Ooops, there I go again presidentializing.

Yeah you did, because I flat don't believe that any US President would let GM go into disordered liquidation on their watch. Again, Bush signed his bailout bill.

No, I'm suggesting he is a partisan hack who has drank long and deep of the kool-aid. He thinks it will cost just $50, $60 or whatever billions it will cost and then we'll be done with it. What he isn't telling us, like a lying sack of crap, is that the Gov't just signed on to an open ended processes and there is no telling how much money is going into that black hole. Keep in mind that the gov't usually low balls these costs, or high balls the positives.

He at least gave one reference for his "higher cost" argument. I notice that you waved it away with zero references of your own. And you say partisan hack at the same time?

The abstract question is easy enough....

Given your recalcitrance in answering other people's questions I find this most ironic.

I don't remember dodging any meaningful questions.

On the other hand, this is meaningful, if you actually care about taxpayer expense.

We know it doesn't usually, but we also know when the "too large to fail" start to fail it does attract the boys in Washington.

In this case "too large to fail" means it wouldn't be polticially expedient for Obama to let it fail.

Ooops, there I go again presidentializing. Of course, the same would likely go for anyone sitting in the Oval Office as you noted.

I'm not sure about how you are choosing to interpret Salmon here. Are you actually suggesting that you think that Salmon thinks that the US usually funds all bankruptcies?

No, I'm suggesting he is a partisan hack who has drank long and deep of the kool-aid. He thinks it will cost just $50, $60 or whatever billions it will cost and then we'll be done with it. What he isn't telling us, like a lying sack of crap, is that the Gov't just signed on to an open ended processes and there is no telling how much money is going into that black hole. Keep in mind that the gov't usually low balls these costs, or high balls the positives.

The abstract question is easy enough....

Given your recalcitrance in answering other people's questions I find this most ironic.

Salmon is spouting baloney. Bankruptcy doesn't usually come with the government giving the failed company $50 billion, yet that is what he claims,

We know it doesn't usually, but we also know when the "too large to fail" start to fail it does attract the boys in Washington.

I'm not sure about how you are choosing to interpret Salmon here. Are you actually suggesting that you think that Salmon thinks that the US usually funds all bankruptcies?

Right, without any evidence other than Memos by Brian Deese nobody has seen that actually pertain to Chrysler.

That's why asked you an abstract question, "if" I said it was true:

"And if Felix is right that liquidation would cost the taxpayer more, you'd still go for it?"

The abstract question is easy enough, and then after that, yes, we can look for support one way or the other that costs are higher in practice.

The key bit of misdirection here is where Reich talks about “what a reorganization under bankruptcy would do” as an alternative to the government spending $60 billion on GM. But a reorganization under bankruptcy is exactly what is going on right now — and exactly what wouldn’t be going on were it not for the government providing debtor-in-possession financing.

What we have here is a psuedo-bankruptcy where the company in question gets $50 billion and allowed to reorganize when it should die and according to Salmon will die. And look, his best evidence is the 31 year old non-graduate and points to Chrysler??!?! WTF? Oh, I see it must be true for GM too.

If GM were to be liquidated, there would be a domino-line of supplier bankruptcies which might well have fatal repercussions even for the last bits of the US car-manufacturing industry which are reasonably healthy: the Japanese-owned car factories in the south. The wave of defaults and bankruptcies would not only set back the US auto industry and networks by decades, but would certainly spill over into municipal finance and a huge number of other areas of the US economy. The recession would get much worse, and any economic recovery would be significantly delayed.

Right, without any evidence other than Memos by Brian Deese nobody has seen that actually pertain to Chrysler.

So the point of the $60 billion isn’t to buy GM, or to provide jobs to some subset of its workers. It’s to avoid the catastrophe that would be a GM liquidation.

In other words to prop up a failing industry. Nevermind that once you start pumping that money out like that, like heroin, the recipient will become increasing dependent on it making it harder and harder to cut off the supply.

Brilliant. Like I said, we are constantly confronted by our government rewarding those who fuck up and punishing those who don't. But go right ahead believing that there is poney in there somewhere Odograph.

I consider the Prius to be the perfect vehicle for people who don't like to drive, and want that dislike reinforced on a daily basis.

I can get the same outlet, better actually, on a mountain bike. No cops, it's between you and the trail, whether you risk a 30 or 40 MPH downhill.

I never crashed my cars, where I would have likely hurt someone else, but I've pushed the bike harder and broken a few bones over the years.

... and of course it's fun to beat people 20 years younger UP the mountain.

I know we have rule of law, and a BK judge, Steve. That is a given. The 31 year old is only there because without government financing the BK would become liquidation.

So?

And if Felix is right that liquidation would cost the taxpayer more, you'd still go for it?

It's his case, not mine, but that seems the rational and non-ideological question. I'll take the lowest cost to us.

I know we have rule of law, and a BK judge, Steve. That is a given. The 31 year old is only there because without government financing the BK would become liquidation.

So?

will the resultant GM be worth saving?

From our POV? No.
From the POV of most Americans? No.
From the Greens and the left running the WH? Of course.

By way of grabbing a laugh, I'm going to give you a picture of this.

I consider the Prius to be the perfect vehicle for people who don't like to drive, and want that dislike reinforced on a daily basis.

What we now have is a group of people who want us driving such lawnmowers cars things, who have been given the power of government. Ponder why such people would find value in being in control of a car company or two.

He's only there because, well I agree with Felix Salmon:

The key bit of misdirection here is where Reich talks about “what a reorganization under bankruptcy would do” as an alternative to the government spending $60 billion on GM. But a reorganization under bankruptcy is exactly what is going on right now — and exactly what wouldn’t be going on were it not for the government providing debtor-in-possession financing.

The alternative to the $60 billion bailout-with-bankruptcy would be outright liquidiation — and outright liquidation would cost the government even more. Remember the NYT story on Brian Deese?

I talked about a "double super secret path" yesterday, maybe not so secret ...

But if our luck holds, that "31 year old who is in charge of dismantling GM" will do exactly that.

We don't need a 31 year old to do it, we have bankruptcy courts with plenty of experience to do it. Its that bothersome rule of law thing.

Gov't at work, prop up that which is failing because it gets you votes.

There was a time when they called it The British Disease.

But if our luck holds, that "31 year old who is in charge of dismantling GM" will do exactly that.

Bill, I've heard that there is a global oversupply in automaking capacity. The problem is not unique to the US. Too many countries have been propping up manufacturers in a saturated market.

Gov't at work, prop up that which is failing because it gets you votes.

Your slithering argumentation is fascinating, odo

Are you kidding me?

You think you are making a rational argument that "people like you" will pay $30K a head for GM?

And you make it a personal attack because I've had the mental security to keep my financial security carefully out of the discussion?

You accuse me of going low for running some simple per-household math?