Quote:
Originally Posted by Bond
So, I suppose the lesson we can take away from this is that: Chrysler was not quite big enough to be protected from failure, so they have to abide by the legal construct for a company that can not pay back its creditors.
Is this the rule of law creeping back into politics? For shame!
|
haha...
I watched Obama's announcement, and I like how he was harping on how it shouldn't be the tax payer's responsibility to bail out the company. I agree completely!
For the Nth time, I'm a total finance noob, but it seems like stakes are high for investors and promises aren't really a promise. Like what about the hedge fund investors? I'm not sure how hedge funds work, but aren't the investors kind of getting the shaft by not getting their promised money? Or is investing in a company kind of like investing in the stock market...almost a gamble where you could lose money or turn a profit.
Promises though....oh man. Like the promised health care for the thousands of retired Chrysler employees. If Chrysler wasn't getting any help I wonder what would have happened to those employees. Seems like a promise is hardly a promise anymore.
Anyway, apparently filing for Chapter 11 isn't all that bad, it allows companies to reorganize the infrastructure and make the necessary changes to get things rolling again.
The only complaint people seem to be having is that big government is getting too involved with these companies, but not having regulation is how we got in this mess in the first place so I'm all for regulation. Even if it means Uncle Sam has stakes in major industries like the auto industry.
Re: Chrysler-Fiat?
Threaded Mode
