Bankrupt Assertion

Also, Seth,

I'm a performance nut myself and love the rumble of a V-8, the bigger the better, and nobody does it better than Chrysler, Ford and GM. I'd love to see them fix their problem, but it ain't Toyota.

Seth,

The biggest obstacle to affordable performance is the government, which with its CAFE standards has decreed that blood is cheaper than oil. And now His Holiness: The Divine Prophet Algore I has decreed oil to be evil.

Kiss your Corvettes and Mustangs goodbye. Mierduck and his buddies in Washington don't think you should have them.

The biggest obstacle to Michigan-based automakers being profitable is a union that is actively opposed to increased productivity.

Do you support taxing Americans who work (in America) building cars and trucks for Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and others to bail out the Michigan automakers?





Yes. Doubly so when they wish to get rid of a market for affordable performance. Even more so when they speak of turning on their own in the South.

No thanks, I'll skip the golf cart transplants. Start making some muscle without exorbitance, then they can have a case against a bailout.

Big-3’s effort of technology improvement is inferior to other forgin company,especialy in the field of manufacturing technology.

In japan,cars body are made from more high tensile strength steel.Tradeoff between lightening and toughness is solved.So car weigh becomes lighter about 15% for vehicle fuel efficiency.


But forming cost of high tensile steel costs much when leaving just as it is,because damage of stamping die for body forming becomes very much.So more durable tool steel for cold stamping die use is developed by Hitachi Metals.


It is thought that there is also a cause which bankruptcy of big-3 may occures in the accumulation of a peripheral


technology in USA.

Time to Bailout Main Street

To the surprise of very few who have been paying attention, the Wall Street bailout has had little positive effect on making credit available to businesses or individuals. The $350 trillion in TARP funds already made available, plus the almost $1 trillion in loans directly from the Federal Reserve, have only been used to replace capital already recognized as lost, or to buttress balance sheets in anticipation of the write-offs to come as the economy slides deeper into recession.

Also to the surprise of no one, every industry, trade group, union, state government, and municipality lobbyist has formed a long line in order to get “their share” of the bailout. The federal government will continue to write checks to every interest group possible before they do what they presumably already know needs to be done: make credit available directly to the American people and small businesses via temporary government backing of basic credit facilities.

We need to drive the economy via consumer behavior. The following plan lubricates the wheels of the economy by making available sensible, properly leveraged credit.

An old axiom of government is that for every action, there is an equal and opposite over-reaction. This is the current situation in our credit market. Failure to regulate leverage has lead to a current environment where lenders expect to be over-regulated. Only customers with spotless credit are able to make purchases. Yet, due to the economic downturn, many people with good jobs, down payments, and the ability going forward to repay loans will have blemished credit.

There are many who share blame that got us into this mess. But the solution is to reward good future behavior. The blame game can continue until the end of time, but we must lay a foundation to get us back to a market-based, productive economy once again.

read more

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/time-to-bailout-main-street

Muirgeo:

What would your libertarian world look like. Please tell me what it is you envision.

Well, I guess it would start with a groundswell of economic literacy. Then, whenever libtards like yourself opened their mouths with your fallacious Marxist nonsense, suddenly a whole lot more Americans than just us would think, "What a f'n useful idiot."

It would be nice to society's education level raised to the point where your stupidity is recognized for what it is -- simple economic ignorance.

It seems that many leftists tend to project.

Are the rocks edible and do the mountain springs flow with lemonade?

No, libertarians oppose socialism.

Oops, I violated my own rule about referring to statists as 'liberal'. The Muirducks of the world are about as committed to liberty as Uncle Joe Stalin.

That should be Leftardland, where government is always loving and benevolent and needs to be all-powerful and all-knowing so that it can grant our every wish.

Muirduck,

From my post of Dec 16, 2008 9:38:04 PM: You believe choosing to unionize (or not) is too important an issue to trust to a secret ballot - that it really, really NEEDS a union organizer standing over your shoulder reminding you that he knows where you, your wife and kids live. Do you also support the elimination of the secret ballot in other elections, such as for president?

I'd really like to know how you feel about abolishing the secret ballot in other elections. You live in a solidly socialist part of the country. Wouldn't you like to KNOW that your neighbors are voting for the right guy and be able to do something to those who don't, just like the union knee-cappers hope to do?

"Are the rocks edible and do the mountain springs flow with lemonade?"

No, that would be in Libtardland, where government is always loving and benevolent and needs to be all-powerful and all-knowing so that it can grant our every wish.

Off the top of my head, there would be no U.S. Empire. No U.S. troops based in other countries, no Iraq occupation, etc.

There would be no subsidies to any private interests.

There would be no war on drugs and prisons filled with drug offenders.

Will that do for a start?

Posted by: Sam Grove

I'm with you all the way so far. Are the rocks edible and do the mountain springs flow with lemonade?

Muirgeo:

the way I see it liberty would be maximized for a small percent with everyone else left to grovel for their needs.

Is that what you useful idiots call "a job" these days?

Every one of you libtards has, somewhere in your family history, ancestors who risked their lives coming to America to get away from stupid statists like yourself. How proud they would be to see you now, George.

What would your libertarian world look like. Please tell me what it is you envision. - Muirdiot

This is the 1,000,000th time this idiot has asked this idiotic question. The idiot has received multiple responses each time. His drug-addled brain obviously can't possibly understand any of the explanations because he slithers right back to ask exactly the same question again.

First of all Michael taxes are not armed robber. You agree to pay them by agreeing to live here and not relocate to a country more of your liking. - village idiot

Okay then. killing you is not murder, it's simply limiting your ability to repeat asinine drivel on other people's blogs because nobody will touch your blog with a ten foot pole. You agree to it by making an ass and a nuance of yourself here.

The United States taxes you where ever you live. It also reserves the right not to accept your renunciation of citizenship. It's gotten very USSR in that way. If it does accept your renunciation of citizenship, The U.S. levies a massive tax on all of your worldwide assets before it releases you from its grip. So, you basically can't agree not to pay taxes even if you don't want to live here or be a citizen anymore. You may not think this is robbery but any person with at least a solid double digit IQ doesn't see much difference.

What would your libertarian world look like. Please tell me what it is you envision.

Off the top of my head, there would be no U.S. Empire. No U.S. troops based in other countries, no Iraq occupation, etc.

There would be no subsidies to any private interests.

There would be no war on drugs and prisons filled with drug offenders.

Will that do for a start?

Additional thought.....

If concentration of wealth and power are of concern to you, then you are a poor student of history. There is no political system known to man that prevents the concentration of power and wealth. Even a full blown soviet system such as the old USSR or Cuba have huge concentrations of wealth and power. Such concentrations are simply a feature of human society going all the way back to the first warrior-kings.

However, it is worth noting that the rise of modern egalitarian societies in the western world paralleled the growth of mercantile economies and the economic rise of the middle class. Yes, that would be the by-product of evil capitalism. Western europe is highly regulated today, but still has a basically capitalist/mercantilist society.

So I guess if wealth/power concentrations are your concern, you should be arguing for as much modern capitalism as you can get.

Muirgeo -

You have cited medicare and social security as positive and productive social programs that benefit everyone and the everyone should gladly contribute to. And yet.....

Social security is one of the first (and greatest) American ponzi schemes. Did you know that the original targeted retirement age of 65 also happened to be the median life expectancy in the USA circa 1937.

Yep, that's right. From the beginning, your great social program was designed to only pay out to half of it participants. And now that today's retirees are facing means testing, we are headed right back to a situation where a good chunk of people contribute but never get a return.

Just a small tidbit in the hopes of prompting some reflection on your part. You don't appear to know much about the history and economics of social security even though it is one of the easiest to understand in terms of original intent and unfunded liabilities.

And for Christ's sake that should be illegal. That's tantamount to bribery and overlaid with all sorts of conflict of interest.

Sure. If only we give more power to the politicians and bureaucrats, will they overcome the temptations of that power.

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

cpurick or some one else,

What would your libertarian world look like. Please tell me what it is you envision.

Would wealth be more or less concentrated? Would the world economy expand or contract faster then it currently does? Would the middle class expand or shrink? Would poverty increase or shrink?

Would a child born to poor ignorant parents have a greater or lessor chance of escaping poverty? Would the environment be improved?


Would people die from starvation and easily treatable diseases less often? Would all the worlds property be owned by a fraction of the people or would everyone own property? Would some one like me who likes to go exploring wilderness for hundreds of miles have to ask permission to explore all the now privately held lands? Would every road be a privately owned toll road? Would there be countrys or just multinational corporations?

Tell me how it all works in your wonderful liberty maximizing world because I'm pretty sure the way I see it liberty would be maximized for a small percent with everyone else left to grovel for their needs.

I really don't think you've all ever thought this through to any detail. I find it hard to believe you would want to set up a society where the risk of being a groveler increases substantially while the likelihood of finding maximum liberty and freedom would diminish dramatically.

You are the one with faith in an ideology that exist NO WHERE in the real world

That strawman has been well covered, loser.

"On the rarity of laissez-faire, Muirgeo confuses reality with what is just or desirable. Tyranny and misery have been humanity's lot through most of history. Does that mean it was foolish or wrong to strive for freedom? The rarity of freedom tells you nothing about whether it will work."

No. Your views represent economic and political ignorance. A lot of people also used to believe the earth was flat. So what? It was still wrong. As are you -- repeatedly.

Posted by: cpurick

Sorry dude. You are the one with faith in an ideology that exist NO WHERE in the real world....well maybe in Djubti or Ethiopia....but other then that NO WHERE. And yet you persist in believing it the best way to arrange society with absolutly not even a single small bit of evidence to support your claim. THAT's IGNORANT.

Madoff contributed regularly to the democratic coffers.

Posted by: Oil Shock

And for Christ's sake that should be illegal. That's tantamount to bribery and overlaid with all sorts of conflict of interest.

Lobbyist should not be able to contribute cash or anything of value to public officials and every meeting with public officials should be on public record.

Muirgeo --

"I would argue that GM problems are more a result of AIG's actions and their effect on the economy then on GM's management structure and it's own internnal problems."

That could be true, but I doubt it -- GM and Chrysler were on life support before the burst. But, in any case, so what? Is the standard "we bail out *everybody* negatively affected by the crisis"? That seems to be a recipe for disaster.

If I had my way, none of them would get bailed out, and the chips would fall where they may. But, since I can't have my entire way, my second choice is to at least prevent the bailouts from spreading to the car industry. (And, after car makers, who else has their hand out?)

I don't envy earned wealth but I'm convinced a huge amount of wealth is ill-gotten.

Irrelevant. The deadweight of the undeserving is less of a burden on society than the policies of those determined to guarantee "equality." In your quest to ensure that nobody gets unduly prosperous, you morons jeopardize everyone else's prosperity. But quite frankly, I believe that's been your goal all along.

They represent the views of a majority of people living in this country

No. Your views represent economic and political ignorance. A lot of people also used to believe the earth was flat. So what? It was still wrong. As are you -- repeatedly.

Muirgeo,

In your last post your reasoning is based on the fallacy of a hasty generalization. You're taking one example and then saying that it covers that entire group. That's a weak argument. You could make it stronger by citing multiple examples.

Additionally, it seems that you employ the straw man fallacy quite a bit too in your rebuttals. You're distorting your opponent's argument so that you can more easily attack it, then you destroy the distortion, and then claim that you've defeated your opponent's real argument.

These fallacies in reasoning seem to aggravate the other contributors. Solidify your reasoning and I suspect a more civil tone would emerge from the other participants.

Just some things to consider.

Madoff contributed regularly to the democratic coffers.

If you search on youtube.com, you will find Evelyn Rothschild of the Rothschild dynasty blaming the current financial troubles on lack of regulations. LOL. I wonder why most of the parasitic rich wants more regulations. SEC was created to war on financial corruptions, have they succeeded? Where is the perfect police state?

"The wealth of the rich does not come at the expense of the hard working middle class. There is nothing to preclude all the "hard working middle class" from becoming richer too."

Here is your biggest piece of BS in your whole post. Wealth often has very little to do with value. Many are rich from scheming off the productive society. The recent arrest of Madoff the Hedge fund manager jack off is just the tip of the ice berg. I'm not convinced that there is a hedge fund manager out their who has made a positive contirbution to society. These guys steal from you and me and we get nothing in return but longer work hours to fill in the gaps of productivity they steal.

You're a damn schmuck defending these a-holes. I don't envy earned wealth but I'm convinced a huge amount of wealth is ill-gotten. For Christ sakes the current global financial collapse is clearly all about ill gotten wealth.

Quit crying like a baby to the blog owners. Ignore my post or deal with them. They represent the views of a majority of people living in this country in which YOU choose to live as well.

Muirgeo:

SSI and Medicare have not bankrupt the nation or destroyed lives.

Unfunded liabilities of SSI and Medicare top $50T. Either the nation will go bankrupt or the programs will -- it will not be paid back.

The overwehlming majority of Americans support SS and Medicare

Only to the extent that an overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand the programs' financial insolvency and actuarial impossibility.

I support GM, Ford and Chrysler having a level palying field with Foriegn auto makers. The way to do that is to pass card check and to get universal health care so the auto giants don't have the big health care premium disadvantage.

Why is extending the failed companies' problems onto the successful ones your idea of "leveling the playing field"? Allowing the failed companies to emerge from bankruptcy structured more like the successful ones sounds a little less cancerous to me. Sounds suspiciously like you're rooting for the cancer, George.

Why do guys like you think rich people need ever more money while hard working middle class should get less and less?

A false choice marking the ignorance of liberals everywhere. The rich are not presumed to be any less "hard working." The wealth of the rich does not come at the expense of the hard working middle class. There is nothing to preclude all the "hard working middle class" from becoming richer too. It is not a zero sum game choice.

vidyohs:

muriduck, is it possible, even remotely possible, that you'll ever be anything but an intellectual sewage pump?


-- LOL. Well said, vid.

The intellectual sewage pump:

We all start out contributing nothing to society and taking from it.

No, we start out relying on our parents' contribution. And it doesn't matter what we "take," the fact is that we are presumed to be free. There is no debt owed on a gift, moron. This is important, because you libtards wouldn't be the threat you are if you were even halfway honest about your true disdain for freedom.

Only selfish short-sighted unreasonable dumbasses would claim they are being robbed when it comes time to put back into the system.

Or parents who see that money they could be spending on their kids is wasted on the kids of parasites like you, George. I'll bet they'd claim they're being robbed too -- and quite reasonably.

DON AND RUSS, WHY CAN'T YOU KEEP THIS LIBTARD TROLL OUT OF HERE????????

If an armed robber decides not to take your money, he is in no way subsidizing your existence.

Fundamentally, “muirgeo” your desire to loot my earnings to pay for your doctor bills, your retirement, etc.

Posted by: Michael Smith | Dec 17, 2008 8:16:39 AM

First of all Michael taxes are not armed robber. You agree to pay them by agreeing to live here and not relocate to a country more of your liking. If all taxes go away and the country becomes a plutocracy like you would desire I will have the same options to pull up roots and relocate with out complaining that my rights are being violated.

Second , you don't pay for my retirement, or medical coverage. As my income level is in ~ upper 5% I pay my own way and likely a little more. I'm just suggesting people in the upper levels can well afford to pay more for those who can't. We all start out contributing nothing to society and taking from it. Only selfish short-sighted unreasonable dumbasses would claim they are being robbed when it comes time to put back into the system. Further, I want universal health care coverage as it will improve my country's overall health and economy while taking away unearned income from the money grubbing Health Plan CEO's who deny care and only make the system less efficient and more costly.

I'll actually save you money ya fool. And it will be easier for you to become an independent entrepreneur when you don't have to keep to a job you hate just for health care coverage.

You need to think things through a little more rather then just acting on your instinct.

Muirgeo --

You asked "isn't there a double standard of not wanting to give the big 3 $50 billion when we gave AIG $150 billion?"

GM & Chrysler's damage to the economy can be fixed in bankruptcy. AIG's cannot.

Posted by: Chris

That's presumptive on your part. I would argue that GM problems are more a result of AIG's actions and their effect on the economy then on GM's management structure and it's own internnal problems.

Muirgeo --

You asked "isn't there a double standard of not wanting to give the big 3 $50 billion when we gave AIG $150 billion?"

GM & Chrysler's damage to the economy can be fixed in bankruptcy. AIG's cannot. So, the standard is "we give money to institutions when we believe their continuation is critical to the economy AND bankruptcy would not solve the problem."

Or, the other standard is "We give money to companies when Congress approves it."

Either way, no double-standard.

I dispute a point in your piece. If car sales are down 30% next year, the imports plus Ford could easily satisfy the total U.S. demand, even if GM and Chrysler vanished from the face of the Earth.

I do think that if they go into Chapter 11, they may find it impossible to sell enough assets or do enough business to keep going. There are some off the cuff estimates out there that if GM concentrated just on its profitable lines, it would stop selling 3/4 of the models it now ships. That would have the expected ripple effect on suppliers and car dealerships.

I think Chapter 11 is the best approach, not because I'm optimistic or because I want to get rid of U.S. car companies or the UAW. I support it because I don't think a government appointed "car czar" is going to be able to do anything different from a bankruptcy judge. Why improvise a political version of bankruptcy when we already have a perfectly good legal process in place?

But I wouldn't be surprised to see GM and Chrysler disappear in current form. And I wouldn't be surprised if the economic and political fallout from that are severe.

muirgeo claimed:

Likewise you forget that the people in the states where the foriegn auto makers are located have paid tons of subsidies to support those automakers.

In the first place, a cut, deferral or suspension of taxes is NOT a subsidy. If an armed robber decides not to take your money, he is in no way subsidizing your existence.

What's more, even if some auto companies HAVE been granted such a cut in taxes, that certainly does not justify seizing my money to give to other companies that were not granted such cuts. Nothing on earth justifies the notion that the mistakes -- or the misfortunes -- of some should be paid for by others, others who played no part in causing the problem and who thus bear no responsibility for it.

Fundamentally, “muirgeo” your desire to loot my earnings to pay for your doctor bills, your retirement, etc. is no different from that of any criminal who seeks to exist at my expense, with just this exception: your moral status is even LOWER than his. The criminal, at least, can claim credit for a willingness to do his own dirty work, to do his own robbing, thereby running the risk that I might be armed and fight back, as well as running the risk that he might be caught and imprisoned. YOU, by contrast, want the government to do your looting for you, allowing you to cash in on unearned and undeserved benefits without any effort or risk on your part at all.

You’re an intellectually impotent, useless little parasite, fit only to regurgitate leftist talking points on cue, with no more grasp of the meaning and content of ideas than a screeching parrot. The parrot, at least, knows its place.

I wouldn't buy an American car years ago or now. Considering a future purchase would require more than a bailout.

As Martin Wolf argues, though, aren't we mistaking the "power" of brands for their legal purpose. There's just no difference between a Toyota and a Ford. If the company isn't making money and isn't going to fulfill its promises, why bother?

RE: Miss Guided

"I support GM, Ford and Chrysler having a level palying field with Foriegn auto makers. The way to do that is to pass card check..."

Again, you can't directly answer a direct question. I asked if you supported taxing Americans who work for auto companies not headquartered in Michigan to bail out those that are. However, I did find your non-answer interesting.

You believe choosing to unionize (or not) is too important an issue to trust to a secret ballot - that it really, really NEEDS a union organizer standing over your shoulder reminding you that he knows where you, your wife and kids live. Do you also support the elimination of the secret ballot in other elections, such as for president?

"The overwehlming majority of Americans support SS and Medicare"

Then why are you opposed to letting those of us who want out, get out of the system?

"Likewise you forget that the people in the states where the foriegn auto makers are located have paid tons of subsidies to support those automakers."

You presume to know something you do not know. I understand quite well that states offer corporate welfare. You seem to be implying that two wrongs make a right. That's the difference between us, Miss Guided: I consistently oppose corporate welfare. I don't decide that corporate welfare is good or evil depending on whether the Dimocrat Party wants it or not.

Don,

Most excellent piece, one I will forward to my entire e-mail list.

New subject, it isn't an ad hominem if it is true, it just recognition of fact.

With that said:

"Putting aside your consistent argument against bailouts isn't there a double standard of not wanting to give the big 3 $50 billion when we gave AIG $150 billion?

Posted by: muirgeo | Dec 16, 2008 2:03:17 PM"

muriduck, is it possible, even remotely possible, that you'll ever be anything but an intellectual sewage pump? My God man, how is it possible for you to continue, unabated in the least, to pump out such crap day after day, month after month, year after year?

You have a stupidity of a truly strange nature when you make the claim that "we" gave a bailout to AIG. Your "we", I assure you, does not include anyone of intelligence particularly on this blog. The "we" that gave AIG a bailout is the "we" that is inflicted with the stupidity caused by the theology of socialism, people such as yourself, but that ain't "us" here.

Your stupidity is beyond comical, self evidenced when you claim or intimate that Don, or any libertarian on this blog, has every supported, agreed with, or promoted giving a dime of public money to anyone, be it AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Big 3, or the Wooden Arrow manufacturer in Oregon that applied for bailout funds.

Get it through your thick stupid head that every intelligent person is against using public funds to bail out private business of any size or any nature. Always have been, always will be; no circumstance will change that.

SSI and Medicare have not bankrupt the nation or destroyed lives. They've saved lives. Everyone who pays into the system also takes from it. If anything they should lower the rates and drop the caps to make those who can afford to pay in more.

So your argument is, Corruption is fine so long as it appears to hurt no one. So there are no cost to these programs. And the costs if any, doesn't hurt anyone or anything? I prescribe "economics in one lesson" for your ills.

Why do guys like you think rich people need ever more money while hard working middle class should get less and less?

Assuming that you are not an unemployed physician ( volume of your comments in the blogosphere suggests otherwise ), I probably earn only a fraction of what you make. Yet, I feel no envy towards you or any other person who makes even multiples of what you make.

You are a create so many strawmen, that it is hard to keep up. Nobody here thinks Rich people need welfare, but that's exactly what happens under progressive regimes. They sell power to the highest bidder.

Miss Guided,

Do you support taxing Americans who work (in America) building cars and trucks for Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and others to bail out the Michigan automakers?

Posted by: brotio

I support GM, Ford and Chrysler having a level palying field with Foriegn auto makers. The way to do that is to pass card check and to get universal health care so the auto giants don't have the big health care premium disadvantage.

Likewise you forget that the people in the states where the foriegn auto makers are located have paid tons of subsidies to support those automakers.

Why do guys like you think rich people need ever more money while hard working middle class should get less and less? Are you a super rich person or just some one who likes setting up a system thats rigged against you and likes to vote against your own best interest?

You've never explained why SS/Medicare are moral and just while all others are evil and corrupt.

Posted by: brotio

SSI and Medicare have not bankrupt the nation or destroyed lives. They've saved lives. Everyone who pays into the system also takes from it. If anything they should lower the rates and drop the caps to make those who can afford to pay in more.

You never explained why letting Wall Street detroy the lives of millions and bring this country to finanacial ruin was moral and just.




The overwehlming majority of Americans support SS and Medicare while they don't support letting Bankers and Wall Streeters steal from the productive economy on the governments dime.

muirgeo, we have the Brown Act in California that does just what you suggest. It is a good idea in principle, but since it is administered by the Whining Class, it ends up being silly. Two city council members cannot talk to each other over coffee in a restaurant, can't talk to each other in line at the grocers, can't talk to each other over the fence if they're neighbors. The Brown Act simply does not take into account the fact that two officials might have a prior relationship of some sort.

It's made worse by the fact that the Blagos of California simply don't bother following the rules. The Brown Act restricts the private non-governmental behavior of honest politicians while doing absolutely nothing to prevent the dishonest politician from engaging in the eight thousand year old sport of corruption.

I want transparency so that I know who is responsible for pieces of legislation, but beyond that transparency is totally irrelevant. The text of a bad law doesn't magically change just because the pol who wrote it had correct thoughts in his head.

"Putting aside your consistent argument against bailouts isn't there a double standard of not wanting to give the big 3 $50 billion when we gave AIG $150 billion?"

Miss Guided,

Do you support taxing Americans who work (in America) building cars and trucks for Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and others to bail out the Michigan automakers?

Oil Shock reminded you about the world's biggest Ponzi scheme, the one that requires a gun at the heads of those participating, the one you consider moral and just. You've never explained why SS/Medicare are moral and just while all others are evil and corrupt.

No private meetings...PERIOD... while doing (non defense) governement work.

With the end result that *everything* becomes defence related.

And you'd give more to the Bernard Madoffs of the world.

Wrong! Don't put words into my mouth.

Biggest Pyramid scheme is run by the Federal Reserve. A creation of progressive politics. Sure if we had though police and pre-crime police, government might catch a few of these Madoffs. But That will be a world in which blagejoviches will be bought and paid for Madoffs of the world.

No wonder Charles Ponzi started his scheme around the same time Federal Reserve was created.

You want to know about another Giant Ponzi scheme, one where you steal from Peter to Pay Paul? It is called Social Security and Medicare!

Sure, if only we transfer more powers to Blagejoviches of the world, ....

Posted by: Oil Shock

And you'd give more to the Bernard Madoffs of the world.

Nope if it was up to me the government would be required to be totally transparent (and all the Blagejoviches and Madoff's of the world would be put on an inescapable island to deal with each other.) No private meetings...PERIOD... while doing (non defense) governement work.

But I do have hope.

Sure, if only we transfer more powers to Blagejoviches of the world, will they be able to sell it to the money changers. That will be a wonderful future.

Putting aside your consistent argument against bailouts isn't there a double standard of not wanting to give the big 3 $50 billion when we gave AIG $150 billion?

If nothing else it just tells me that the money changers in Wall Street still run the show and unfortunatly I'm skeptical that even Obama will be able to take them on and effect any deep seated changes. But I do have hope.

Don, I was glad to see "balance sheet" show up in your letter. At 9/30/08 GM's balance sheet showed $110B of assets and $170B of liabilities leaving a negative net worth of $60B. It would take more than $60B just for GM to become viable. This company is too far gone - liquidate plants and product lines. Note that the pension and health benefit promises make up $45B of the liabilities meaning that even if they were eliminated GM has a $15B shareholder deficit. This is the epitome of mis-management.

Don,

That was one of your best pieces.

Chris,

Many consumers may not understand the difference but the media is pretty good about calling Chapter 11 "restructuring". But what the consumer is most concerned about wrt bankruptcy is warranties and that cab easily be provided by a third party as they are for most goods.

The thing I resent most is being told that the sky is held up by all the failures. And here I thought it was held up by successful firms and people. I shudder to think of the long run implications of redirecting credit from well-run firms to zombies in the car and financial industries. Where will they get the funds to continue to feed the zombies?

Don --

One comment: I suspect that a lot of consumers don't really understand the difference between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, especially considering all the doom-and-gloom in the press. A fairly large portion think that if they declare bankruptcy, it will be the same as the furniture stores -- all the cars go on clearance and the company folds up shop.

Not only does a "bailout" make no economic sense, nothing on earth justifies the notion that some individuals should be made to pay for the consequences of the actions of other individuals -- actions in which the first individuals did not participate and over which they had no control. Yet that is precisely what is done when the taxpayers are forced to “bailout” the management and the employees of the Big Three. Punishing the innocent for the mistakes of the guilty is the very definition of an injustice -- and nothing can justify an injustice.

Robbing innocent Peter to prop up guilty Paul is not only impractical but thoroughly unjust and immoral as well.