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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (64625)1/20/2012 4:11:33 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 103300
 
Well then you are simply factually incorrect.

Re: [I'm not even sure what you MEAN by that.] "Exactly what I said. The words where simple, and combine to a simple concept."

And that is what you are demonstrably FACTUALLY wrong about.

As showed, General Motors clearly *is* 'for profit' enterprise. LOL!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Restructuring (to enable a viable on-going business model to emerge from the ashes of federal bankruptcy protection) is the EXACT PURPOSE of this chapter of the US bankruptcy code.

That's what it is for.

And that is exactly what has happened. (GM is profitable again and just edged Toyota to once again become the largest automobile company in the world - measured by sales and market share.) They are hiring again, expanding their work force.

So I think you might just have a bit of a hard road to hoe in trying to convince anyone that GM is not a 'for profit effort given:

1) the actual (profitable:-) post-bankruptcy results, and

2) obvious fact that the bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization was *accepted* by the federal bankruptcy judge who was overseeing GM's bankruptcy case. And, as I noted previously, this chapter of bankruptcy law is designed SPECIFICALLY to allow a company to shed enough debts so that it can emerge as a viable on-going (read: PROFITABLE) enterprise. Again... extremely hard to see how you could imagine that court approval didn't signify acceptance for the plan to craft a 'for profit' enterprise and a 'more efficient' enterprise when the ENTIRE PURPOSE of that chapter of the US code is for exactly those purposes and that is what the Judge is legally tasked to see happens.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: "The government involvement in GM wasn't for profit (not that I'd necessarily want the government to seek profits, but I was pointing out a difference from Bain's actions)."

The US government is not a private Hedge Fund.

It's goals are much larger. It sees after the success and interests of the entire nation.

Re: "The bond holders are still supposed to be senior to the unions."

Again, you are simply factually incorrect.

The ('union') interest was the legal obligations that existed to their PENSION PLANS (GM's workers' pensions) which both ranked HIGHER in the hierarchy of debt obligations that GM owed under federal bankruptcy law but were also much LARGER (in dollar amount) than even the bondholders' legal claims.

Pensions were senior.

Re: "...the point is that the shots the government 'called', the actions it took, the control it exerted, etc."

EXACTLY what the legal provision in bankruptcy law called "Debtor in Possession" is all about!

That's how it works!
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