If I were forced to own a car, it would probably be a Smart car, which is a toy masquerading as a car.

The question remains how fast track Chapter 11 "successes" like GM and Chrysler can return to profitability when their underlying supplier network continues to collapse.

In this instance perhaps consumers will adapt to buying vehicles with no seats? This might offset the estimated $1,500 per vehicle sticker increase that will be imposed by Obama's new fleet mileage standards. A zero sum offset like this might work. Especially since the political establishment regards falling average consumer incomes and net worth as desirable.

"Green shoots." "Green jobs". "Recovery". "Growth". "Four legs good two legs bad". "2+2 =5" "Big Brother Is Always Right."

In what sense? The New Chrysler's operating results are already falling below the greatly diminished projections. And serious questions are already appearing about the New Chrysler's staying power under such scenarios.

In the very narrow sense, yes, some will say "you were wrong". A pro forma process was rammed through. That's because the Obama cabal was able to blackmail the lower court judges by threatening to terminate bankruptcy financing, the US Government being the lender of only resort. Were any other lenders ever in such a position to dictate terms to a bankruptcy court?

The real litmus test for a successful Chapter 11 restructuring and exit remains the emergence of viable companies. The additional criterion here are companies weaned off the public teat. In this sense we've only gotten an off-Broadway performance of Stress Testing to date.

And if Chrysler, GM, Ford or all three reenter bankruptcy late this year or next for any reason were you still wrong?

The early Roosevelt Administration racked up a series of similar rapid fire public relations stunts it called "successes". Shortly before most of the NRA was found unconstititional.