thku4grace's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/128872/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/121437-fannie-and-freddie-shareholders-benefit-more-than-homeowners?source=feed#comment-395164 395164 Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:37:15 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/121238-chrysler-held-hostage-by-cerberus?source=feed#comment-394113 394113 On Feb 18 01:05 PM Bob Lunn wrote:

> Cerberus is playing poker using Chrysler jobs as the stakes. I don't
> think Chrysler should have received access to public funding in the
> first place given that it’s a private company. I also don't think
> providing no risk, low interest loans to Chrysler is going to save
> that many jobs because I suspect the market for Chrysler products
> in 2009 is going to be so low that Chrysler is going to have to lay
> off major numbers of workers anyway.

I agree that Chrysler shouldn't have received access to public funding, but then I don't believe either should Ford or GM for the simple fact that these companies have been poorly managed for a long time and the current financial crisis was all that was needed to shake up the subpar performers from the market. Free capitalism is the best avenue.

> If Cerberus wants to save their investment, let them kick in the
> necessary funds and take the risk. If not, let Chrysler go bankrupt.
> If the Government still wants to try to save jobs, let the Government
> buy the assets for next to nothing, and provide the necessary funding
> to take them out of bankruptcy. This effectively nationalizes Chrysler.
> If it does become economically feasible, at some point in the future,
> sell shares and make the company public again. Using the Poker metaphor…
> CALL… show me what you got.

What I disagree with is that there should be special significance given to publicly traded firms over privately held firms. If you ask Congress they will tell you that for both companies its about jobs for the working class. I don't doubt Chrysler will likely need to lay off many workers...but so will GM and Ford. Car sales figures make it quite clear for all.
The problem I have with your post is you have colored Cerberus as a fat cat company looking for welfare from the government and thus are undeserving. That may be true but what about GM and Ford? Don't institutions and rich people own these companies too? Kirk Kerkorian had a large ownership position before he gave up and sold out. Was he the only one? I think not.
What about asking GM management to put more of their personal assets into GM? Don't they believe in their own company? Or do they only believe in it as far as government money will take them?
I mean who needs diversification? What about the UAW pension making a big investment? They have a lot to lose and yet not only will they not invest, they are even unwilling to offer much of any concessions. Why is it somehow different? Using a poker metaphor, perhaps we ought not deal off the bottom of the deck to some firms that we attach some misguided working class company mentality and deal fairly. Frankly, I would rather the Congress took the deck and went home for all 3 firms. No loans till after renegotiation through Chapter 11. But enough of the class warfare crapola.

]]> Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:38:24 -0500 On Feb 18 01:05 PM Bob Lunn wrote:

> Cerberus is playing poker using Chrysler jobs as the stakes. I don't
> think Chrysler should have received access to public funding in the
> first place given that it’s a private company. I also don't think
> providing no risk, low interest loans to Chrysler is going to save
> that many jobs because I suspect the market for Chrysler products
> in 2009 is going to be so low that Chrysler is going to have to lay
> off major numbers of workers anyway.

I agree that Chrysler shouldn't have received access to public funding, but then I don't believe either should Ford or GM for the simple fact that these companies have been poorly managed for a long time and the current financial crisis was all that was needed to shake up the subpar performers from the market. Free capitalism is the best avenue.

> If Cerberus wants to save their investment, let them kick in the
> necessary funds and take the risk. If not, let Chrysler go bankrupt.
> If the Government still wants to try to save jobs, let the Government
> buy the assets for next to nothing, and provide the necessary funding
> to take them out of bankruptcy. This effectively nationalizes Chrysler.
> If it does become economically feasible, at some point in the future,
> sell shares and make the company public again. Using the Poker metaphor…
> CALL… show me what you got.

What I disagree with is that there should be special significance given to publicly traded firms over privately held firms. If you ask Congress they will tell you that for both companies its about jobs for the working class. I don't doubt Chrysler will likely need to lay off many workers...but so will GM and Ford. Car sales figures make it quite clear for all.
The problem I have with your post is you have colored Cerberus as a fat cat company looking for welfare from the government and thus are undeserving. That may be true but what about GM and Ford? Don't institutions and rich people own these companies too? Kirk Kerkorian had a large ownership position before he gave up and sold out. Was he the only one? I think not.
What about asking GM management to put more of their personal assets into GM? Don't they believe in their own company? Or do they only believe in it as far as government money will take them?
I mean who needs diversification? What about the UAW pension making a big investment? They have a lot to lose and yet not only will they not invest, they are even unwilling to offer much of any concessions. Why is it somehow different? Using a poker metaphor, perhaps we ought not deal off the bottom of the deck to some firms that we attach some misguided working class company mentality and deal fairly. Frankly, I would rather the Congress took the deck and went home for all 3 firms. No loans till after renegotiation through Chapter 11. But enough of the class warfare crapola.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88718-yahoo-appoints-icahn-to-board-but-twx-non-compete-clause-keeps-jon-miller-off?source=feed#comment-221729 221729 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:08:23 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/88724-it-s-official-jerry-yang-has-won?source=feed#comment-221727 221727 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:06:44 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/88682-rant-anniversary-cramer-s-mad-money-8-1-08?source=feed#comment-221719 221719 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:45:51 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/88376-why-i-m-buying-massey-energy-ahead-of-earnings?source=feed#comment-219805 219805 Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:28:29 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/87593-the-housing-bill-one-step-closer-to-the-united-states-of-zimbabwe?source=feed#comment-217371 217371 To be sure, the blame doesn't rest on any one business or sector, but to even imply that mortgage employees didn't have anything to do with this crisis is not only laughable, but a downright lie. I would be surprised to find no evidence of mortgage companies padding Sen Paul's campaign warchest, but that's the skeptic in me. However, the alternative is that he is incredibly stupid and ill-informed. The fact of the matter is that mortgage companies like Countrywide served by their employees who sought commissions on as many new mortgages as they could throw together had aggressively pursued sub-prime and alt-a mortgages when it became apparent that both investment banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and credit rating agencies weren't minding the store. There is blame to go around but it was the mortgage company greed that initiated this crisis in the first place. ]]> Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:46:56 -0400 To be sure, the blame doesn't rest on any one business or sector, but to even imply that mortgage employees didn't have anything to do with this crisis is not only laughable, but a downright lie. I would be surprised to find no evidence of mortgage companies padding Sen Paul's campaign warchest, but that's the skeptic in me. However, the alternative is that he is incredibly stupid and ill-informed. The fact of the matter is that mortgage companies like Countrywide served by their employees who sought commissions on as many new mortgages as they could throw together had aggressively pursued sub-prime and alt-a mortgages when it became apparent that both investment banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and credit rating agencies weren't minding the store. There is blame to go around but it was the mortgage company greed that initiated this crisis in the first place. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/87356-the-housing-bill-uncle-sam-is-moving-into-the-spare-bedroom?source=feed#comment-216512 216512 Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:17:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/87012-the-t-boone-pickens-approach?source=feed#comment-214537 214537 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:38:43 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/83421-look-what-s-blowin-in-the-new-wind-etfs?source=feed#comment-208965 208965 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:50:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/85634-no-atheists-in-foxholes-no-libertarians-in-financial-crises?source=feed#comment-208669 208669 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:21:03 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/84597-10-winning-stock-themes-in-an-obama-administration?source=feed#comment-203092 203092
Oh my, how incredibly uninformed can one be?
First of all I think the price difference for a pair of socks is more than 10 cents. The theory behind globalization is that different countries have different strengths. Using China for comparative purposes--we have a country with a huge population and an inexpensive labor force. Some may see it as slave labor wages but the fact of the matter is a little money goes a long way in China. One can still buy a cup of noodles on a street corner in Beijing for 7 cents. Clearly, we can't compete in easy to enter low-tech manufacturing. Applying tariffs to offset the price discrepancy was part of the prescription for the 1930's depression. I can't blame politicians of that day for their missteps as they didn't fully understand the ramifications of their protectionist policies. To spin this drivel now is incredibly ignorant. The question for Americans that have worked in low-tech industries is, so what can we do? My answer is get an education in this education-friendly nation. Take advantage of the opportunities that abound in this nation. There is a belief held by many in this nation that China is a highly educated nation, but that's largely untrue. In fact, while a good education is looked upon highly in Chinese society, and they push their children hard, only 3% of the population get a university education. Interesting coming from a country that prides itself on socialism. What a failure.
Lastly, the shift of costs from business to government---there is truth to this statement. All nations have provided support for various industries that export products overseas. China, Japan, Australia, Germany, France, Canada, U.S.....the list goes on and on. It is actually addressable through international trade laws. The problem is the length of time from infraction to remedy. There also is a problem of transparency. The U.S. is seemingly more transparent than most all other nations. Even European nations have been more capable in covering up their subsidization machine. So far, the only remedy is the expense incurred on the taxpayers. Countries can't indefinitely subsidize industry. With a globalized world, there will always be a new country with a lower standard of living that would be willing to host an foreign company seeking cheap labor. ]]> Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:28:06 -0400
Oh my, how incredibly uninformed can one be?
First of all I think the price difference for a pair of socks is more than 10 cents. The theory behind globalization is that different countries have different strengths. Using China for comparative purposes--we have a country with a huge population and an inexpensive labor force. Some may see it as slave labor wages but the fact of the matter is a little money goes a long way in China. One can still buy a cup of noodles on a street corner in Beijing for 7 cents. Clearly, we can't compete in easy to enter low-tech manufacturing. Applying tariffs to offset the price discrepancy was part of the prescription for the 1930's depression. I can't blame politicians of that day for their missteps as they didn't fully understand the ramifications of their protectionist policies. To spin this drivel now is incredibly ignorant. The question for Americans that have worked in low-tech industries is, so what can we do? My answer is get an education in this education-friendly nation. Take advantage of the opportunities that abound in this nation. There is a belief held by many in this nation that China is a highly educated nation, but that's largely untrue. In fact, while a good education is looked upon highly in Chinese society, and they push their children hard, only 3% of the population get a university education. Interesting coming from a country that prides itself on socialism. What a failure.
Lastly, the shift of costs from business to government---there is truth to this statement. All nations have provided support for various industries that export products overseas. China, Japan, Australia, Germany, France, Canada, U.S.....the list goes on and on. It is actually addressable through international trade laws. The problem is the length of time from infraction to remedy. There also is a problem of transparency. The U.S. is seemingly more transparent than most all other nations. Even European nations have been more capable in covering up their subsidization machine. So far, the only remedy is the expense incurred on the taxpayers. Countries can't indefinitely subsidize industry. With a globalized world, there will always be a new country with a lower standard of living that would be willing to host an foreign company seeking cheap labor. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84451-l-a-times-the-inconvenient-poster-child-for-the-newspaper-debacle?source=feed#comment-202997 202997 Yeah right! That was the same strategy UAW used to fend off those tight automobile manufacturers. Wow! That sure helped them.]]> Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:05:36 -0400 Yeah right! That was the same strategy UAW used to fend off those tight automobile manufacturers. Wow! That sure helped them.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81212-rubinomics-is-back?source=feed#comment-187017 187017 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:01:00 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/78404-senator-dodd-s-housing-solution-cramer-s-mad-money-5-21-08?source=feed#comment-171787 171787 Thu, 22 May 2008 11:06:19 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/75779-warren-buffett-is-wrong-on-fed-intervention-in-bear-stearns?source=feed#comment-162739 162739 Tue, 06 May 2008 13:02:36 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/71159-book-review-blue-blood-and-mutiny-the-fight-for-the-soul-of-morgan-stanley?source=feed#comment-137020 137020 Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:54:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/65465-bill-gates-rich-individuals-should-pay-more-tax-wealthy-corporations-less?source=feed#comment-126024 126024 Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:27:21 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/65930-no-real-competition-in-drug-prices?source=feed#comment-118976 118976 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:55:48 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/56641-the-government-s-subprime-bailout-plan-will-kill-the-housing-market?source=feed#comment-104696 104696 Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:30:47 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/56641-the-government-s-subprime-bailout-plan-will-kill-the-housing-market?source=feed#comment-104688 104688 Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:45:52 -0500