BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//InvisionCommunity Events 5.0.18//EN METHOD:PUBLISH CALSCALE:GREGORIAN REFRESH-INTERVAL:PT15M X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT15M X-WR-CALNAME:RMCommunityCalendar NAME:RMCommunityCalendar BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/London TZURL:https://tzurl.org/zoneinfo/Europe/London X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/London BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:BST DTSTART:20260329T020000Z RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:GMT DTSTART:20261025T020000Z RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT SUMMARY:Economic Corner 31 01/22/2026 DTSTAMP:20260123T004208Z SEQUENCE:0 UID:632-7-c3fe8195a3dde498d013e477e2142422@aalbc.com ORGANIZER;CN="richardmurray":noreply@aalbc.com DESCRIPTION:\n To Bankrupt or not to Bankrupt?\n\n The focus in the post is the following...Why couldn't Ford be the lone major USA automaker? \n \n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Before I speak on that specifically  I must set the bac kground.\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Me side Pioneer in a dialog came up with two d ifferent positions to bankruptcy. The detail of friction\, which relates t o this post\,  is the ability of services to be sustained during and afte r bankruptcy.\n\n\n\n \n\n Pioneer's position is firms of a certain financ ial volume can not be allowed to go bankrupt because the services they pro vide\, even if they have insurmountable debt or have an unblackable ledger \, will not be maintained during and after bankruptcy. And said services m aintain a way of life in the usa\, which is one of the biggest \"weapons\" in the usa. \n\n\n\n \n\n My position is\, bankruptcy must always be imp lemented for every failed firm regardless of financial volume because bank ruptcy alone provides proper fiscal\, I even add nonviolent\, punishment t o fiscal management that is inappropriate in the marketplace. And I add\, bankruptcy can be implemented with legal speed or control of buyers to the failed firms parts or adjustment of technologies on sale by the firm\, se quentially services are maintained.  \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n This post is not about whose right or wrong\, we are both right or wrong. These are financ ial strategic positions. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n referral- Dialog between me and Pioneer\n\n https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/141-economic-corner-5-ja nuary-4th-2025 /\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Now I end the background a nd to the main topic? Why couldn't Ford be the lone major USA automaker?\n \n\n\n  \n\n\n\n What is known? \n\n During the 2008–2010 automotive i ndustry crisis\, Ford struggled but did not have to be rescued like Genera l Motors[ larger than Ford] or Chrysler[ smaller than Ford]\, the other tw o large us automakers. But the USA had and still has minor automakers. \n \n\n\n Thus\, I argue based on my view to bankruptcy\, General Motors + Ch rysler should had gone through bankruptcy with all their assets+ technolog ies being sold to a closed market with Ford + minor usa automakers as the long buyers. No service would had been undone. Ford was still present and minor automakers in the usa with the bankruptcy market of General Motors + Chrysler would have the chance to grow.  I add the bankruptcy can force the minor firms to be majority [ over 80%] usa owned for a space of twenty years or more to get access to the bankruptcy sale.  \n\n\n\n Pioneer's argument was enacted in reality by the government saving GM + Chrysler. Bu t both firms became worse. In 2024\, GM was negative in equity or net inco me\, but very positive in assets. So from 2010 to 2024 GM hasn't improved at all\, and still needs go through bankruptcy and have all of its assets sold. From 2010 to 2026 GM nor Chrysler have shown improved quality\, whil e they were given a welfare check beyond anything to stay in business. And arguably\, Ford was not given the financial advantage as the lone major d omestic car maker it earned\, evenly. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n So why was Ford not able to be the lone major automaker in the usa? \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Proof of autofailure position\n\n URL\n\n https://www.politico.com/story/2 008/12/bush-announces-174-billion-auto-bailout-016740\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n B ush announces $17.4 billion auto bailout\nBy Mike Allen and David Rogers\n 12/19/2008 08:22 AM EST\nUpdated: 12/19/2008 01:31 PM EST\n\n\nPresident G eorge W. Bush stepped in Friday to keep America’s auto industry afloat\, announcing a $17.4 billion bailout for GM and Chrysler\, with the terms o f the loans requiring that the firms radically restructure and show they c an become profitable soon.\n\n“If we were to allow the free market to ta ke its course now\, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptc y\,” Bush said at the White House\, in remarks carried live by the natio nal broadcast networks. “In the midst of a financial crisis and a recess ion\, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible cou rse of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed .”\n\nBush said that “bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquid ation of American auto companies.”\n\n“My economic advisers believe th at such a collapse would deal an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans far beyond the auto industry. It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis\,” he said. “It could send our suf fering economy into a deeper and longer recession.”\n\nThe money will co me from the Wall Street bailout passed by Congress\, a reversal for the Wh ite House. President-elect Barack Obama and Democrats had long advocated t hat course\, and Bush had resisted it.\n\nOf the total\, $13.4 billion wil l be paid out in December and January\, administration officials told repo rters in a briefing. The last $4 billion is contingent on release of the s econd installment of the Wall Street bailout funds by Congress.\nAs it hap pens — in a source for some potential confusion — this breakdown also corresponds with how the money will be divided between GM and Chrysler\, t he two major recipients.\n\nTreasury estimates GM will require about $13.4 billion in loans\; Chrysler $4 billion. Both companies will share in the first $13.4 billion paid out in December and January. GM will need the las t $4 billion as well.\n\nThe government gets a stake in each company\, and can call in the loans on March 31 if the firms cannot prove “viabilit y” by then. The manufacturers do not have to be profitable immediately b ut have to be “profitable soon\,” a senior administration official sai d.\n\nThe structure largely follows the pattern of legislation that failed in Congress last week in the Senate because of Republican opposition. Bus h made no mention of this fight\, but in stepping in as he is\, the presid ent risks angering conservatives in his party but the administration felt it had no choice given the fragile state of the economy.\n\nIn doing so\, Treasury decided not to be tied to the initial bill in Congress that provi ded only $14 billion in loans. That was always viewed as inadequate to get to March 31\, and the administration opted to go with more realistic numb ers.\n\nIn doing so\, however\, it sets up a ticklish situation for Democr ats in the new Congress. With the auto bailout\, Treasury will have tapped out all of the first $350 billion from the financial markets rescue fund by late January. That means Democrats must deal with releasing the second $350 billion even as Obama will be trying to rally support for a large eco nomic stimulus bill.\n\nOn the Republican side\, the real dividing point b etween the administration and bailout critics in Congress has had more to do with the conditions imposed on the loans — not the aid itself.\n\nThe se differences came to a head in the Senate over the question of how to tr eat the United Auto Workers\, and what pressure should be put on the union to bring down wage levels to match those paid to non-UAW workers at US pl ants operated by Honda or Toyota for example.\n\nSenate Republican conserv atives insisted that the UAW agree to specific wage adjustments by a date certain in 2009. When the union rejected this demand as political\, Republ icans killed the bill.\n\nThe White House agreed that wage concessions wou ld be needed but thought the better test should be the viability of the co mpanies — not some fixed formula imposed on management and the union. Th ere was real discomfort in the administration with what many saw as a regi onal\, anti-union slant as Republicans from the South — where non-UAW\, foreign owned plants are more common — demanded concessions that jeopard ized aid to an industry so vital to much of the Midwest.\n\nThus the loan agreements drafted by Treasury take a more flexible approach. There are “Restructuring Targets” to be met in the companies’ recovery plans\, including moving to a more competitive wage structure by the end of 2009. But there is also some leeway if alternative savings can be found. The re structuring report due March 31 “shall identify any deviations from the Restructuring Targets and explain the rationale for these deviations\, inc luding an explanation of why such deviations do not jeopardize the Borrowe r’s long-term viability.”\n\nIn explaining his decision Friday\, Bush said holding back “would leave the next president to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office.\n\n“The more responsible option is to give the auto companies an incentive to restructu re outside of bankruptcy and a brief window in which to do it\,” Bush sa id. “And that is why my administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability.”\n\nThe announcement immediately affects GM and Chr ysler\, not Ford\, administration officials said. Ford\, which took a line of credit just before financing dried up\, has said it does not need imme diate federal assistant to stay in business.\n\nChrysler issued a statemen t thanking the administration but saying the terms will require “conside ration.”\n\nHere are the details of the White House plan:\n\nFact Sheet: Financing Assistance to Facilitate the Restructuring of Automobile Manufa cturers to Attain Financial Viability\n\nPurpose: The terms and conditions of the financing provided by the Treasury Department will facilitate rest ructuring of our domestic auto industry\, prevent disorderly bankruptcies during a time of economic difficulty\, and protect the taxpayer by ensurin g that only financially viable firms receive financing.\n\nAmount: Auto ma nufacturers will be provided with $13.4 B in short-term financing from the TARP\, with an additional $4 B available in February\, contingent upon dr awing down the second tranche of TARP funds.\n\nViability Requirement: The firms must use these funds to become financially viable. Taxpayers will n ot be asked to provide financing for firms that do not become viable. If t he firms have not attained viability by March 31\, 2009\, the loan will be called and all funds returned to the Treasury.\n\nDefinition of Viability : A firm will only be deemed viable if it has a positive net present value \, taking into account all current and future costs\, and can fully repay the government loan.\n\nBinding Terms and Conditions: The binding terms an d conditions established by the Treasury will mirror those that were voted favorably by a majority of both Houses of Congress\, including:\n— Firm s must provide warrants for non-voting stock.\n— Firms must accept limit s on executive compensation and eliminate perks such as corporate jets.\ n— Debt owed to the government would be senior to other debts\, to the e xtent permitted by law.\n— Firms must allow the government to examine th eir books and records.\n— Firms must report and the government has the p ower to block any large transactions (>\; $100 M).\n— Firms must compl y with applicable Federal fuel efficiency and emissions requirements.\n— Firms must not issue new dividends while they owe government debt.\n\nTar gets: The terms and conditions established by Treasury will include additi onal targets that were the subject of Congressional negotiations but did n ot come to a vote\, including:\n\n— Reduce debts by 2/3 via a debt for e quity exchange.\n— Make one-half of VEBA payments in the form of stock .\n— Eliminate the jobs bank.\n— Work rules that are competitive with transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09.\n— Wages that are competitive with those of transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09.\n\nThese terms a nd conditions would be non-binding in the sense that negotiations can devi ate from the quantitative targets above\, providing that the firm reports the reasons for these deviations and makes the business case to achieve lo ng-term viability in spite of the deviations.\n\nIn addition\, the firm wi ll be required to conclude new agreements with its other major stakeholder s\, including dealers and suppliers\, by March 31\, 2009.\n\n\nFiled Under : \n2010Politics\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n POST URL\n\n https://aalbc.com/tc/to pic/12348-could-ford-have-been-the-lone-major-us-automaker/\n\n\n\n PRIOR EDITION\n\n https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/628-economic-corner-30-01202 026/\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n NEXT EDITION\n\n https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event /635-economic-corner-32-01282026/\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n 1/24/2026\n\n\n\n  \ n\n\n\n Citation\n\n\n\n https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12348-could-ford-have- been-the-lone-major-us-automaker/#findComment-79568\n\n\n\n osted just no w\n\n\n\n @ProfD \n\n\n\n   On 1/22/2026 at 10:04 PM\, ProfD said:\n\ n\n\n IMO\, Ford could never have been the lone US automaker.\n\n\n\n just for clarification\, did you mean the lone major us automaker\, as i asked \,  or the lone us automaker\, which i didn't ask?\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n onc e I comprehend that I can look at the rest of your reply in total. \n\n\n \n  \n\n\n\n   On 1/22/2026 at 10:04 PM\, ProfD said:\n\n\n\n Then\, capitalists would have swooped in and picked the bones and built new auto makers.\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n bankruptcy historically isn't designed to delet e the assets of firms\, but to allow for penalty to the owners or investor s of firms while selling assets back into the market. Did you comprehend t he original point of contention between me and @Pioneer1?\n\n\n\n  \n\n\ n\n @Troy\n\n\n\n   22 hours ago\, Troy said:\n\n\n\n As you mentioned bail out undermine capitalism and artificially bolster companies as well as tax incentives\, tariffs against foreign competition not to forget laws that stifle competition suppress worker rights\, etc.\n\n\n\n Bailouts do n't undermine fiscal capitalism de facto\, it is implementation. the probl em with the usa is the government has bailed out every single industry in the usa absent managing for it to improve. White people love touting welfa re to work for black laborers but then for the industries in the usa owned by whites in whole or majority:  real estate/farming/aviation/automotive /banks/dot com/crypto/green energy \, they want blank welfare checks absen t demanding better management by the whites who are being saved from the p oor house where their financial actions led them. \n\n\n\n It is the same with tariffs. If you want to block out foreign firms that is fine\, it is common in history for all governments\, but you must manage the industry internal industry\, the usa doesn't manage the internal. And that goes to laws that stifle competition or better\, don't penalize failure enough. \ n\n\n\n Look at the film studios industry in the usa. \n\n\n\n AT&\;T sold warner bros to discovery because AT&\;T wanted to get rid of the d ebt on a loser. AT&\;T spent alot of money and got no return and added debt. Discovery bought Warner Bros on the cheap on the condition of taking all the debt off of AT&\;Ts books. \n\n\n\n Even though AT&\;T wer e and are making very positive profits on telecommunications\, they didn't want the losing film studio on the books to manipulate their stock value or influence speculation to their stock negatively. But\, AT&\; T neede d to be penalized properly\, by having that sale blocked and Warner Bros c losed and its assets auctioned off. AT&\; T should never have bought Wa rner Bros in the first place. Again\, film studios like all media properti es are financial losers historically. yes they have times of positive resu lts but usually they are failures for obvious reasons. \n\n\n\n Music lab els/film studios/theaters/sports teams/sports leagues/similar  are all as collective industries financial losers. Dallas Cowboys? yeah but look at the canadian football league or the defunct euro league. yeah New York kni cks \, who have a fortunate stadim\, but what about the d league\, the chi nese league? no and no. Look at the yankees. ok\, but what of double or tr iple a? terrible. Music labels are historically only profitable for the se lloff at the end of their lives. \n\n\n\n So penalty is what is truly lac king? and I comprehend why ? not having financial penalty has a long tradi tion. the entire white wealthy of the confederacy were too big to fail \, or had  a huge bailout at the end of the war between the states. which li ke all bailouts after led to a consistency of behavior\, in that case\, ki lling black people. And even in bailing out the government can penalize. A nd that penalization can be very positive for the industry in cleaning up bad financial practices. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n   22 hours ago\, Troy sa id:\n\n\n\n All we really have is tesla and while China has superior vehic les that cost less our EV charging infrastructure is paltry compared to th e rest of the world.\n\n\n\n i don't have any validatable information on c hina\, but some say their ev industry is bottoming out\, the problem is\, even though they have the greatest deposits of rare earth minerals for the batteries accessible  the EV cars use and china has an infrastructure to produce them or use them\, the chinese automotive industry is built to ex port\, not sell in china\, and with usa+ europe not fully suitable for EV use completely\, let alone the majority of humanity\, absent any infrastru cture for EV cars\, the market for EV's is not a global one. The fuel of g as based cars serves a very good function in terms of international trade. Oil just needs to be sold. BUT EV's need electricity at volumes above rem ote gain. Electricity to handle a large volume of EV cars requires a syste m of infrastructure. this is the financial flaw that always existed. this is why the oil producers were not worried with the EV car movement the usa led because they knew\, while USA+ China + Western Europe + japan will ev entually change their energy infrastructures\, most governments in the wor ld don't have any energy infrastructure at all. so any vehicle that requir es one is financially negative from the begining. So... its complex. This is why the hydrogen developers are still active in the labs. The negative of hydrogen is they haven't found a way to make its infrastructure cheap\, you still need hydrogen lines and production+ Hydrogen is very dangerous to handle\, very explosive. and it smanufacture also is part of the compre hension of hydrogen bombs so... the nuclear element is about it and the us a/russai/china/india/israel/select western european don' want the developm ent of nuclear weapons to be common knowledge outside of the current nucle ar powers.  The positive\, is hydrogen is like gas\, in that you don't ne ed an electric grid as much as hydrogen tanks and hydrogen based cars just put hydrogen in.\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n 1/24/2026\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n \n Citation\n\n\n\n https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12348-could-ford-have-been- the-lone-major-us-automaker/#findComment-79619\n\n\n\n osted just now\n\n \n\n @ProfD \n\n\n\n   6 hours ago\, ProfD said:\n\n\n\n Lone major  US automaker as you asked.\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n I had to ask that because you may not realize but minor us automakers are us automakers. The usa has six minor automakers off the top of my head\, and I know it is more. The USA has never had one automaker\, so your language confused me \, to be ho nest. I was specific in my words and your reply. confused me. \n\n\n\n No w\, I will repost your quote and then give my reply comprehending you mean t lone major us automaker\n\n\n\n   On 1/22/2026 at 10:04 PM\, ProfD s aid:\n\n\n\n IMO\, Ford could never have been the lone US automaker.\n\n\n \n  \n\n\n\n Even if the federal government had not bailed out the auto i ndustry\, venture capitalists would have allowed those companies to go int o bankruptcy or become insolvent.\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Then\, capitalists w ould have swooped in and picked the bones and built new automakers.\n\n\n\ n  \n\n\n\n Lee Iaccoca resurrected Chrysler back in the 1980s. Daimler-M ercedes gave Chrysler a life in the late 1990s. Fiat and Stellantis have k ept Chrysler afloat.\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n  Capitalism and the free market u ltimately decide if/when companies are allowed to go belly up totally.\n\n \n\n Expand  \n\n\n\n I have another question. Sorry but your wording war rants me to ask another question.\n\n\n\n Are you saying that Ford couldn' t be the lone usa automaker because after a shares buyout or bankruptcy\, General Motors + chrysler would remain at least in branding while more imp ortantly in function as major automakers OR even if broken up parts would come together to form a major automaker? \n\n\n\n I had to ask because th e post original topic which you may not have read was about bankruptcy's r ole and me and pioneer's differing position on the function or role of ban kruptcy. Me nor Pioneer were questioning the function of bailouts or bankr uptcy in revitalizing assets of failing firms. I don't quite comprehend wh y you mentioned that. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n The Agnelli family made stellan tis as a holding firm for all of their assets\, which include chrysler. Cr hysler from my view isn't a car company any more. Chrysler is like Lexus i s to Toyota. Lexus isn't a car company\, Toyota is a car company\, lexus i s a brand in a car company. Stellantis is the company\, Chrysler is a bran d . In the same way Oldmobile was a brand in General Motors. Brands are no t car companies. They are divisions in car companies that can be deleted. Oldmobile was originally the top engineering division of General Motors. B ut it died a generic brand. Chrysler will go the same way more than likely . To say Chrsyler is being kept afloat by Stellantis is financially incorr ect. Stellantis\, bought Chrysler for its name brand\, some assets\, and c onnections in the us auto industry. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n @Pioneer1\n\n\n\n please tell me who are you making this question to? \n\n\n\n   5 hours ago\, Pioneer1 said:\n\n\n\n Why would people allow just ONE automaker? \n\n\n\n If it is to me\, I don't comprehend why cause I never said the us a would have one automaker \, I said explicityly\, one major usa automaker . \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n   5 hours ago\, Pioneer1 said:\n\n\n\n Anything that involves generating a lot of money will produce multiple manufacture rs....usually in competition with eachother.\n\n\n\n well\, yes intiially\ , when a technology is young the financial gateway to entry is less and yo u get many entrepreneurs. BUT\, oover time the gateway to entry becomes mo re expensive and the competition dies. this is financial fact proven throu gh history. No industry in humanity that is over one hundred years old has competition outside of government protection or other scenarios that main tain firms for various reasons\, usually dealing with governments desire t o be self reliant. Post offices for example. The easiest way to prove my p oint is video game manufacturers. the competition is very few firms. The m ultiple era is already over\, but the gateway to entry is high. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n @ProfD\n\n\n\n   4 hours ago\, ProfD said:\n\n\n\n I'm thi nking if brotha @richardmurray had his own country\, the government woul d be responsible for everything from production and manufacturing to healt hcare. Maybe entertainment would be free market.\n\n\n\n You don't know me clearly\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n @Pioneer1 \n\n\n\n   4 hours ago\, Pionee r1 said:\n\n\n\n The government is making everything so there is no incen tive to improve and do better.\n\n\n\n Where is the basis for this positio n? Many people in the usa utter it\, but I find no basis in truth. College s and universities\, completely funded by the federal government of the us a are constantly\, competing to make breakthroughs in the same technology. And that is the usa alone. Do I have to speak on china? all the innovatio ns in china happen through the chinese government. Is not china the leader in many technologies. What basis does the thinking I quoted from you have in truth?\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n 1/25/2026\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Citation\n\n\n\ n https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12348-could-ford-have-been-the-lone-major-us- automaker/#findComment-79697\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n osted just now\n\n\n\n @P ioneer1\n\n\n\n   16 hours ago\, Pioneer1 said:\n\n\n\n That's not the government.\n\n Those are PRIVATE (or semi-private state) institutions co mpeting with eachother and coming up with inventions and technology and us ing government as well as private money to do so.\n\n\n\n I have done rese arch in colleges\, know others who have done research in colleges\, the go vernment in the usa is the funder for colleges and universities hands down . The private sectors level of investment in college research is no where near the governments. \n\n\n\n And again\, most of the colleges are not p rivate. Most of the colleges the usa government funds through research are not private institutions\, they are public colleges which is the governme nt. \n\n\n\n   16 hours ago\, Pioneer1 said:\n\n\n\n The modern Chine se\, Japanese\, and Korean societies have invented NOTHING.\n\n All they'v e done is copy or make slight improvements on Western products and technol ogy.\n\n \n\n They don't  invent a car\, they just make one a little diff erent or a little better or cheaper.\n\n They don't invent a computer or s ocial media\, they take it and tweak it a little to make it different or b etter.\n\n\n\n \n\n The Chinese Communist Party is nothing more than a lar ge TEMP-SERVICE with millions of loyal workers that Western corporations c an go to for a relatively cheap educated labor source.\n\n\n\n What is you r personal problem with china? or chinese? first I can tell you \, you are incorrect about chinese invention. But more\, importantly\, is second\, w here does this negativity toward china come from? \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n  \ n\n\n\n @ProfD\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n   16 hours ago\, ProfD said:\n\n\n\n One way or another\, even if Ford have been bought out or allowed to go b ankrupt\, another major automaker would have grown or been established.\n\ n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Well Ford never needed to be bailed out\,that was general motors and chrysler\, but... I do notice one thing very prevalent in alot of black online discussions concerning finance\, many black people seem t o have access to a crystal ball of knowledge which gives them certainty on what will happen \, which only a few black folk like me\, don't have acce ss to. \n\n\n\n I never mentioned what would happen in the future\, i sim ply stated that bakruptcy is a needed tool. Pioneer stated bankruptcy is a tool that can't be allowed for firms of a certain size. You have stated t he usa will always have more than one major automaker \, which has no rela tionship to me or pioneer point but is a grand assumption. You don't give any financial reasoning for your position nor do you seem to consider huma nity en large\, which has value financially. Russia+ China are real\, they have their own desires or plans\, the usa can't tell them what to do\, th is is why even though russia lost the cold war\, the usa has actually neve r stepped foot into russia\, while the usa has belitted countries absent n uclear power... that is the whole point of the nonproliferation law. \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n 1/25/2026\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Citation\n\n\n\n https://aalb c.com/tc/topic/12348-could-ford-have-been-the-lone-major-us-automaker/#fin dComment-79705\n\n\n\n osted just now\n\n\n\n @ProfD \n\n\n\n   2 hour s ago\, ProfD said:\n\n\n\n First\, I realize you want your threads re sponded to in a certain way. It's not gonna happen.\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n you r epiphany is false but ok\n\n\n\n   2 hours ago\, ProfD said:\n\n\n\n The subject of discussion is mostly hypothetical.\n\n\n\n the subject me and pioneer was debating which i opened to the floor is about truth. Guess ing what will happen is hypothetical but stating what can happen is merely the truth. I am not interested in prescience to the future. I don't know the future\, nor will I assume it\, but I do know possibilities and when p ossibilities are falsely suggested as impossible\, that to me are lies. \ n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n   2 hours ago\, ProfD said:\n\n\n\n isn't allowed i n certain situations.\n\n\n\n that is alie. lehmann was allowed to go bank rupt. In the past thirty years all sorts of firms of various financial sca le have gone bankrupt. your mischaracterizing situations as allowances.  They are not the same thing.\n\n\n\n   2 hours ago\, ProfD said:\n\n\n \n already how &\; why the USA is the pre-eminent super power.\n\n\n\n yes\, we meaning the regular posters of this forum have displayed we each have various views on why or how the usa is powerful. let alone the defini tion of power. yes I concur if what your saying is what I just said. \n\n \n\n   2 hours ago\, ProfD said:\n\n\n\n Neither Russia nor China is t he threat talking heads would have folks believe. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n of course\, the truth is\, no government ever has been as big a threat as any country as advertised\, that is human history. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n   2 hours ago\, ProfD said:\n\n\n\n the number of Chinese people living in the US.\n\n\n\n ok what is it with you and @Pioneer1 and the chinese? di d white man give a job you had to chinese or something? the white man of t he usa let chinese in so I find the idea of chinese power silly in that se nse\, the chinese didn't force anything\, the white man of the usa did thi s. You accept white power\, well white power did it\, that wasn't white as ian but white european power. \n\n\n\n You and pioneer\, with the chinese . I saw the pew maps\, the mexicans and the chinese and the indians are th e three groups coming in most. You and pioneer never speak of mexicans so i guess you two are unthreatened by them. you never mentions indians\, I h ave no idea why but you two are on a chinese rant thing.\n\n\n\n   2 hou rs ago\, ProfD said:\n\n\n\n Russia has been involved in conflicts over there since Vlady Putin has been running  sh8t. The US issues fake warnim gs but they're not going to do anything to him. It's not just because of n uclear weapons.\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n earlier than that\, the first czar unde r the golden horde was the beginning of russias long history with chaos in ternally. It isn't just because\, but mostly because. ask iran about the v alue of nuclear weapons.\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n   2 hours ago\, ProfD said :\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n The  Chess *game* is more important than anything .  These super powers cooperate in how they choose to run the planet.\n\n \n\n oh machiavelli so many blacks love to speak of the chess game\, and c hess is really a poor strategy game but anyway. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n 1/25/ 2026\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Citation\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n https://aalbc.com/tc/t opic/12348-could-ford-have-been-the-lone-major-us-automaker/#findComment-7 9733\n\n\n\n sted just now\n\n\n\n @Delano \n\n\n\n   3 hours ago\, D elano said:\n\n\n\n It was becoming unpaid work.\n\n\n\n that was funny\, well done\, rarely do i find anything funny in here\, well done. and I ap ologize:) \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n @Pioneer1\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n   3 hours a go\, Pioneer1 said:\n\n\n\n So it appears that there more private colleg es and universities than public ones.\n\n\n\n And even the public institut ions aren't actually ran by \"the government\".\n\n They are ran by indivi duals who are hired and fired  the institution itself similar to those th at are private.\n\n \n\n Now most academic institutions both public and pr ivate are either funded by or TAKE funding from the Federal government.\n\ n But that's not the issue.\n\n\n\n The point is that the colleges and uni versities\, even if they are public....don't OPERATE like a branch of the government like law enforcement or traffic control.\n\n They're ran or ope rate like private institutions\, supposedly hiring and firing people based on qualifications and self interests and are motivated by profit seeking and revenue increase.\n\n\n\n Expand  \n\n\n\n Even enough\, most of the educational organizations you suggest are operated like private instituti ons motivated by profit seeking and revenue increase have never increased profit or revenue and live off welfare by the government for over thirty y ears. so ok. but I do have three questions\n\n\n\n 1) did you ask the lar ge language model to delete college scams? Private universities include a ll of those scam colleges like trump university and everything. You are a crude fiscal capitalistic so I am prepared to read you think those scams w arrant labeling as colleges of learning. \n\n\n\n 2) Based on your posit ion\, if New York City opens up marijuana dispensaries they can be conside red private institutions\, even if they never earn a profit and have an ev er increasing expense which warrants debt growth by the government? Cause the federal government grows debt to maintain funding the colleges and un iversities like the airlines\, like the farms like the banks like the film industries\, like the real estate industry. And even though everything i just mentioned financially collapsed\, completely failed financially\, you consider all those things\, private institutions no matter how unable the y are to actually make money\, no matter how much debt the government incu rs to keep them afloat.  \n\n\n\n 3) In the future \, if a president re stricts federal funds to a college or university and it folds\, that isn't the fault of said president ?  Because these colleges are private insti tutions\, which are not the governments responsibility to fund. Private in stitutions are the responsibility of the financiers\, so if the failing  financiers are no longer given welfare at the behest of a president for wh atever reason\, which Schrumpt is opening any future president of the usa to have the power to do\, that president isn't going against fiscal capita lism. they are treating that college like the bank would a bad debtor or l ike white people like to treat black people on welfare. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n \n   3 hours ago\, Pioneer1 said:\n\n\n\n My only issue with them is t hey CLAIM to be Communist but in actuality practice ultra Capitalism.\n\n \n\n Their current economic practices are in direct contradiction and conf lict with what their modern founder Mao Zedong and his fellow revolutionar ies fought and died for.\n\n Which was an end to Western imperialism over China.\n\n\n\n but the country you call your home\, claim's to be about fr eedom is the biggest slaver...\n\n\n\n many governments claim many things\ , why does china have to be the most honest government in the world when t he usa/england/france are still active. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n That is not t rue\, imperialism isnt about fiscal capitalism\, imperialism is about powe r. Did you know the term emperor originally meant what many will call toda y a warlord. imperialsm isn't about finance\, imperialism is about whether your country is subject to another or not. \n\n\n\n China is the only no n white european government in humanity free to do as it wants in itself. China is free from anyone's imperialism\, including japan's. \n\n\n\n And china to its credit has no desire in being the global police force\, like the usa. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n \n\n DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260122 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=1 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR