SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (44819)8/16/2010 7:12:21 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
But I believe that it is also possible that if that were to happen the market space would simply be taken up by some collection of foreign manufacturers, and thus there would be no efficiency benefits accruing

"taken up by some collection of foreign manufacturing" does not equal, imply, or even suggest "no efficiency benefits accruing"

If a particular company is inefficient and has too high of cost structure, having it fail and the business taken over by others normally increases efficiency.

And that's not even considering moral hazard. The more you bail out companies the more you reduce market pressure for efficiency.

Re: "In any case it assumes the company would have failed without the government intervention (beyond normal bankruptcy protection), which is itself questionable. ...but it could have survived."

No. I do not regard that as 'questionable' AT ALL.

Its highly questionable. They could have declared bankruptcy when they still had a bit of cash on hand, but when it was obvious they where heading to the rocks. Instead they held out for bailouts, getting loans under the Bush administration, and loans and more from the Obama administration.

The dealer network would have not been able to withstand a year of two of shutdown, nor the workforce, nor the company's business prospects themselves.

No year or two of shutdown, or piecemeal liquidation would have been necessary. Many companies operate in bankruptcy without government bailouts.

Re: [MONEY TALKS and B-S walks.] "That's totally unresponsive to the point."

Actually that IS THE 'POINT'... albeit put rather colloquially and basely.

When the discussion is about what the money should say, its not a relevant point other than to show that its unlikely to say nothing. Of course it talks. This type it "talked" in a foolish and unreasonable way. I'm not saying "shut up", I'm saying "say something smart".

Newly invested MONEY is not beholden to the old money.

Including the money for the unions.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News