Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (29908)	11/25/2008 10:51:07 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "...Anyone who is planning on collecting underfunded defined benefits plans is not being realistic." I agree. But it takes corrupt, lying politicians and 'captive' regulators --- over many years --- to allow corporations to get away with vastly under-funding their pension plans.... and the ordinary 'working grunt' should not be expected to have a Phd. in accounting to be able to understand the intricacies of his employer's pension investments, assumed / projected rates of return on the asset classes / risk dispersion models / global interest rate environments, etc. If there have been frauds perpetrated here (& I believe that there have, and across MANY other industries as well)... then it is the LEGAL AUTHORITIES who are responsible for allowing them to persist. Re: [Bankruptcy (where all current equity is extinguished... and likely around 1/2 of the debt is force-converted into new equity, producing the industries new owners along with a reduced debt load) is the only option that can 'save' an American auto industry.] "That isn't going to happen. The only thing that is going to save the industry is bankruptcy in which the union contracts are torn up...." Your reply doesn't make any sense. Under federal bankruptcy law contracts would be tossed on the pyre before the secured debt holders.... (So, under the present circumstances, given the debt loads and poor financial condition of the companies, the contracts are toast and the stock is a total goner... and the DEBT HOLDERS will wind up owning the companies... but even they will have to take a substantial haircut.) Note also though that the PENSION OBLIGATIONS are assigned a high order of priority in bankruptcy law --- so the pensioners are counted as high priority debt holders. AS I've been saying for a few years now: GM stock is gone, the company is functionally bankrupt --- because it owes MORE to it's pensioners than it is worth. Therefore, the pensioners (& the other high-priority and or secured debt holders) will wind up with ownership of the company. Re: [If we are to NATIONALIZE the truly massive health care costs of one of our largest industries (giving them a competitive advantage over others...) then WHAT ABOUT OTHER AMERICAN INDUSTRIES?] "So what? When we protected the steel industry it wiped out many steel manufacturing businesses in the US. The Chinese bought the factories in bankruptcy and moved them to China. Now we couldn't afford to rebuild many of these at any competitive even if the tariffs were leveled. Who cares about a few more?" You appear to be ARGUING AGAINST the same thing that I am ARGUING AGAINST. I am against the government picking and choosing which industries to 'bail out', which ones to favor and which ones to ignore. But what I am also saying is that, since all of our major corporations involved in global trade suffer from the COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE of having to shoulder all of their health care costs themselves --- while their competition does not! --- that if we are to 'bail out' any one company's health care expenses... we should level the playing field by biting the bullet and rolling out a national plan which UNIFORMLY addresses the problem for ALL OF OUR COMPANIES... without 'picking and choosing' winners and losers. Re: [I remain OPPOSED to 'special benefits' to just one industry (such as the auto industry....)] "It is unlikely that your and my opposition together counts for anything with the incoming Congress and Administration." Oh, I donno. I'm pretty sure that PRAGMATISM will out in due course. (After the recession finally bottoms and then begins to reverse course, the politicians will have little other choice --- as the world will no longer be so willing to finance our massive debts). RE: "Remember Obama is the most partisan liberal in the Senate." A) --- He's not in the Senate any longer, and B) that was never true anyway. <GGG> Re: "He has never listened to anyone to the right of leftwing extremist." Now THAT is just too silly for words!