Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When companies fail and enter a normal bankruptcy they typically stay in business during the process with the employees getting paid. Their pensions are typically in place. Most importantly new management comes in and perhaps new owners who will run it more efficiently.
There is a disincentive to run your company properly if you know the government will bail you out and keep you in charge.
Back in 2009 it was a lie that GM avoided bankruptcy - they just went through a special bankruptcy. It was a further lie that if GM went through a normal bankruptcy that they would have went out of business and all of their employees out of jobs. Many lying politicians and lying wall street types pushed this lie. GM got mountains of cash from many angles and then pushed forward a lie that they paid it all back. They didn't pay it all back.
GM wasn't forced to make significant changes and even admitted as much, most of the poor management and inefficiencies were left in place. GM is struggling and up to their eye balls in debt again.
Let some large companies fail.
If we will keep bailing out GM, the airlines, and etc...we might as well start nationalizing them and having the federal government own them.
In true capitalism, large companies can fail when they do failing policies.
These companies took massive profits and have been doing stock buybacks to boost their stock price in accelerated fashion since 2012 (even though it only became a political issue on January 20, 2017). Some companies took out massive debt due to ultra-low interest rates (thanks Quantitative Easing) to even enable these stock buy backs. They had no rainy day fund due to poor choices - now they need to pay that price.
So you’re saying it’s Ok to let large companies fail but not small companies? Why are you willing to punish the millions of people who work for large companies? They are no more responsible for being forced into furlough than people who work for small businesses.
When companies fail and enter a normal bankruptcy they typically stay in business during the process with the employees getting paid. Their pensions are typically in place. Most importantly new management comes in and perhaps new owners who will run it more efficiently."
Let companies fail.
In Chapter 11 corp bankrupcy, the employee pension MAY remain unaffected, however, in Chapter 7 corp bankrupcy's, employee pensions are TERMINATED!
I 100% agree with letting companies fail and am on record with that long before this interview from yesterday. Its the best way to spur innovation. The original internet bubble bursting is what drove the creation of things like Amazon, Google, and Facebook. One can argue that they don't like them, heck, I really don't like Facebook but that isn't the point.
Pensions are not a good enough reason to keep struggling and poorly managed companies alive.
When companies fail and enter a normal bankruptcy they typically stay in business during the process with the employees getting paid. Their pensions are typically in place. Most importantly new management comes in and perhaps new owners who will run it more efficiently."
Let companies fail.
In Chapter 11 corp bankrupcy, the employee pension MAY remain unaffected, however, in Chapter 7 corp bankrupcy's, employee pensions are TERMINATED!
Michiganmoon, are you still so sure you want company's to fail when employee pensions are at great risk?
Majority of the time the pensions remain or the initial plan is terminated because the math of the pension is creative BS that could never deliver in reality.
In those cases, yes the plan should be terminated and a new pension plan that doesn't deny math put in its place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
So you’re saying it’s Ok to let large companies fail but not small companies? Why are you willing to punish the millions of people who work for large companies? They are no more responsible for being forced into furlough than people who work for small businesses.
I am saying that management of these large corporations willingly did bad business practices for decades and do so, because people like you will have the government bail them out while keeping them in charge.
The workers typically keep their jobs during bankruptcy and if they don't it is because the new management is streamlining the company to compete. The old management failed for a variety of reasons.
The management deserves to lose and fail. They went massively in debt when they didn't need to. They spent billions on stock buybacks and avoided a real emergency fund. Now we need to eat their losses and keep them in charge?
When companies fail and enter a normal bankruptcy they typically stay in business during the process with the employees getting paid. Their pensions are typically in place. Most importantly new management comes in and perhaps new owners who will run it more efficiently.
There is a disincentive to run your company properly if you know the government will bail you out and keep you in charge.
Back in 2009 it was a lie that GM avoided bankruptcy - they just went through a special bankruptcy. It was a further lie that if GM went through a normal bankruptcy that they would have went out of business and all of their employees out of jobs. Many lying politicians and lying wall street types pushed this lie. GM got mountains of cash from many angles and then pushed forward a lie that they paid it all back. They didn't pay it all back.
GM wasn't forced to make significant changes and even admitted as much, most of the poor management and inefficiencies were left in place. GM is struggling and up to their eye balls in debt again.
Let some large companies fail.
If we will keep bailing out GM, the airlines, and etc...we might as well start nationalizing them and having the federal government own them.
In true capitalism, large companies can fail when they do failing policies.
These companies took massive profits and have been doing stock buybacks to boost their stock price in accelerated fashion since 2012 (even though it only became a political issue on January 20, 2017). Some companies took out massive debt due to ultra-low interest rates (thanks Quantitative Easing) to even enable these stock buy backs. They had no rainy day fund due to poor choices - now they need to pay that price.
You can't force a business to close its doors and prevent it from conducting business and then complain when they sue the government for relief.
You can't force a business to close its doors and prevent it from conducting business and then complain when they sue the government for relief.
You certainly can when they have been bailed out multiple times in the past. The "big 3" are not a sustainable model in their current state. Failure is the only option.
Under normal times, I completely agree with you. Pretty sure I've said it a number of times in the past. If one cannot run their business into profit, then it needs to fail, and they need to start over, this time with a better plan.
However, I don't know if you're talking about normal times, or if you're talking about right now when local governments forced these businesses to close.
I have a huge problem with government coming in and telling a business that they have to close "for the common good". I have a massive problem with that.
On the other hand, 99% of the businesses out there are small businesses. If we could just stop shtting on small businesses with demands of $15+/hr, and vacation, and sick pay, and medical, and 401k, and FLA, and every fricken thing else we demand of them, maybe they could pay more and maybe when something like this happens, they would have a chance of staying afloat - as long as the overbearing government doesn't come along and force them to shut their doors for how long...who knows? Apparently, as long as they like, or until the natives get restless, decide they've had enough, and just stop complying.
For this situation, I don't know the solution. I'm not a fan of bailing companies out, but this one wasn't something they chose to do. They were forced to do it. Then again, just like with people, they should have had some type of back up plan for worst case scenarios.
We, the people, are told to be responsible and get ourselves out of things, then companies should do the same.
I'm tired of bailing. We bail out companies, we bail out people, we bail out other countries...it seems all we do is bail, and bail, and bail. I'd like to have my own money, thankyouverymuch, and stop bailing everyone else out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
