Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
Originally Posted by Michael
(Post 10810559)
We won't know until the appeals have gone through the court system.
Pensions could also possibly be treated the same as employee pay (first in line) which appears to be the way that Michigan law wanted it to be treated when the law was passed. Unless you can quote a federal law, we are just speculating. Unless the Michigan attorney general finds some federal law that overrides Michigan law, he's bound to lose the appeal. I suspect they are now trying to find some basis for the appeal. If one can't be found, what may have to happen is the state passes a law to overturn the bankruptcy protection law (if they have the votes) and then Detroit declares bankruptcy again. Republicans seem to defend states rights to their last breath until they don't like state laws and then they try to ignore them or pass federal laws to enforce their ideology in all states. For another, this very process is currently underway with the Stockton, California bankruptcy, and that case is proceeding without the pensions being carved out from the case. The bondholders will fight for this based upon the priority issue, claiming that they're being treated unfairly as a class if the pensions are allowed to stand at the head of the queue. Unlike a Chapter 11, the courts don't have much say in a Chapter 9 so over the details of the plan, aside from determining whether there are elements of bad faith that allow the court to reject the plan. (They can't force assets to be sold to pay creditors, for example.) The pensions are going to have a hard time fighting this, but even a priority wage claim would put the pensions behind the secureds. |
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 10810629)
I'm not really speculating. For one, Detroit is contending that the pensions are unsecured creditors.
For another, this very process is currently underway with the Stockton, California bankruptcy, and that case is proceeding without the pensions being carved out from the case. The bondholders will fight for this based upon the priority issue, claiming that they're being treated unfairly as a class if the pensions are allowed to stand at the head of the queue. Unlike a Chapter 11, the courts don't have much say in a Chapter 9 so over the details of the plan, aside from determining whether there are elements of bad faith that allow the court to reject the plan. (They can't force assets to be sold to pay creditors, for example.) The pensions are going to have a hard time fighting this, but even a priority wage claim would put the pensions behind the secureds. http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourt.../Chapter9.aspx So even though congress was careful not to interfere with the sovereign powers of the states, a more watered down version had to be passed. In my personal opinion, pensions will likely have to take a haircut for Detroit to be on the road to recovery but it sounds like there will be long court battles before that will be resolved. |
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 10807291)
It means that the creditors are going to lose. Expect those who have city pensions and bondholders to take substantial haircuts.
Detroit has to pay to support infrastructure that is meant to serve a population three times its current size. They would better off if they could consolidate what's left of it into a smaller space and turn the remainder into a big empty field. My home city has been through this before, and although smaller had/has very similar problems to MoTown. The root of the problem is the Machine. Dem, Rep, doesn't matter. All they know is growing their empire secures their power and ability to milk more and more money. Shrinking (which is solely needed) is completely foreign to them. Smash the machine. Although without the kind of obvious corruption shown here lately (half our 'leaders' are now rotting in jail where they belong) it's very very difficult, because through patronage and quid pro quo their tentacles are long and many. Have no doubt though, Detroit will rise again. Might take a while though! Pete |
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
|
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
This is nothing new and a long, slow downward spiral. Detroit has been a hole since at least the early seventies. The WSJ lays the blame for Detroit's woes squarely on the shoulders of Coleman Young, the mayor 1974-1994. Give it a read, it's a compelling argument. Basically, disasterous social and economic policies resulted in a self-sustaining rapid depopulation of the city. This destroyed the city's tax base without cutting its obligations.
Subsequent administrations have been ineffective in fixing the city's crime, social and economic problems. Some of them have also indulged in some of the most blatant nepotism, patronage and outright corruption in the country (see Kwame Kilpatrick). People forget that Detroit was the Silicon Valley of the 40s and 50s. It's amazing to see how hard it has fallen. |
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
Ach, need to be a subscriber :(
Cleveland once rivaled 5th Ave as a home and shopping destination. My dad said that all changed when the city passed the 'Rockefeller Tax', a tax on rich people. Pete |
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
Originally Posted by MostlyYank
(Post 10827057)
Ach, need to be a subscriber :(
Cleveland once rivaled 5th Ave as a home and shopping destination. My dad said that all changed when the city passed the 'Rockefeller Tax', a tax on rich people. Pete For some reason it seems the rich would rather have austerity programs like Europe with declining gdp, increasing unemployment, double and triple dip recessions, poor stock market performance, and increasing government deficits. Then to satisfy their egos, they could blame Obama for the mess he created. But in reality, if there wasn't so much headwinds from European policies, the US would be significantly further down the road to full recovery. Economics is a lot more complex than the right, the rich, and the unions wants us to believe. The rich wants us to believe that all the problems in Detroit were caused by powerful unions and regulations but fail to mention poor management even though Germany has much more powerful unions and stricter regulations than Detroit but the car industry in Germany has thrived. |
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
It might be an excuse but move out they did, and with them the rug under Cleveland's golden age.
Detroit used to be a beautiful, wealthy city. Now it isn't. I'm not rich, but I'd much rather live in a wealthy society than a poor one. Pete |
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
Originally Posted by MostlyYank
(Post 10827160)
It might be an excuse but move out they did, and with them the rug under Cleveland's golden age.
Detroit used to be a beautiful, wealthy city. Now it isn't. I'm not rich, but I'd much rather live in a wealthy society than a poor one. Pete Since the 1970's, Detroit's auto manufacturer's management made one mistake after another. Now that they've hit bottom, maybe now with the assistance of the government (bad policy as far as the right is concerned even though Germany and Japan does it) management may have learned their lesson and maybe in the future, the golden age of Detroit will return. Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed and the prosperity was shared. Bush Jr. lowered taxes and the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. So there is no one right answer to any problem. |
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
I have no problem with the rich paying their fair share btw. 'Fair' is a tough one though.
Hoover had exactly nothing to do with the depression. As a matter of fact he pulled his money out of the market almost a year before the crash and told anyone who would listen to do the same. The government lacked the power to do practically any regulation at the time. The recent derivative based crash does trace back to Pres Clinton who refused to regulate them based on the advice given by his treasury staff (btw, the same folks Bush Jr and now Obama use). That doesn't absolve Bush Jr, he'd didn't do anything either. I really don't blame them as no one wants to stop the gravy train, but it would've been very statesman like if they did. To get an idea how bad both the corporate and factory floor attitude was in the auto industry I suggest 'The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry' by Brock Yates. The government is very involved in the auto industry, at least GM. Ford did it on their own. Pete |
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
Originally Posted by MostlyYank
(Post 10827226)
Hoover had exactly nothing to do with the depression. As a matter of fact he pulled his money out of the market almost a year before the crash and told anyone who would listen to do the same. The government lacked the power to do practically any regulation at the time.
FDR also made a mistake by listening to his treasury secretary during his second term and cut back government spending over the worry about the increasing national debt. This caused the unemployment rate to increase from 14% to 19% and caused another recession. The recent derivative based crash does trace back to Pres Clinton who refused to regulate them based on the advice given by his treasury staff (btw, the same folks Bush Jr and now Obama use). That doesn't absolve Bush Jr, he'd didn't do anything either. I really don't blame them as no one wants to stop the gravy train, but it would've been very statesman like if they did. |
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
Quick swivel Michael, and great conversation :)
Many, of the programs FDR used were actually started by the vacuumed one. The big difference was, Hoover refused to give Federal money directly to individuals, only to the States. Until FDR managed to replace a few Justices the SC largely agreed with Hoover. The Depression was ended by the war. The school of Greenspan and Rubin still rules the roost, albeit morphed slightly. The same guys fronting for the same people under our Regime of Change ;) Perhaps Clinton should call him and mention it. To bring it back to the OP, when are the Feds going to be forced into bankruptcy? If unfunded obligations and overextended credit are behind Detroit there's a much much bigger player here. There's a chilling thought. Pete |
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
Originally Posted by MostlyYank
(Post 10827287)
Quick swivel Michael, and great conversation :)
Many, of the programs FDR used were actually started by the vacuumed one. The big difference was, Hoover refused to give Federal money directly to individuals, only to the States. Until FDR managed to replace a few Justices the SC largely agreed with Hoover. The Depression was ended by the war. The school of Greenspan and Rubin still rules the roost, albeit morphed slightly. The same guys fronting for the same people under our Regime of Change ;) Perhaps Clinton should call him and mention it. To bring it back to the OP, when are the Feds going to be forced into bankruptcy? If unfunded obligations and overextended credit are behind Detroit there's a much much bigger player here. There's a chilling thought. Pete In fact I would be be in favor of a big stimulus bang of about $1 trillion in infrastructure projects. With lower unemployment, government revenues increase and benefits decrease decreasing government spending and the US infrastructure is falling apart and will eventually need to be rebuilt. If it is done now, interest rates are low so it won't cost the government as much as doing it later. If the infrastructure falls apart, companies may as well move to third world countries since that is one of the primary reasons they remain in developed countries. Long term there is more of an issue primarily because of Medicare. The right wants seniors to pay significantly more and shop around for their health coverage and the left wants to apply pressure on health care providers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies. The left also wants to limit terminal end of life treatment (about 25% of the Medicare budget) and also go to a single payer system for health care reform to reduce overhead costs to about 5% (about the same as Medicare) instead of typically 20% or more by private companies. Who will win that battle we don't know but one or the other has to occur or taxes has to be increased to bring the long term budget under control. |
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
Originally Posted by MostlyYank
(Post 10827287)
The school of Greenspan and Rubin still rules the roost, albeit morphed slightly. The same guys fronting for the same people under our Regime of Change ;) Perhaps Clinton should call him and mention it.
|
Re: Detroit Bankruptcy?
Originally Posted by Michael
(Post 10827191)
Since the 1970's, Detroit's auto manufacturer's management made one mistake after another. Now that they've hit bottom, maybe now with the assistance of the government (bad policy as far as the right is concerned even though Germany and Japan does it) management may have learned their lesson and maybe in the future, the golden age of Detroit will return.
Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed and the prosperity was shared. Bush Jr. lowered taxes and the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. So there is no one right answer to any problem. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 2:04 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.