Chrysler bankrupt, record jobless, markets up?

Yesterday it was announced a 6.1% decline on GDP for the first quarter this year, today jobless claims hit 6.27 million, Chrysler will file for bankrupcy, the flu is spreading like bad news but the market is pushing forward.

If there is one thing about the stock market to be learned is that it is really hard to follow it without being continuously surprised... at least if you have the misconception that the stock market has anything to do with the economy.

Why Chrysler matters?

Why Chrysler matters?
Chrysler is only a shadow of its former self, but that doesn't mean its potential closing wouldn't have a large impact on the industry and overall economy. By Chris Isidore

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/02/news/companies/chrysler_outlook/index.htm?postversion=2009040217

"Due to the domino effect that would create, Chrysler estimates 2 million to 3 million jobs would be lost nationwide within three years, reducing household income by $150 billion a year, and cutting tax collections by an average of nearly $40 billion a year."

These are in fact very good points. However, it is only one side of the equation, only one thing considered. There are many other variables that are just as obvious and at least just as important on this analysis: How much will it cost to keep Chrysler in business? How much is Chrysler loosing every year? Who will fill the gap left behind by Chrysler? How many jobs this company will create, and how much will the household income and tax collections will go up?

Stocks up

Is the improvement in economic indicators happening because the crisis hit its peak already or just because people believe, or worse, hope, that is the case?

Why not blame capitalism for this mess?

Ref: Don't blame capitalism for this mess - A message to G-20 protesters: Free markets aren't the culprits. It's the way they've been manipulated.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/01/news/international/breaking_views.breakingviews/index.htm?postversion=2009040110

Knowing or not, mr. Dixon tries to answer a question by just repeating it. I took the liberty to do the same when choosing the title of this post.
His entire article is about re-stating the obvious, but he fails to address the real question: yes, we know that the rules have been changed in the middle of the game, but were there any options?

What would have happened if the rules of the "free market" hadn't been skewed?