Can you say carbon tax?

 

He also said the US invented the automobile. It doesn't make his opinion right.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...proposal_N.htm

It appears that the bond holders and Chrysler couldn't come up with a good number. I also don't know how loaning Chrysler money, and Chrysler not being able to pay it back is some who the bondholders fault.

 

No.

Lots of sacrifices have been made by salaried employees, suppliers, and dealers over the years. I know from personal experience.

The UAW will own Chrysler. I wish them luck, truly. Salaried employees appear not to have any stake in the company as the reorg has been described.

If you can ignore that the buying public has dictated cost cuts and outsourcing I think you ignore some very essential facts.

Either way you view the bond holders who have refused the government offer is your right.

Just explain in a rational and logical manner the taxpayer benefit in Chrysler being 55% UAW owned, up to 35% foreign owned, and 10% held by the folks footing the bill, IOW, the taxpayers? I'm sure there's equity. Just explain it for me.

It would appear to me that the UAW comes out pretty well in this. If Chrysler would have gone chapter 7 the UAW retirees would have been covered by the taxpayers. If Chrysler goes chapter 7 even after this, they still get taxpayer covered retirement and healthcare.

I would have thought there would be a bit more incentive given the UAW to make Chrysler work. Maybe, just maybe in exchange for 55% of the company they could take it as a make or break thing.

It will be instructive to see how the UAW views cost controls when they are in control. The again, they have a fall back, do they not?

I'm certain opinions will vary.

Don't convince yourself that this is not just the fight the White House wants.

It's a huge precedent making opportunity. I don't see this as some unexpected deal seeing as GM's reorg is coming up quickly.

I have no bone to pick with the UAW. My issue is with the decision making process of the government.

 

That sir, is the the single dumbest thing I've read today...well, maybe you share that distinction with Dennis Kneale on CNBC.

 

I still can't quite get my head around this. Somehow the old line "inmates running the asylum" pops in my head.

What happens at contract time, does the union bargain with itself?

 

 

Hey Josh, loan me a dollar...I promise I will pay you back plus interest. Just to add assurance, if I am unable to make the interest payments on your loan you can take me to court and make me sell my assets. You have first claim on any proceeds from my assets sold to pay you back your dollar.

Enter third party (Uncle Sam). Hey Josh, remember that promise I made to pay you back plus interest? Well funny story I can't. Further, the President of the U.S. and the UAW says I don't have to pay you back now, regardless of what the law says. In fact if you do not accept the President's and UAW's terms to only getting back 29 cents of your dollar loan, we will both call you greedy and un-American.

How do you like that Josh, I hope you do, because its for the sake of the country, and all the hungry kids that will have to go without in Detroit if you don't.

By the way, we, the UAW and the US government now expect you to lend us money in the future to build new environmentally friendly products. We look forward your cooperation, again, for the sake of the country and all that is holy. If you refuse then you will be considered greedy and it will be announced as such in major news outlets.

We look forward to our future "business" together, and our taking from you any amount of your money we see fit. We hope you enjoy your inability to use the law to petition for your rightful claim against our assets.

Your "service" will be appreciated by the faithful UAW employees and of course their hungry children.

 

 

A very sensible post.


We are in pretty uncharted territory here and frankly it makes me uneasy.

In the end the bond and shareholders will get little to nothing - in other words, the shaft. Good luck getting investors in the new entity. Oh yeah, we won't need any such capitalistic nonsense, after all the government and the UAW will own it.

I expect a similar story when this gets around to GM. As a shareholder, I will personally lose wealth. And I don't work on Wall Street, as if that would matter.

 

Man alive! You nailed it!



This symbol comes to mind:

 

I wouldn't get too wound up about this.

The UAW needs to have a sound investment strategy for the longterm, and that does not mean putting all of their assets into a single automaker. They will be selling off most of their holdings as soon as it's appropriate.

 

I guess they will get whatever they ask for

 

And why would anyone buy these shares, considering the precedent set?

 

In the case of Chrysler, FIAT comes to mind. If that's the case, where is the saving US industry part of this?

 

Amen. I think there's a certain amount of hysteria going on... as if this were 1936. The UAW is vastly different today. I'm not saying they will be free of bonehead moves (prevous leaders had their share too BTW). But I do think they are going to be careful since the feds will not be able to continuously bail them out year after year, certainly not after the next midterm elections in 2010 (which could be nasty if the economy is still in the dumps, or cap-tax is causing big inflation, or some other blunder by the current crew in power).

I'm not normally a big defender of unions... even though I'm from a blue-collar family and my Dad was a union electrician for 37 years. But here, I don't see the big crime in the UAW having a significant stake in the company. It does give them an incentive to succeed and grow... and if they fail they will have no one to blame but themselves.