No one is too big to fail - Disney

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

sell the land

To whom? See, that's the funny part of capitalism: Things only have a worth, when someone wants it.

I'm sure that land in California can find buyers, at a bare minimum. And if they scrap everything and close it, what are they paying? Not much. They could always spin the parks off and let them go bankrupt if they wanted to.

So... The biggest entertainment and theme park corp in history to a company flogging its land to stay afloat in just three months.

That sounds like a fall to me. Disney will live but not in any way that someone in 2019 could gave predicted.

Like every company and its mother is restructuring.

But let's not forget that, as far as small businesses, minority-owned operations are relatively going under most frequently.

[Captain Crimson]

Objectively speaking, which do you think was a more glaring example of government intervention: The bailout with the banks during the recession, or the bailout of the auto industry under the Obama administration? And do you feel as if one of them should have gone under?

[GreyICE]

Objectively speaking, which do you think was a more glaring example of government intervention: The bailout with the banks during the recession, or the bailout of the auto industry under the Obama administration? And do you feel as if one of them should have gone under?

I want to note this is a bit of a false dichotomy because of how it's structured. "Letting something go under" doesn't mean it vanishes. GM "went under" in 2009. Bankruptcy. Is it gone? Nope! Their plants are still making cars today. Why? Because creditors know that making cars is still profitable, and they're not interested in shutting that down. You get a lot more from selling a working car manufacturing plant than you do selling scrap metal.

And do workers lose their jobs? If they're not doing efficient jobs, sure. But not most. I mean who knows how to run the plant? The workers, or some randoms the purchasers hire? They purchasers are interested in buying a car manufacturing center, not a factory that no one knows how to use. So you don't fire the people who make cars. You fire management, because they're clearly incompetent - and probably upper management, not the floor bosses.

The only thing that goes bankrupt and vanishes is those idiotic vulture capital firms like Leman brothers, and if you put every one of their executives and owners on a yacht and sunk the yacht America would be a better place tomorrow.

So both of the bailouts were really bailouts of banks, because banks are the only people who lose when companies go bankrupt. The bank bailout was more egregious because it didn't even try to pretend it was to save jobs, it was just to transfer wealth into the hands of irresponsible idiots. Let manufacturing chapter 11. If there's a demand it just comes back. If there's no demand, you're propping up typewriters. Saturn and Saab were spun off of the GM bankruptcy, and both of them are still car brands, still made in the same places, probably mostly by the same damn people.

"Companies going under destroys jobs" is the biggest piece of horseshit America has been sold. No it doesn't! It destroys loans given out by banks and the jobs of upper management. It only destroys jobs if those jobs were slated to go anyway, and no force in the universe can make typewriters relevant when we have PCs.

What we should be doing is making companies that are failing fail faster. The big firings happen when idiotic management lets go of key personnel to cover up for their own incompetence, and the only reason they're allowed to do that is banks don't fear losing their loans anymore, so they don't call them as quickly. If banks actually feared losing money, the company would go bankrupt faster, which would be better for everyone except the banks and upper management.

Think about it, how can you make money as a car company firing the people who make your cars? And why were the banks sitting there watching them do this obviously idiotic stunt rather than rushing in to stop them by calling their loans? Because the banks figured the US government would make their loans not fail, and knew the firings were a political move to put pressure on congress. They're not the result of actual market pressure, they're the results of idiots meddling.

[Captain Crimson]

Objectively speaking, which do you think was a more glaring example of government intervention: The bailout with the banks during the recession, or the bailout of the auto industry under the Obama administration? And do you feel as if one of them should have gone under?

I want to note this is a bit of a false dichotomy because of how it's structured. "Letting something go under" doesn't mean it vanishes. GM "went under" in 2009. Bankruptcy. Is it gone? Nope! Their plants are still making cars today. Why? Because creditors know that making cars is still profitable, and they're not interested in shutting that down. You get a lot more from selling a working car manufacturing plant than you do selling scrap metal.

And do workers lose their jobs? If they're not doing efficient jobs, sure. But not most. I mean who knows how to run the plant? The workers, or some randoms the purchasers hire? They purchasers are interested in buying a car manufacturing center, not a factory that no one knows how to use. So you don't fire the people who make cars. You fire management, because they're clearly incompetent - and probably upper management, not the floor bosses.

The only thing that goes bankrupt and vanishes is those idiotic vulture capital firms like Leman brothers, and if you put every one of their executives and owners on a yacht and sunk the yacht America would be a better place tomorrow.

So both of the bailouts were really bailouts of banks, because banks are the only people who lose when companies go bankrupt. The bank bailout was more egregious because it didn't even try to pretend it was to save jobs, it was just to transfer wealth into the hands of irresponsible idiots. Let manufacturing chapter 11. If there's a demand it just comes back. If there's no demand, you're propping up typewriters. Saturn and Saab were spun off of the GM bankruptcy, and both of them are still car brands, still made in the same places, probably mostly by the same damn people.

"Companies going under destroys jobs" is the biggest piece of horseshit America has been sold. No it doesn't! It destroys loans given out by banks and the jobs of upper management. It only destroys jobs if those jobs were slated to go anyway, and no force in the universe can make typewriters relevant when we have PCs.

What we should be doing is making companies that are failing fail faster. The big firings happen when idiotic management lets go of key personnel to cover up for their own incompetence, and the only reason they're allowed to do that is banks don't fear losing their loans anymore, so they don't call them as quickly. If banks actually feared losing money, the company would go bankrupt faster, which would be better for everyone except the banks and upper management.

Think about it, how can you make money as a car company firing the people who make your cars? And why were the banks sitting there watching them do this obviously idiotic stunt rather than rushing in to stop them by calling their loans? Because the banks figured the US government would make their loans not fail, and knew the firings were a political move to put pressure on congress. They're not the result of actual market pressure, they're the results of idiots meddling.

My apologies if I misworded it. My general sentiment, however, is that I am against bailing out the big giant uber megacorporations with government money once they get that big. If they can't maintain their success, then I'm sorry, but maybe they should get by without infringing on the taxpayers.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

sell the land

To whom? See, that's the funny part of capitalism: Things only have a worth, when someone wants it.

I'm sure that land in California can find buyers, at a bare minimum. And if they scrap everything and close it, what are they paying? Not much. They could always spin the parks off and let them go bankrupt if they wanted to.

So... The biggest entertainment and theme park corp in history to a company flogging its land to stay afloat in just three months.

That sounds like a fall to me. Disney will live but not in any way that someone in 2019 could gave predicted.

Could you share some of whatever hope-giving elixer you swig with me? Please?

[Riedquat]

My apologies if I misworded it. My general sentiment, however, is that I am against bailing out the big giant uber megacorporations with government money once they get that big. If they can't maintain their success, then I'm sorry, but maybe they should get by without infringing on the taxpayers.

Yes and no. Keeping fundamentally flawed businesses going just builds up trouble for the future but I don't object so much if it's to help through temporary unforseen hiccups (although sometimes what's unforseen shouldn't have been...)

When the results are from short-termism and mismanagement though even if the business carries on those who got it to that situation shouldn't.

[Darth Wedgius]

There are two types of bankruptcies, generally. One is a reorganization (Chapter 11, like GMC went through), and that allows a company to continue (if nothing else happens). A chapter 7 bankruptcy will dissolve the business, and jobs can be lost. The restaurant chain Sweet Tomatoes closed with over 4,000 jobs lost.

[GreyICE]

There are two types of bankruptcies, generally. One is a reorganization (Chapter 11, like GMC went through), and that allows a company to continue (if nothing else happens). A chapter 7 bankruptcy will dissolve the business, and jobs can be lost. The restaurant chain Sweet Tomatoes closed with over 4,000 jobs lost.

If they died due to mismanagement, the jobs weren't lost. People still would want to eat at restaurants, they just would want to eat at a better-run restaurant. It's not like the idea of "opening a restaurant" is a novel innovation, I think the first one opened about 6 days after they invented money. Whether you wash dishes at Sweet Tomatos or Spicy Olives is whatever. In fact, many restaurant locations are just reopened as new restaurants. Some rebranding, and you can wash dishes at the same place. Chapter 11, Chapter 7, if the demand is there then the jobs will be there. As I said, GM no longer owns Saab and Saturn, but those plants are still making cars, and if the Saturn branch vanished and that plant was now making Fords or something, ah well.

If they were closed due to lack of demand, well, you can't make people want to eat out by opening a restaurant. Field of Dreams is a lie, if you build a baseball stadium in the middle of nowhere then, in fact, no one will come (unless you've identified some demand that no one else discovered exists, but that you can fill - and mostly you haven't). Again, you can't fix lack of demand by propping up failed companies - in that case, if you want people to eat out more you have to raise their incomes.

[Darth Wedgius]

There are two types of bankruptcies, generally. One is a reorganization (Chapter 11, like GMC went through), and that allows a company to continue (if nothing else happens). A chapter 7 bankruptcy will dissolve the business, and jobs can be lost. The restaurant chain Sweet Tomatoes closed with over 4,000 jobs lost.

If they died due to mismanagement, the jobs weren't lost. People still would want to eat at restaurants, they just would want to eat at a better-run restaurant. It's not like the idea of "opening a restaurant" is a novel innovation, I think the first one opened about 6 days after they invented money. Whether you wash dishes at Sweet Tomatos or Spicy Olives is whatever. In fact, many restaurant locations are just reopened as new restaurants. Some rebranding, and you can wash dishes at the same place. Chapter 11, Chapter 7, if the demand is there then the jobs will be there. As I said, GM no longer owns Saab and Saturn, but those plants are still making cars, and if the Saturn branch vanished and that plant was now making Fords or something, ah well.

If they were closed due to lack of demand, well, you can't make people want to eat out by opening a restaurant. Field of Dreams is a lie, if you build a baseball stadium in the middle of nowhere then, in fact, no one will come (unless you've identified some demand that no one else discovered exists, but that you can fill - and mostly you haven't). Again, you can't fix lack of demand by propping up failed companies - in that case, if you want people to eat out more you have to raise their incomes.

That's ludicrously over-simplified.

It's not a case of "people need to eat, therefore there will be restaurant jobs." That's way over-simplified. They offered a style and food selection that some people liked and some people didn't, and that platform is gone. People could stay home and eat there. People could have just been in the habit of eating at this restaurant and there could be less demand now that it's gone. In this case, I used to frequent that chain, and there is no replacement.

In this case, they were a buffet style restaurant, and couldn't see a reasonable way forward for operating under the new rules for SARS-CoV-2. Neither lack of demand nor mismanagement were involved, unless you want to label lack of planning for a pandemic as mismanagement.

If Disney goes under, there may be a reduced demand for movies. Disney has fans of Disney. If Ford went under, people unable to get the newest F-150 may sit on their old cars longer, decreasing demand.

And if company A goes under, company B may find itself out of work. If they just supported Software X that company A used, they're hosed. Yes, it would have been better for them to diversify, but that's a lot easier said than done. Software Y and Z already has people doing that. I used to work for such a company.

Jobs can be lost. They can go bye-bye. The fact that unemployment rises and falls outside of global crises should itself be evidence of that.

[GreyICE]

That's ludicrously over-simplified.

It's not a case of "people need to eat, therefore there will be restaurant jobs." That's way over-simplified. They offered a style and food selection that some people liked and some people didn't, and that platform is gone. People could stay home and eat there. People could have just been in the habit of eating at this restaurant and there could be less demand now that it's gone. In this case, I used to frequent that chain, and there is no replacement.

In this case, they were a buffet style restaurant, and couldn't see a reasonable way forward for operating under the new rules for SARS-CoV-2. Neither lack of demand nor mismanagement were involved, unless you want to label lack of planning for a pandemic as mismanagement.

A pandemic is an example of the sudden unpredictable events that can result in actual closures that are not due to either form of bankruptcy (mismanagement or structural). I did in fact include that as an example of when the government could intervene to good effect. GM was not that. GM was not failing because of a pandemic, GM was failing because they were mismanaged. As we saw when they spun off car brands, others were able to take the same brands, the same factories, and make a profit making cars. That's mismanagement 101.

If Disney goes under, there may be a reduced demand for movies. Disney has fans of Disney. If Ford went under, people unable to get the newest F-150 may sit on their old cars longer, decreasing demand.

And when typewriter manufacturers went out of business there were people who hated the newfangled PCs and wanted their typewriters back. To this day there's some writers who maintain ancient IBM Selectrics and there's even vintage part manufacturers who make new letter balls and parts for the Selectrics, so the small number of enthusiasts who swear by their Selectric can still use it to write. Doesn't mean that IBM wanted to keep any typewriter plants open though.

If Ford goes under and there's still sufficient demand for their pickup trucks, someone will buy their factory and make F-150s. They might have a new logo or whatever, but they'll still be F-150s. It's not cheap to retool a plant, so if the demand is there then the new purchaser will use it to make the F-150. If there isn't sufficient demand for pickup trucks to justify plants making them, then the plants will be shut down or retooled, and the few F-150 enthusiasts can do like the Selectric enthusiasts.

Jobs can be lost. They can go bye-bye. The fact that unemployment rises and falls outside of global crises should itself be evidence of that.

Of course they can. But jobs can never be lost due to mismanagement. Mismanagement is indicative that a company can and should fail. It should be allowed to fail. Allow its assets to be sectioned off for debtors. If the core business is viable, then it's viable.

Look at the Carrier plant. It was scheduled to lay off a bunch of people. Trump gave it a huge loan. What did they do? Laid off a bunch of people. Those jobs weren't lost due to mismanagement, they were lost due to automation. Money couldn't save those jobs, because money wasn't why they were eliminated. They were eliminated because automation had made them obsolete. Carrier is a profitable company and HVAC equipment is still in demand. They eliminate jobs because they are properly managed, and automation means those jobs could be done cheaper, faster, and more accurately without people.

America's manufacturing, minus the COVID problem, is at a record high. We have never manufactured more than we do today. And yet every year the amount of people involve decline, the number of jobs decline. Manufacturing has never been in crisis, manufacturing has never needed a bailout. Those jobs are lost due to automation.

If you want to give people money, give them money. Don't give companies loans and pretend that will "create jobs". It won't, it can't. Only demand can create jobs. Giving corporations money just rewards them for bad decisions, and causes actual job losses.