Management does what it was hired to do, and manage the company, including coming up with ideas that WILL work with today's model.
That ship has sailed, dude. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand the concept of the PSM, and that's how it becomes a trap. Because people don't see it in any other light than hindsight.
Well, yes and no. Those unemployed workers will now be going on unemployment, foodstamps, medicaid, housing aid, etc. and who pays that? We do.
You want to cut unemployment, foodstamps and other entitlements? Welcome to the Republican Party!
stahrgazer wrote:Further, because the company will be defaulting on its debts and instead, paying its faulty management extra incentive to stick around and "manage the bankruptcy" that their poor decision-making//lack of appropriate forsight and market planning caused, those creditors will be claiming losses instead of income, so they won't be paying the taxes they would have been paying, so who takes up the slack? We do. Plus, those creidtors themselves, missing out on the 1.8million in debt that will instead be paid to the piss-poor managers, may have to lay off some workers (who will then be going on unemployment, foodstamps, medicaid, housing aid, etc.). And who pays for that? We do.
Welcome to the recession. Don't worry, taxes will be going up in a few weeks to make up for all this lost tax revenue.
LOL at "faulty management extra incentive to stick around and 'manage the bankruptcy'...."
You still aren't getting it, the judges decision is SOP in bankruptcy law.
stahrgazer wrote:Finally, because their pension plan is now gone, those who counted on it for income in their later years will be relying more heavily on social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, housing aid, and frequently seniors also get to apply for assistance with paying utilities (electric, water, gas, trash pickup) and who pays for that? We do.
Lemme guess, you would have supported a government bailout of Hostess instead? Again, here you are ignoring the shareholders and focusing only on the workers. Yeah, their situation sucks, but the shareholders with investments in Hostess are relying on having that money for their retirement as well.
That's what you don't get, the judge in a bankruptcy has to protect the legal parties. The creditors. Secured and unsecured, in that order.
Pensions are a benefit, not a secured debt. Don't you get that?
It's not like Hostess can just print money like government can to pay federal pensions.
stahrgazer wrote:Not quite.
First will come the judge-approved management bonuses. Then will come the lawyers. That will probably wipe out any remaining assets that aren't sold with the brand.
What part of "taking a haircut" don't you understand? Stop just repeating what I said and come up with an actual point or just say "I agree".
Looking at your ignorance of the process, is there any wonder lawyers and executives with experience in liquidation are needed? God forbid you were in charge of the liquidation, you'd be a disaster.
Hostess is a corpse, and like all corpses there is a picking order to the animals that feast on it. You don't have the wisdom nor the knowledge to reorder that picking order.
It would have been much worse for the long run if the government had stepped in and did for Hostess what it did for the auto industry.
Can you figure out why that would have been worse? If you can do that then you'll have answered your question (and illustrated my point) on why it's done like this.
It's for the best that it goes down like this. The sooner this dead company is liquidated the sooner someone new can step in and take over the niche. The former workers can then work for this new party, who hopefully will be better managed (and at the same time get off unemployment and all that other stuff your upset that "we"have to pay for).
The things you seemed worried about are short term, there is a bigger picture here that you can't seem to share because you are an ideologue. The class warfare BS is just noise and not at all close to be correct.