led to having to sell ours...While they (my partners) were a-holes anyway, I would probably still be a dealer if their stores were not terminated...

GM killed a light duty truck/suv diesel motor that had already been developed and tooled. Instead we got the Volt.

I would love a half ton diesel or suv.

Ahhhh no, Creative Destruction is a commonly known term in modern Economics:

>> Creative destruction can cause temporary economic distress. Layoffs of workers with obsolete working skills can be one price of new innovations valued by consumers. Though a continually innovating economy generates new opportunities for workers to participate in more creative and productive enterprises (provided they can acquire the necessary skills), creative destruction can cause severe hardship in the short term, and in the long term for those who cannot acquire the skills and work experience.

However, some believe that in the long-term society as a whole (including the descendants of those that experienced short-term hardship) enjoys a rise in overall quality of life due to the accumulation of innovation - for example, 90% of Americans were farmers in 1790, while 2.6% of Americans were farmers in 1990.[25] Over those 200 years farm jobs were destroyed by exponential productivity gains in agricultural technology and replaced by jobs in new industries. Present day farmers and non-farmers alike enjoy much more prosperous lifestyles than their counterparts in 1790. >>

JadeRose, You seem to be totally disregarding my comment that I felt it important to save GM and all of it's tentacles, which employ real people just like you and I. Let me attempt to explain my union perspective.

I've been union represented(because I work in a closed shop) for nearly 30 years. I won't bore you with the details unless you really want to know, but I have vast experience to base my opinion on regarding unions and their real objectives.

In the old days, before OSHA, NIOSH, MSHA, and various other governmental safety organizations, unions were often the only protection for employees being coerced into unsafe work practices for the sake of production, but that is no longer the case. You will see unions play the workplace safety card to shut down a jobsite that was perfectly acceptable prior to there being some other labor or benefit issue or unchanged before a return to work, so it's not really about safety, it's about organized labor and leverage.

Unions also had a place before common labor laws existed spelling out the length of a typical work day and what merits overtime pay, or full time employee status, etc. but that was long ago and no longer true in most cases. Collective bargaining can be a benefit, if you are just an average employee, but mostly what I've seen the union do is protect the deliberate **** ups while padding their pockets with the weekly dues of thousands of members. Unions, IMO, are about making lots of money and providing very lavish lifestyles for those at the top of the union foodchain, standing upon the backs of the working men and women. Not so different really from the Robber Barons or corporate titans of today except that unions produce nothing, they simply sell the labor of those whom they "represent". Huh......sounds like pimping when I phrase it like that........

I can provide the services of MY labor whether I'm represented or not. The union in no way provides me the ability to labor, they sell MY product of labor, and they won't take care of me if I become disabled and can no longer work and pay my union dues. My ability to provide the needed labor in specific ways is everything and the union just takes a slice off the top. The union has done nothing, and continues to do nothing to make me the skilled labor asset that I am. Unless you are in a trade union and have gone through their training program, has a union ever done anything to enhance your abilities or desirability to an employer?

I don't think Martha Stewart has a union so that kinda leaves Snickerdoodles twisting in the wind.

That was a " Civil Union" (homo marriage) you were in..