CSpec

Japan is hurting itself with its extremely strict immigration laws, imports, and protectionist policies. Japan does not enjoy our prosperity because they refuse to participate fully in the global marketplace. Just because they impoverish themselves on purpose does not mean we should do the same. It is ONE planet, ONE marketplace, and hopeless poverty is the only outcome of not participating in it.

I still live in a dorm with a meal plan so I haven't really changed any of my habits. Come graduation though and I will be quite frugal until I find a job...

Didn't Bangle used to work at Pontiac?

Globalization is good. Trade is good. Obama is wrong.

Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmNjM...jgyOWY5NGYyNWI= Obama Declares War on Capital Obama’s first 100 days have occasioned a number of dispiriting moments, but yesterday’s attack on Chrysler’s bondholders represented a new low. In a speech announcing the company’s bankruptcy filing, President Obama blasted “a group of investment firms and hedge funds [that] decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.” That is nothing short of a lie. The consortium wasn’t holding out for a bailout. It was holding out for a bankruptcy. The administration tried desperately to keep Chrysler out of bankruptcy court; in the process, it demonstrated exactly why that institution is so valuable. Obama’s auto task force attempted to browbeat Chrysler’s creditors into taking a terrible deal in order to spare the United Auto Workers union as much pain as possible. The large banks, which owe their continued existence to the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), caved and agreed to take a massive haircut on their secured Chrysler debt. But a group of smaller firms, calling themselves “The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP lenders,” refused to play ball. In a statement released yesterday, the firms pointed out that they would be shirking their fiduciary duty to their investors if they did not hold out for the best possible deal. For them, the best deal is bankruptcy. In bankruptcy court, secured debtholders take priority over other creditors. The administration’s plan called for secured lenders to get in line behind the UAW. For resisting this expropriation and following the law, the non-TARP lenders were publicly denounced as vicious Benedict Arnolds by a sitting American president. “I stand with Chrysler’s employees and their families and communities,” Obama said — not “those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices.” He stands, he said, “with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars.” If millions of Americans wanted to buy Chrysler cars, the company wouldn’t need the president of the United States to be its pitchman. Liberals took their cue from the president and immediately denounced the holdouts as “vultures,” too consumed with greed to think of the national interest. But the law compels these firms to act in their shareholders’ interest. Bank of America’s Ken Lewis ignored this responsibility and paid the price. Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke all but forced Lewis to go ahead with the acquisition of Merrill Lynch even after he learned that the firm was in deep trouble. Lewis finally broke his silence this month, and Bank of America’s shareholders promptly stripped him of his chairmanship. There is also a double standard at work. The rule of law was extremely important to these industrial-policy Jacobins when the telecoms were in the dock for cooperating with the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program. They wrongly argued that the telecoms broke the law, and they weren’t impressed by arguments that the program had yielded valuable intelligence. Apparently, the law is more flexible when bending it might yield a marginally better economic outcome for an interest group that worked very hard to get the president elected. National interest, indeed. From the beginning, we’ve argued that GM and Chrysler should land in bankruptcy court. Instead, the Bush administration gave them a temporary crutch and sent them hobbling into the Obama administration. With their powerful unions and poor prospects, the automakers posed a thorny problem for Obama; he solved it by making the bondholders an offer they had to refuse. Now Obama has his scapegoat, and investors have another reason to mistrust the U.S. as a destination for capital.

Good luck! I look forward to any future posts you make here.

Sorry, I misread the article. Still the Malibu is still a mild hybrid and not very "good" (as good as a hybrid can be) compared to Toyota's system.

I understand the protests. The banks were strongarmed into TARP and now can do little to resist the government's weak proposal to them, but the other debt holders are right to cry foul here: in a bankruptcy court, they are entitled to money before the unions. However, I have heard interesting theories about making the union such a strong party. Either they respond to their new incentives to focus on the company making money instead of extracting wages, or they stay the same and run the new company into the ground. I bet on the latter.

What hybrid sedans existed in 2001...?

I am also in the job market, as I am graduating from college in 2 weeks. Needless to say, it is a difficult year. All I can say is keep plugging away and you will find something. Are you open to relocation?

Why would they do this? I assume that companies value their intellectual property at a higher price than moving to another 3rd world country to produce their goods.

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30454401 Is This The Final "Fix" For GM? No Way GM CEO Fritz Henderson is a straight shooter. It's one of the things about him that I like. That said, how many of us believe the man when he says GM's latest restructuring plan is the final "fix" for the auto maker? Count me among those who are skeptical. Since December, GM has given us three major restructuring with plans to cut thousands of jobs, close 16 plants, and get rid of half the auto makers brands. Each plan also has come with the CEO saying, "We think we've made the changes necessary for us to get back on track." Every time I heard this it sounded like the movie "Ground Hog Day" where Bill Murray re-lives the same day over and over. Why am I skeptical we've seen the last of the GM business plans? First, I would be stunned if GM bond holders go for this debt exchange offer. They are being offered 10% of GM in exchange for $24 Billion they have loaned the company. Meanwhile, the UAW is being offered 39% of GM in exchange for $10 Billion the auto maker owes the union for its retirement health care fund. One rep for a major bond holder summarized the offer saying, "This is ridiculous." That's layman lingo for "see you in bankruptcy court." Second: If GM goes into Chapter 11, it will have to come up with yet another business plan. It will likely be similar to this one with its plan to bring GM plants and production down to lower levels, but it will probably go even further in terms of cutting costs. That's the advantage of bankruptcy court GM and its advisors (the Treasury Department) should and will use. If they don't, it would be a wasted trip into bankruptcy court. Third: We have yet to see a game plan of how GM plans to grow its business. I'm not talking about a marketing program. I'm talking about a well thought out product plan for the next 3-4 years. Yes, we know the Chevy Volt is coming, but beyond that the models and positioning in the market are far from clear. Once GM is finished with the major corporate restructuring it will need to convey a clear vision of the future. All of this is my way of saying GM is still very much a company in transition. Is it taking some critical steps that should help it compete in the future? You bet. Just be ready for more business plans, more changes, and more of us wondering where the future leads for GM.

I don't really understand all this bother with the exchange rate... just hedge the investment with some Forex trading. The airlines all loaded up on fuel futures last year to cash in on the price runup.

Thanks for the heads up. The pricing is pretty reasonable I think.

I wouldn't have a problem with the show moving to a new city. Detroit is dying both as a city and a center for the automotive landscape.

Where's evok? I bet he's got a party hat on.

Looks like a nice clear day in Shanghai. I agree that it is a smart looking car and more than welcome them selling it here.

Sweet powertrain.

This is a great move. It didn't make any sense for Buick not to get any small crossovers, and I welcome premium smaller cars too.

Not what I would envision when I think of Buick, but this is a smart looking MPV. Looks sort of like the Sienna, but much nicer.

How much smaller is this than the Lacrosse? Now that Saturn is gone this could make a good Buick here too.

Looks like the Buick Riviera concept from the back.

That's surprising; I read before that the G8 has some minor interior build quality problems.

The Sky has always had a sort of "mini-Vette" air about it. I remember when Popular Mechanics spied it under development they actually thought it was a Chevy.