What does that matter? The market share would have been picked up by competitors.

I wasn't talking about the jobs. I was asking what you think Chrysler's bondholders would reasonably hope to collect if Chrysler got no government help and went into chapter 7.

I apologize for not responding to your specific question in my previous post.

The people with money still create the businesses and the jobs. The government is not a profit vehicle,doesn't make a dime, it is an expense. We ,hate em,pissed at em,screwed by em, or not still need people willing to invest and what will be the motivation to do so now? I'd love to hear your answers.

I think it's time to re-evaluate the statement that investment creates jobs. I'm sure that there are some investments that do create jobs, but there are also investments that don't have anything to do with creating jobs, and some investments that seem to destroy jobs.

There was a time when any investment in a product or a service was almost guaranteed to create jobs. Manufacturing overseas wasn't a viable option in Henry Ford's day so he had to build his factories here and hire U.S. workers. The same was true for Thomas Edison, and for many other people who started businesses in this country.

Things are different today. You can pick up a telephone and direct-dial calls to many other countries all over the planet. Complex documents can be transmitted via internet at speeds that are practically instantaneous. Contemporary shipping is able to move products cheaply from wherever they are made to wherever they can be sold. Manufacturing in other countries isn't just practical, it's become the preferred way to do things.

The same has been happening to non-manufacturing jobs. Many companies are firing U.S. "white-collar" employees and sending their jobs to other countries where they can be done more cheaply.

We are told that this offshoring of jobs is good for business. It has certainly been good for investors. Building a company up from scratch is difficult, risky and time-consuming. An investor can get a much quicker return by taking an existing company and sending all their work offshore. This is exactly what has happened to my present employer: They were "taken private" by a group of venture capitalists and they've been sending work overseas as fast as they can ever since. Thousands of their U.S. employeess have lost their jobs because of this. If it were not for the present bad economy, those investors would now be about ready to put the "new, improved, more profitable" company back on the market for a tidy profit, and they'd have paid taxes on that profit at very favorable long-term capital gains rates. The investors walk away with billions, but the U.S loses thousands of jobs.

There are examples where investment does create jobs. There was a time when Wal-Mart didn't exist, but now I hear that they are the world's biggest employer. Unfortunately, they offer poor pay and benefits, so Wal-Mart employees are not able to make much contribution to the so-called "consumer driven" U.S. economy. Even worse, Wal-Mart does not create wealth. They don't do anything to improve the dismal U.S. trade deficit. In fact, they are one of the biggest contributors to the trade deficit because they import so much of their merchandise.

The single-minded focus on what is good for investors has turned the U.S. into a deadbeat. The last time we had a trade surplus was 1975. We've been spending more than we take in ever since. Investors have done quite well, and they've been given favorable tax rates that let them keep more of their profits. Wealth has become concentrated to the great advantage of the wealthy, but the country as a whole has gone down the tubes.

Think about this country as a business. Do you have any ideas for returning the country as a whole to profitability, or even to just get us to break-even?

How do you think this might have played out if the government had ignored Chrysler's problems and left them to fend for themselves? Specifically, do you think there would be buyer(s) for Chrysler's assets who would be willing to pay a total of more than the $2 billion that the government is offering?

For as long as I can remember, the financial industry has been telling us about all the bad things that would happen if they didn't get what they wanted. We spent quite a few years giving them pretty much everything they wanted, but then bad things happened anyway. Having seen the results of listening only to the financial side of the story, I think I'd like to see the other side(s) get consideration for a change.

Or am I missing something?

The missing piece is that CDS activity is completely unregulated, thanks to legislation that was specifically created to make this so. Buying a CDS wasn't like buying insurance, it was more like going to a bookie and placing a bet. You didn't even have to have a stake in the debt being "insured".

It sounds like all the bondholders have to do is find someone who is willing to pay more for Chrysler's assets. If they can't, then $2 billion is all the company is worth because that's the only money on the table. In the alternative, they might try for chapter 7 and see if they can get more for selling the pieces of a defunct auto maker.

What the unions get is a separate issue that is funded by the government. I realize that the bondholders would also like to get some of the government's money, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. The government doesn't have any obligation to help any of the parties in this mess. Perhaps the bondholders would do better if they could present a better case that helping them would help the country out of the mess it's in.