Posted on 06/01/2009 12:06:30 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
WASHINGTON, June 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Consumer advocate Ralph Nader today issued the following statement on GM's bankruptcy filing:
Today's bankruptcy declaration in federal court by General Motors is an avoidable, crude weapon of mass devastation for workers, dealers, auto suppliers, small businesses and their depleted communities. For GM's voiceless owners -- the common shareholders -- it is a wipeout.
The proximate cause of the bankruptcy was supposed to be the inability of GM and the government's auto task force to reach an accommodation with GM's bondholders. But late last week, the bondholder problem was moving toward rapid resolution, and was clearly resolvable. Why then are GM and its multibillion government financier proceeding with bankruptcy?
The bankruptcy and the GM restructuring plan are the product of a secretive, unaccountable, Wall Street-minded government task force that assumed power because of a Congressional abdication of historic magnitude. By all rights, the restructuring plan should have been submitted to Congress for deliberative review and decision.
There is little doubt that GM's chronic mismanagement and the deep recession require restructuring and scaling back the auto giant. But the bankruptcy and restructuring plan appear poised to do so in ways that will needlessly harm the stakeholders meant to be helped by Washington's rescue of GM?..............."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The Corvair took them down....
Nader nails some of the problems with the GM bankruptcy. Stock and bond holders get screwed. This ISN’T Bush’s fault.
Hi Ralph, welcome to the fight.
This may be the first time I’ve ever agreed with Ralph Nader.
Agreed with that!
A dark day for American individualism indeed.
Very interesting man, get his DVD from netflix (get the bonus disc too), he had good parents, that means alot!
“This may be the first time I’ve ever agreed with Ralph Nader.”
He was right in his opposition to NAFTA, GATT, etc. too.
Obama wants to destroy much of private wealth and make society dependent on the government.
"'know wha' I mean, Vern?"
“Today’s bankruptcy declaration in federal court by General Motors is an avoidable, crude weapon of mass devastation for workers, dealers, auto suppliers, small businesses and their depleted communities. For GM’s voiceless owners — the common shareholders — it is a wipeout.”
You know what the real weapon of mass devastation was? Above-market pay/benefits for union workers and years upon years of producing cars people didn’t want tob buy for the prices at which they were offered. Simple as that. But I wouldn’t expect “consumer advocate” Ralph Nader to understand economics.
Asd for the shareholders, they’re not exactly voiceless. They partly to blame. And I don’t feel sorry, as a rule, for people who buy stocks in loser companies. Hey, that’s the way capitalism works. Who I feel sorry for are the bondholders, who didn’t invest so much as loan money, who are going to have their money almost literally stolen.
No “almost” about it, the bondholders were raped.
“No ‘almost’ about it, the bondholders were raped.”
I added the qualifier because it would appear as if some of them, whatever percent it was, agreed to the plan. Of course, all of them were coerced into doing so by the state, so yeah, raped.
Yes, and it’s ironic ( for lack of better word?) that GM tried to “get” him way back when, eh?
“If we had a multi-party system instead of a “two” (really a de facto one) party system, Nader would have been POTUS a long time ago. The system is rigged to keep true patriots like Ralph Nader out of power.”
I won’t get into the discussion of Nadar’s merits, but yes the 2 party system is a loser. Our own founders knew and warned of this. That’s why we have a 3 system check and balance in the 3 branches. If we had another viable party, we might have some checks and balances as well. But that will never happen with our elections being controlled by the media/2 party regime.
“If we had a multi-party system instead of a ‘two’ (really a de facto one) party system, Nader would have been POTUS a long time ago. The system is rigged to keep true patriots like Ralph Nader out of power.”
What the heck are you talking about? Not that the party system doesn’t marginalize interesting figures, but Nader is in no way as popular as you make him out to be. He is definitely outside the mainstream, two/one party system or no two/one party system.
Yup, we are gathering some Strange Bedfellows. As it should be — this is bigger than politics, and the stench is stronger than party lines.
I love it that the UK newspapers are panning little o. Nice to be able to get the Real News.
While his approval ratings here in the US are sky high. Amazing the power that the media wields.
This thing holds together only as long as the Government shovels money in. Where would they get new private bondholders after this?
I’ll second your first.
I agree. Anyone with half a brain can see Obama only wants the worst for America.
I am sorry to see that we have such a POTUS.
Be very careful. As bad as GM’s reorg plan is, Ralph’s main complaints seem to be that the UAW gave up to much, trial lawyers will not have as many causes of action, and we are no revisiting Smoot Hawley.
I believe Nader is wrong on several points.
For example, NO this shouldn’t be in congress, government shouldn’t be involved at all.
But bankruptcy filing was PART OF THE PLAN all along, the bargaining was to present the judge with a bankruptcy plan that all the debtors agreed with, so the judge would bless it. They still needed to file for bankruptcy for this to “work”.
Stockholders “deserved” to be screwed. They own stock in a company that has 82 billion in assets and 180 billion in debts. That the stockholders are mostly people like you and me who own the stock through mutual funds and have no idea whether the stock is a good value or not is of little interest.
The bondholders don’t deserve this, but on the other hand the bondholders AGREED with this. Sure, they were tortured into agreeing with it, but in the end they are giving up their own RIGHT under law to ask the court for full compensation.
The government involvement with TARP makes it impossible for a fair trial. Too many bondholders are dependent on the government for handouts, and so must to what Obama tells them.
When has Nader cared about shareholders - EVER?
If you truly believe that, you are probably in the wrong forum. Although it would be interesting to hear you explain by what conservative principles Nader is anything but a left-wing socialist.
Note that he said the problem wasn’t government involvement, but that it wasn’t CONGRESS that was restructuring GM. In a conservative world, GM would go belly-up, and Ford would get to pick up the profitable pieces and gain market share.
They wrote a Constitution that pretty much guarantees a two party system.
It's just too bad we don't really have two parties anymore. All we have is two competing political groups each of which is the is the party of big government.
Ralph Nader is a hard leftist who has been working diligently to destroy the economy for over 40 years.
” They wrote a Constitution that pretty much guarantees a two party system.
It’s just too bad we don’t really have two parties anymore. All we have is two competing political groups each of which is the is the party of big government.”
Agreed, but one question. Can you show me what in the Constitution guarantees a 2 party system and why we had more than 2 parties for over half of our history?
No he wasn't.
Once again, I must remind you that America was built on trade, it was a trading nation right from birth. It cannot survive as a closed border protectionist nation, never did, never will. We protect our trading interests around the world, because they are of vital importance to the health and wealth of this nation, and we pursue the expansion of trading partners by liberating and establishing freedom through the world.
Closed border thinking is the same as the auto unions thinking that workers can support the company by buying the cars they make, The marxist vision on a never ending fountain of wealth.
Oh, come on, you know I’m not talking about ‘closed borders, or doing away with trade.
NAFTA is NOT free trade. Free trade doesn’t require a 1000 pages. It’s government managed trade and cheap labor agreements. Milton Friedman said exactly the same thing.
And guess what...it is NOT working out so well, is it???
I said:
“If we had a multi-party system instead of a “two” (really a de facto one) party system, Nader would have been POTUS a long time ago. The system is rigged to keep true patriots like Ralph Nader out of power.”
That doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with all or even most of his positions. Do I think Ralph Nader is a modern American folk hero? Yes. Would he be elected if the “demopublicans” didn’t have their foot on the neck of electoral laws and ballot access? Probably. Do I think he sincerely believes that his ideas are what is best for the United States? Yes. Just because someone is plausibly a patriot does not mean I would want that person to be President of the United States. John McCain is a classic example of a patriot who did not belong in the White House. Former WW2 bomber pilot George McGovern is another example. Hope this clarifies things. What I do like about Nader is:
1. He cares about the consumer. Anyone who has had the misfortune to shop for a used car wishses there ware more people like him drafting consumer law.
2. He cares about the “little guy”; the “worker bee”. Most politicians on both sides of the isle, despite their platitudes, couldn’t care less about the average shmoe.
You’re not a Corvair afficionado are you? </jk>
“I won’t get into the discussion of Nadar’s merits, but yes the 2 party system is a loser. Our own founders knew and warned of this.”
Our founders (or most of them) rabidly pursued partisanship as soon as they could. They simply erred in not anticipating parties, especially as regards the election process. But I won’t blame them entirely. We can say their ideal of the people choosing the best to represent them and the representatives choosing the best among themselves to lead the leaders was just that, an ideal. And it’s not their fault that we threw ourselves headlong into democracy and extreme centralizatio. That was not the original plan.
That being said, it is better to think of today as a different form of government than that of the founders. And for this form of government, the two-party system works, in its own way. That’s not to say that the two parties authentically reflect the two sides of the major issues of the day. They definitely don’t have room to fit all the myriad of political tastes out there. In other words, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are out of luck.
What the parties do well is oppose one another without regard to consistency. When Bush is in power, Democrats suddenly become libertarians (on a few issues). When Obama is in power, Republicans are capitalists again. They distract one another from getting done what they want to get done, which is a boon to us, however weakly it works. For government grows, always grows, almost unabated.
But it is a little abated. And if the two-party system doesn’t abate it completely, I don’t know why a multiple-party system would. A multiple-party system gave Germany Hitler. I’m no fan of the two-party system, but then again I’m no fan of democracy in general. If you want a democracy, well then, two parties is a good way to handle it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Two parties binopolies have risen all on their own three times, with a period of terrible crisis inbetween two of the eras.
If government grows nonetheless, our beloved Constitutional checks and balances didn’t stop it. The Constitution isn’t the problem, nor are parties. Democracy is.
I am so depressed today. I cannot believe that the evil of socialism is triumphing in our country. Two hundred and thirty three years of American individualism that changed the course of history and human civilization toward the best have been destroyed today. We are now living in darkness and in the nightmare of socialism.
“Would he be elected if the ‘demopublicans’ didn’t have their foot on the neck of electoral laws and ballot access? Probably”
Why? What evidence do you have that Nader is so popular? I mean more so than, I don’t know, Bill Buckley? Obviously, Nader’s a celebrity. But we have so damn many celebrities. Nader isn’t special.
“1. He cares about the consumer. Anyone who has had the misfortune to shop for a used car wishses there ware more people like him drafting consumer law.”
Law schmaw. That’s the problem with Nader all over. He’s a leftist. Caveat emptor and private disseminators of information are what we need. People can take care of themselves.
“And guess what...it is NOT working out so well, is it???”
Yes. Or is it your thesis that the illegal immigration problem was caused by NAFTA? Because it wasn’t. At all.
http://blog.greedycapitalist.com/2008/11/uaw-refuses-to-make-any-more-concessions.html
“why we had more than 2 parties for over half of our history?”
We’ve probably had more than two parties for ALL of our history, I’d bet. But for the most part, leaving aside the era of good feelings, there were only ever two parties that mattered.
If you truly believe that, you are probably in the wrong forum. Although it would be interesting to hear you explain by what conservative principles Nader is anything but a left-wing socialist.Nader isn't a socialist. Nader himself has 2-3 million in stock and lives on $25,000 a year. Can't get more capitalist than that. What he is against is greed when it's against the public good.Note that he said the problem wasn’t government involvement, but that it wasn’t CONGRESS that was restructuring GM. In a conservative world, GM would go belly-up, and Ford would get to pick up the profitable pieces and gain market share.
You may disagree with him, but it's hard to impeach Ralph's character and ability to stand up for his beliefs.
It’s all nice of Nader to say this now, but the policies he favored for many years would have also put GM (and just about all other heavy industry) in the same plight. It’s more “have your cake & eat it too” liberal fairy tales; it’s just cake of a different flavor.
Because the power of government under the federal and state constitutions make it a winner take all system in both the legislative and executive branches at the federal and state level.
The executive, elected directly and independently from the legislative branch sets his own agenda and appoints his own supporters to executive positions. The majority of the legislative branch controls the legislative agenda as well as the spoils that the legislature dispenses.
Temporary coalitions of very divergent views as we see under the parliamentary systems in Europe can not last long under our constitutional system because there is no glue in the way of power or position to hold them together beyond one issue. Because of those differences, politicians with any interest in seeing their programs enacted will tend to gravitate to into one of two camps where their ideas best fit. The camps might be 'big tents' but there is only room for two of them if the politician is serious.
We have always had '3rd parties' -- hundreds of them over the years, but other than tilting the outcome of an election occasionally such as in 1912 or 1992, they have never lasted and never gained power.
...and why we had more than 2 parties for over half of our history?
We have dozens of parties now, but as far as running the machinery of government it has always been between two parties. What 'parties' are you talking about here?
I am so depressed today. I cannot believe that the evil of socialism is triumphing in our country. Two hundred and thirty three years of American individualism that changed the course of history and human civilization toward the best have been destroyed today. We are now living in darkness and in the nightmare of socialism.Don't be. Things go in cycles. American capitalism has been through this before and will go through this again. We survived FDR, we can survive Obama.
My goodness, Americans elected a President to the left of Nader.
It’s all nice of Nader to say this now, but the policies he favored for many years would have also put GM (and just about all other heavy industry) in the same plight. It’s more “have your cake & eat it too” liberal fairy tales; it’s just cake of a different flavor.No, it's not. Did the Japanese have any trouble with Ralph's safety standards? GM was destroyed by hubris and bad management.
Why? What evidence do you have that Nader is so popular? I mean more so than, I don’t know, Bill Buckley? Obviously, Nader’s a celebrity. But we have so damn many celebrities. Nader isn’t special.Nader *is* special. Most celebrities don't live like Monks and pass up women of ill repute. What makes Nader interesting is that he drinks his own kool-aid. He's *not* a manipulative Ayers type.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.