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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (44646)	8/3/2010 11:18:17 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

And, NOTHING NEW. So what? I never suggested it was new. I'm not even arguing against the idea, nor is anyone else here, so defending it is rather besides the point. What's being argued against is the government's choice to become the debtor in possession, and its actions leading up to, and after that decision. Hey! NOBODY ELSE was willing to step up to the plate with the big bucks required to speed the bankruptcy process along so that there would still be a viable business at the end of the process! 1 - If no one but the government will step to the plate, and if in the absence of the government stepping to the plate the business will fail, than it probably should fail. 2 - I disagree that someone had to step up in that status for the business to avoid total failure. 3 - No one else would step up, partially because the government involvement in the process. Even before the government became the debtor in possession, it was involved, nd tried to control the process to a certain extent. It used its leverage over other creditors (which is extensive, since it is their regulator, and also since many of them where recently bailed out by the government itself), to push a setup that made the other creditors not want to take on the role. Also the other creditors wouldn't step up, if they knew the government would take the job and they didn't have to put their money at risk. 4 - Even if it was necessary and beneficial for the government to take this role (and I don't agree that it was) The government could take the role without interfering to the extent it did, or really to any great extent. For example - It didn't have to favor politically connected junior creditors, over senior creditors. That is perhaps the most important problem with the government's involvement and one which none of your points address at all. Assume that everything your saying was correct (and I don't) and it still provides no defense for the government's actions.