http://uk.reuters.com/article/motoringAutoNews/idUKTRE53R47P20090428
Seems like the lenders now agree to the terms, and settle for $2b out of the $7b debt.
Seems like the lenders now agree to the terms, and settle for $2b out of the $7b debt.
UAW Would Own Majority Of Chrysler, Source Says
- Thread starter PandaBear
- Start date
- Status
That's pretty darn funny.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Sounds like a win-win to me. No more UAW vs. management. They ARE management!
Originally Posted By: pickled
Hey now Gary, Commie is vogue so don't be rocking the boat!! Seriously though I have worked with a large number of corporations that would have performed better if the 400 layers of inept management were to be paired down to say 3. The shareholders and bondholders would have seen much better returns as well.
There *is* a socio-political movement that precisely encapsulates this thinking. "Mutualism" and "Syndicalism" are parts of it.
Sounds like a win-win to me. No more UAW vs. management. They ARE management!
Originally Posted By: pickled
Hey now Gary, Commie is vogue so don't be rocking the boat!! Seriously though I have worked with a large number of corporations that would have performed better if the 400 layers of inept management were to be paired down to say 3. The shareholders and bondholders would have seen much better returns as well.
There *is* a socio-political movement that precisely encapsulates this thinking. "Mutualism" and "Syndicalism" are parts of it.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I'm waiting to see any sensible objections to that movement (as in, I'm really interested in what people see wrong with it).
From what I have seen, the Union is the BIG winner here. They are walking away with majority control, and bond/stock holders are getting 5-10% on the dollar. So those private investors are getting the shaft so the union can benefit.
And for what again? Why is the Union supposedly entitled to this amount of money/stock? Political payback is the real reason, but I highly doubt that this would be the result if it went through an open bankruptcy.
We now have a government that hands ownership of companies to whomever donates the most to re-election campaigns.
And for what again? Why is the Union supposedly entitled to this amount of money/stock? Political payback is the real reason, but I highly doubt that this would be the result if it went through an open bankruptcy.
We now have a government that hands ownership of companies to whomever donates the most to re-election campaigns.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'm waiting to see any sensible objections to that movement (as in, I'm really interested in what people see wrong with it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Criticism_of_libertarian_socialism
(Sorry for channeling my inner Tempest and only quoting the URL, but I'm a little busy around here as of late.)
I'm waiting to see any sensible objections to that movement (as in, I'm really interested in what people see wrong with it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Criticism_of_libertarian_socialism
(Sorry for channeling my inner Tempest and only quoting the URL, but I'm a little busy around here as of late.)
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'm waiting to see any sensible objections to that movement (as in, I'm really interested in what people see wrong with it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Criticism_of_libertarian_socialism
Resources are finite. In order for things to be "fair" and "shared by society as a whole", there has to be some body to determine what is fair and enforce it. The people in that body have vast amounts of power. This is why these things always fail.
Without a governing body, it's pure anarchy where the strongest simply impose their will.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'm waiting to see any sensible objections to that movement (as in, I'm really interested in what people see wrong with it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Criticism_of_libertarian_socialism
Resources are finite. In order for things to be "fair" and "shared by society as a whole", there has to be some body to determine what is fair and enforce it. The people in that body have vast amounts of power. This is why these things always fail.
Without a governing body, it's pure anarchy where the strongest simply impose their will.
A "vexing" marlboro?
"“You can be individuals as much as you’d like, but somebody has got to think for the masses.” -- Larry King"
Did Larry King actually say this?
Did Larry King actually say this?
Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1
"“You can be individuals as much as you’d like, but somebody has got to think for the masses.” -- Larry King"
Did Larry King actually say this?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/02/lkl.01.html
Just past halfway down the page.
"“You can be individuals as much as you’d like, but somebody has got to think for the masses.” -- Larry King"
Did Larry King actually say this?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/02/lkl.01.html
Just past halfway down the page.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Without a governing body, it's pure anarchy
Hey, *somebody* made their way over to the Wikipedia page!
Originally Posted By: Tempest
where the strongest simply impose their will.
The "strongest", in that scenario, are the organized.
Without a governing body, it's pure anarchy
Hey, *somebody* made their way over to the Wikipedia page!
Originally Posted By: Tempest
where the strongest simply impose their will.
The "strongest", in that scenario, are the organized.
Quote:
The "strongest", in that scenario, are the organized.
That still undoes the "equal for all" theory. Someone will figure out a better way to do things. Then "evil" Capitalism ensues as people barter for things made cheaper than they can make it.
The "strongest", in that scenario, are the organized.
That still undoes the "equal for all" theory. Someone will figure out a better way to do things. Then "evil" Capitalism ensues as people barter for things made cheaper than they can make it.
Contempt for the individual (unless that individual is a millionaire talk show [censored]'er) and compassion for the masses is replacing Don't Tread on Me.
I suppose reading "Wealth of Nations" wasn't on any college syllabus eh?
I suppose reading "Wealth of Nations" wasn't on any college syllabus eh?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
We now have a government that hands ownership of companies to whomever donates the most to re-election campaigns.
Yes and no. I think the lenders complain that their secured debt (collateral) were not given preferred treatment over the unsecured debt like the underfunded pension obligation.
Fiat got to have a great deal or else it would just walk away and buy whatever is left from the bankruptcy court; it just has the most bargaining power.
I read that most lenders want to push GM and Chrysler into a bankruptcy so they can collect from their CDS contracts. This is what the government is trying to avoid because many of these contracts are from .... AIG.
No one knows what is going to be in the back room deal, but don't be surprised that the government give some good deals to these lenders (including the big banks under government bailout) in exchange of them agreeing to settle out of a deal.
Having UAW in charge of Chrysler also makes them more responsible for the future failure, and keep the labor cost in line. This probably won't be possible unless the union ownership happens.
Like I said on the first post: why don't you run it!!!
We now have a government that hands ownership of companies to whomever donates the most to re-election campaigns.
Yes and no. I think the lenders complain that their secured debt (collateral) were not given preferred treatment over the unsecured debt like the underfunded pension obligation.
Fiat got to have a great deal or else it would just walk away and buy whatever is left from the bankruptcy court; it just has the most bargaining power.
I read that most lenders want to push GM and Chrysler into a bankruptcy so they can collect from their CDS contracts. This is what the government is trying to avoid because many of these contracts are from .... AIG.
No one knows what is going to be in the back room deal, but don't be surprised that the government give some good deals to these lenders (including the big banks under government bailout) in exchange of them agreeing to settle out of a deal.
Having UAW in charge of Chrysler also makes them more responsible for the future failure, and keep the labor cost in line. This probably won't be possible unless the union ownership happens.
Like I said on the first post: why don't you run it!!!
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Having UAW in charge of Chrysler also makes them more responsible for the future failure, and keep the labor cost in line. This probably won't be possible unless the union ownership happens.
...and the taxpayer responsible for flipping the bill once it happens.
Yikes.
Having UAW in charge of Chrysler also makes them more responsible for the future failure, and keep the labor cost in line. This probably won't be possible unless the union ownership happens.
...and the taxpayer responsible for flipping the bill once it happens.
Yikes.
Will car jockeys/porters be unionized now, too?
Quote:
No one knows what is going to be in the back room deal, but don't be surprised that the government give some good deals to these lenders (including the big banks under government bailout) in exchange of them agreeing to settle out of a deal.
Most of the banks that have "accepted" this deal have taken serious gov. money so we are already seeing this happen. Gov. is heavily leaning on them to make what they want happen.
This what I meant by gov. altering the economic land scape to make gov. owned businesses "work".
Quote:
Having UAW in charge of Chrysler also makes them more responsible for the future failure, and keep the labor cost in line.
That is a conflict of interest so it should be interesting to see how it plays out.
No one knows what is going to be in the back room deal, but don't be surprised that the government give some good deals to these lenders (including the big banks under government bailout) in exchange of them agreeing to settle out of a deal.
Most of the banks that have "accepted" this deal have taken serious gov. money so we are already seeing this happen. Gov. is heavily leaning on them to make what they want happen.
This what I meant by gov. altering the economic land scape to make gov. owned businesses "work".
Quote:
Having UAW in charge of Chrysler also makes them more responsible for the future failure, and keep the labor cost in line.
That is a conflict of interest so it should be interesting to see how it plays out.
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Having UAW in charge of Chrysler also makes them more responsible for the future failure, and keep the labor cost in line. This probably won't be possible unless the union ownership happens.
...and the taxpayer responsible for flipping the bill once it happens.
Yikes.
I agree that this will most likely fail and we will be here again in a few years...bailing them out...again.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Having UAW in charge of Chrysler also makes them more responsible for the future failure, and keep the labor cost in line. This probably won't be possible unless the union ownership happens.
...and the taxpayer responsible for flipping the bill once it happens.
Yikes.
I agree that this will most likely fail and we will be here again in a few years...bailing them out...again.
Hey wait, what backroom deals? Where's this new government "transparency"?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
We now have a government that hands ownership of companies to whomever donates the most to re-election campaigns.
Isn't this a private company that refused government interference? I believe that I was correct by someone here.
That is, didn't the PRIVATE OWNERS of Chrysler choose this remedy? I didn't see anyone forcing their hand here. Obviously, it served THEIR best interest to do this.
So, I guess your beef is that someone joins them as a partner, huh?
Heaven forbid that there would be some cooperative arrangement to lower legacy cost and keep the thing functional.
Now if the owners had managed to idle the entire 54000 workers ..come out fat ..and send the whole thing to China ..destroying the communities surrounding the plants. All the ruined lives ..all the crime the dysfunction ..the social turmoil ..the bankrupt systems and all the fall out...
,..then you would be doing a happy dance.
We now have a government that hands ownership of companies to whomever donates the most to re-election campaigns.
Isn't this a private company that refused government interference? I believe that I was correct by someone here.
That is, didn't the PRIVATE OWNERS of Chrysler choose this remedy? I didn't see anyone forcing their hand here. Obviously, it served THEIR best interest to do this.
So, I guess your beef is that someone joins them as a partner, huh?
Heaven forbid that there would be some cooperative arrangement to lower legacy cost and keep the thing functional.
Now if the owners had managed to idle the entire 54000 workers ..come out fat ..and send the whole thing to China ..destroying the communities surrounding the plants. All the ruined lives ..all the crime the dysfunction ..the social turmoil ..the bankrupt systems and all the fall out...
,..then you would be doing a happy dance.
- Status
Similar threads
