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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul V. who wrote (112665)	9/11/2011 9:45:19 PM
From: CF Rebel	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

What would have happened to all the suppliers, their workers and those having financial dealings with these and other companies, let alone the economy? They would have been impacted but not by the amount all the chicken littles said. The common assumption by the liberal demagogues (preying on the uninformed) is that if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to go bankrupt they would exist no more and the entire supply chain would have evaporated. Totally wrong. Had the normal process of bankruptcy been allowed to proceed any combination of outcomes was possible, all legal (as opposed to what happened) and highly efficient for achieving the most equitable outcomes for all involved. It is possible that in bankruptcy either company would simply have liquidated assets and disappeared. It is more likely that a combination of the following would have happened: new labor agreements would have been bargained, bondholders would have negotiated new capital positions (at a loss) and shareholders would have lost some or all equity. Another possibility is the acquisition of all or part of either company including all re-negotiations by a stronger company wanting to enter the space. This is how things are done in the real world. In the liberal fantasy world of rainbows and unicorns, this will not stand. Dinosaurs must be preserved at all costs, especially since the deep pockets of taxpayers are just too much to resist. Oh, and the president of the United States, going against two centuries of bankruptcy laws, can fire CEOs and tell bondholders to take five or ten cents on the dollar and hand over half the company to UNIONs. What a friggin' deal! Why isn't the Gotti family involved in this?! Back to the real world. In the first, "worst" case scenario mentioned above, liquidation and disappearance, there would still be "X" amount of demand for vehicles in the marketplace. Just because a company evaporates doesn't mean their market share does too. Their market share will go to other, stronger companies, you know, the ones that did a better job of being run and supplying the marketplace. And they would have to hire people to meet the increased output the market shares they gained demanded. They probably wouldn't hire as many as lost their jobs because the weak failures were allocating resources inefficiently. Bankruptcy is the marketplace's way of eliminating inefficiencies as equitably and efficiently as possible. Some presidents, you might know one, have no clue about this and are more concerned with the advanced and alarming economic concept of ATMs replacing bank tellers. That's what passes for deep thought at the White House today. A Marxist cannot handle a dynamic, unpredictable world, much less active, thinking people who want to control their own lives without being literally robbed by government. A free market and a free country with rule of law and personal responsibility is no place for guys like Obama. He is an honest man's nightmare and a foreigner in his own country. But, you are catching on......Mutual Deterrence is based on the the theory of perceived power. Catching on? I've been arguing that concept with liberals for years - as applied to foreign policy among other things. Why is it a liberal can apply this policy to the concept of labor negotiations but be in total denial about it's efficacy in dealing with tyrants and other enemies? Do you think Obama, given his obsequiousness with muslims and other rogues could ever negotiate a labor agreement on your terms? He's clueless and it amply illustrates his naivete and incompetence in all things, especially foreign policy. What a rube. CF Rebel