GM considering Chapter 11 filing

[AzX5]

CHICAGO (Reuters) – General Motors Corp, nearing a Tuesday deadline to present a viability plan to the U.S. government, is considering as one option a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing that would create a new company, the Wall Street Journal said in its Saturday edition.

"One plan includes a Chapter 11 filing that would assemble all of GM's viable assets, including some U.S. brands and international operations, into a new company," the newspaper said. "The undesirable assets would be liquidated or sold under protection of a bankruptcy court. Contracts with bondholders, unions, dealers and suppliers would also be reworked."

Citing "people familiar with the matter," the story said that GM could also ask for additional government funds to stave off a bankruptcy filing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090214/ts_nm/us_gm_plan

[LeMansX5]

As long as they could get rid of UAW.

[Lambeau]

Originally Posted by LeMansX5

As long as they could get rid of UAW.

Yes, get rid of the unions and this country would be much better off. They're a joke protecting workers who many times don't deserve to have a job. I've seen it firsthand where the unions protect worthless workers where I had to work harder to make up for their laziness and inabilities. Couldn't fire them just because the union protected their lazy ass. They serve no purpose in todays world except to get excessive wages for workers who don't deserve them. $50/hour or more to attach parts to a car? What a joke! If GM could pay the wages Toyota does (Toyota apparently has no unions) they wouldn't be getting handouts you and I are paying for. So, you & I are paying because the unions say their members deserve excessive salaries. More socialism. No wonder the liberals are supported by the unions. Yes, you liberals consent to this by voting dem. You don't realize that???

[Eric5273]

Unions do indeed waste lots of productivity. Did you ever pass by some road work being done? There's usually a bunch of guys sitting around while a couple of guys work. That's because union regulations require that a certain amount of workers be on each job, even when it is totally unnecessary. I would guess the UAW regulations are not much different.

The truth is that without the unions, a lot of people would be out of a job because so many workers simply would not be needed. Unemployment would go way up. We simply no longer have the need for 100% employment. With technology and other advances, we can produce all the goods and services everyone needs with far less than 100% employment. We just have to decide whether we will do an across the board cut of hours and perhaps have full employment with a 30 hour work week, or if we are instead prepared to accept 10-20% unemployment. I suppose this is a good problem to have. We have become more productive and don't need to work as much anymore. Any society would surely consider that to be an achievement, not a problem.

[LeMansX5]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Unions do indeed waste lots of productivity. Did you ever pass by some road work being done? There's usually a bunch of guys sitting around while a couple of guys work. That's because union regulations require that a certain amount of workers be on each job, even when it is totally unnecessary. I would guess the UAW regulations are not much different.

Seen it and its insane. They reduce lanes when nobody is working.

[AzNMpower32]

I saw the news about insolvency of Saab a couple days ago. The Germans are very worried about Opel (it's their top headline everyday) being next in line to fail.

[70Sixter]

I have never understood why the normal business processes were not followed. I'm afraid bailouts will just prop up weak corporations for a few years (or months). Then the ineffective structure and process will deteriorate to another "need" for a bailout.

The liberals are happy as they can slide socialism advances past an undereducated public. FDR would be proud.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by 70Sixter

I'm afraid bailouts will just prop up weak corporations for a few years (or months). Then the ineffective structure and process will deteriorate to another "need" for a bailout.

They should just let the weak companies die. Unfortunately for the finanicial sector, just about all of the banks would go under. Wonder how well our economy would operate with no banks.

But in the end, what good is capitalism if there is no risk.

[X5 Meister]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

They should just let the weak companies die. Unfortunately for the finanicial sector, just about all of the banks would go under. Wonder how well our economy would operate with no banks.

But in the end, what good is capitalism if there is no risk.

No banks? Do you realize how many banks there are in this country? On the order of thousands. I think we're a long way from that.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by mgruber

No banks? Do you realize how many banks there are in this country? On the order of thousands. I think we're a long way from that.

It's a ripple effect. Even with the huge bailouts, every week I read that one or two more are going under. If the bailouts were not to happen, many more would be going under, which would cause people to run to their banks to get their money out, which would in turn cause even more to go under. Without the bailouts, you would see most banks in the US go under, including the big three (Bank of America, Citi, Chase).

The taxpayers would end up paying the bill anyway because of the FDIC, which would end up having to reimburse all the lost deposits.

As I posted in another thread, the only solution for the banking industry is nationalization.

Personally, I am against any kind of "bailout". If the government wants to use my tax money to purchase companies, then fine. But just to give my tax money away to these private companies -- that I am surely against.