We Have Met the Speculators . . .
. . . and they are us. As this article describes, when the Administration ignored the rule of law in the Chrysler takeover, to show favoritism to the United Auto Workers over secured creditors -- who were derided as "speculators" -- the people who got the shaft are normal people. Police and teacher pension funds paid a premium to be secured creditors, with superior payment rights in bankruptcy proceedings, only to be pushed to the back of the bus by the Administration.
Regarding the Indiana Treasurer, the article says: We've worried that the Chrysler sandbagging would discourage bond investment. And, sure enough, Mr. Mourdock says that from now on no funds under his control will invest in the secured debt of "General Motors, other manufacturing companies, or those insurance companies who have or will be receiving bailout funds." Given the recent actions by the feds, he adds, "the risk is too great for any prudent investor to accept."
No matter the personal popularity or charisma of the person doing it or the urgency that is (always) cited as the cause, we ignore the rule of law at our own peril.
Regarding the Indiana Treasurer, the article says: We've worried that the Chrysler sandbagging would discourage bond investment. And, sure enough, Mr. Mourdock says that from now on no funds under his control will invest in the secured debt of "General Motors, other manufacturing companies, or those insurance companies who have or will be receiving bailout funds." Given the recent actions by the feds, he adds, "the risk is too great for any prudent investor to accept."
No matter the personal popularity or charisma of the person doing it or the urgency that is (always) cited as the cause, we ignore the rule of law at our own peril.
posted by steve u. at 5/22/2009
Subscribe
3 Comments:
I wonder if the creditors have any recourse? If laws have been broken there usually is something that can be done to correct the situation.
Where were you in 2008, when speculators were ballooning oil prices?
There is something extremely offensive to a voter (i.e. me) when an elected official suddenly remembers the rule of law, and the need for oversight when the party of their choice is no longer in power.
This post does more to illuminate your lack of credibility on such an issue than it does provide insight for those hoping to really understand what is going on.
The insincerity of your new found understanding is disgusting.
I'm not a speculator in oil but as far as I know it is not illegal to buy into oil hoping that you can sell at a profit later. The point Mr. Urquhart is making is that the secured credits are being illegally bypassed. Further, no more funds will come from these creditors or probably few others.
I expect the law will take its course but in the meantime "the risk is too great for any prudent investor to accept."
<< Home