I am a bankruptcy guy. Neither the sale of Chrysler's assets to Fiat, nor what's contemplated for General Motors, constitutes "shock and awe statism," "socialism," "corporatism," or a "bull rush to the left."Money:
The position the United Auto Workers enjoys in these cases reflects its entitlements under existing laws, passed by Congress (and, I might add in the case of Section 1114, signed into law by that well-known socialist, corporatist, bull-rush-to-the-leftist, Ronald Reagan).Law professor Rick Esenberg admits he isn't a bankruptcy guy, but naturally that doesn't prevent him from accusing Obama of any or all of the above. Academic freedom, I think is what they call that.
Hey, at least McIlheran will buy it.
3 comments:
Tom
I hope you don't mean to imply that I took the position that the the Chrysler and GM reorganizatons are contrary to bankruptcy law. I don't know whether they are. I linked to posts by people who took different views on the matter. The arguments that they might were not addressed by the poster who is a "bankruptcy" guy.
My criticism of the Obama administration's statism did not turn on whether the reorganizations violate bankruptcy law and the examples that I used in support of my position did not include such a claim.
The lede is buried right next to the soup bone.
"I hope you don't mean to imply that I took the position that the Chrysler and GM reorganizations are contrary to bankruptcy law."
Not at all. Even "socialism" is permitted — and often encouraged — by law in America. It's just that not everybody considers it a definitionally undesirable thing.
Post a Comment