BNET Insight

Big Think

Game-changing ideas from new business books and other sources of inspiration.

Chrysler's Creditors Take a Bath. Is It Fair?

May 5th, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

4 Comments

Categories: Economic policy

Tags:

Should Chrysler’s workers (i.e., unsecured creditors) get put in line ahead of its bondholders? Of course not, under  normal circumstances. But Chrysler represents anything but normal circumstances, says Daniel Gross, Slate’s Moneybox columnist. Gross argues that the U.S. government was right to do this, in part because investors who bought Chrysler’s debt were already dealing with something besides normal capitalism. He says they got greedy, expecting the government to overpay for their assets. The government called their bluff, and now they can go to the back of the line.

Gross does say this is dangerous if it happens again. He thinks it’s a one-off event. What do you think?

Know of a good business read you'd like to share with your fellow BNET readers?

 
Reply to Story

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    arvanro@...

    05/06/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Chrysler's Creditors Take a Bath. Is It Fair?

    Gross makes a valid point that bondholders have already gotten an extra coupon or two because of government aid.

    That does not justify violating established bankruptcy code.

    Nor does it justify his more basic error of ignoring the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for government intervention: Whenever government intrudes, for whatever excuse, it only makes things worse.

    There is not, and never was, any justification to forestall Chrysler bankruptcy.

    Care about pensioners and current workers? Then give both groups direct aid; do not funnel it through a failed business model, costing at multiples of the net benefit (note that if government cares about both retirees and current workers, UAW has no such balance...).

    As for trying to sort speculators from investors, Gross blithely says "they could have left at any time." Well, investors might sell, but ONLY at a loss, and ONLY IF there are others willing to offer them liquidity. That's his idea of justice?

    The only role for government is to enforce the premises of free markets: many small agents, free flow of information, no subsidies, no monopolies, and especially now, no "too big to fail." Anything else is a distortion and creates the deadweight cost of capricious intervention.


  •  
    2

    jdmclaughlin

    05/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Chrysler's Creditors Take a Bath. Is It Fair?

    Problem: This is an example of the government unilaterally ignoring the rule of law, privity of contract, and property rights. All these concepts have made the US a great nation.

  •  
    3

    jdmclaughlin

    05/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Chrysler's Creditors Take a Bath. Is It Fair?

    Problem: This is an example of the federal government's violation of privity of contract and property rights, thus ignoring the rule of law.

    Rememeber: the US is a republic, ruled by law and not a democracy. The rule of law leads to justice, democracy can lead to lynch mobs.

  •  
    4

    Michael Fitzgerald

    05/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Chrysler's Creditors Take a Bath. Is It Fair?

    Now now. The government is not always an abject failure. Nor did the markets behave in ways that should fill anyone with confidence over the last few years.

    That said, here's a comment on how Obama parallels Bush for overstepping governmental bounds:

    http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/05/ominous_parallels_is_obama_the.html

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
Top Rated
    advertisement
    • Click Here
    • Click Here
    • Click Here
    advertisement
    Click Here