Do you agree with it? If so, why? If not, why not?
Printable View
Do you agree with it? If so, why? If not, why not?
I agree, reluctantly. There are so many jobs at stake, the cost if they fail would be enormous. Everyone would pay a price, except for multimillionaires who don't work anyways.
In Canada, if the big three fail, estimates run in the neighborhood of 800,000 jobs lost, direct and indirect, after 5 years. That's a huge number, for Canada.
I agree. What pisses me off is that Republican from one of those southern states bragging about the foreign car makers in his state and how they don't have any problems. What he doesn't say is how his broke ass state practically subsidizes these companies, giving facilities and land over for nothing. HE also doesn't realize that these companies have no retired people on the pay roll. They haven't had to make pay these costs. Well they will cross that bridge themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
What really pisses me off is that they bail out banks that just went out and bought other banks with no accountability. Exacerbating the problem.
The problem with this country is that it is socialism for some, and capitalism for the rest.
Hundreds of thousand of job for $15 billion? It's obviously worth it, but why are the authorities reluctant? Actually, it's not that easy. The companies are going bankrupt primarily due to their inefficiency and uncompetitiveness. If they can't address the inefficiency issue, just bailing them out will be like treating a sick patient with lots of vitamins and energy drinks without addressing the sickness itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacfan
They are just uncompetitive because they have taken care of the workers they have had in the past. The foreign car manufacturers have been subsidized through research and development, and not paid for human rights violations, and pollution they have contributed for.
That's pretty much how I feel. I'd love to say that I am against it based purely on principle, but with so many jobs/lives at stake it's impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
But WHY are they uncompetitive? There's PLENTY more to this....Quote:
Originally Posted by pacfan
But I'm the mediator. you guys discuss this. :cool:
I am against the bail out because I figure the government shouldn't control who has a good business and who doesn't. Also the UAW has a sweetheart of a deal and that deal is making the cars more expensive and hard for the big 3 to make a profit ALSO the big 3 went through a stretch from about 1970 to the mid-later 1990's where they made absolute crap cars.
The big 3 make very good cars now but they are still spread too thin you need Ford, Chevy, and GMC to make good cheap cars and trucks for your average working man but Saturn?!?!?! Do we really need them? The same goes for the luxury cars all we NEED is Caddilac and maybe Buick.
The big 3 just haven't run a smart business and I doubt the government getting involved and hamstringing what type of cars they can make is going to help things out......Chapter 11 would have been the best option.
Is this Fox news's report?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
We are in a world of shite but I agree with the automotive bailout.That extends faaaar beyond the immediacy of the production lines and the job loss and enormous economic hit will be felt internationally,not just domestically.Manufacturers can do alot by dedicating more to a solid competative product that can compete with foreign autos consistently.
Besides..........my shites still under factory warranty :-X:-X.Need to make sure that its honored ;D
Too right ,the quick prop ups will snap and others will be needed again and again until the greed that caused this problem to happen in the stock markets is slowed; but look there is good money to be made there right now as some of the blue chips regain their hold,so its off on the old cycle again.Quote:
Originally Posted by pacfan
Greed eventually breeds panic, cant see anyway out myself.
Hey I didn't blame just 1 group, I thought I was pretty fair in my view. Please explain what is wrong with my view.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozeboxer
I am against bailouts to begin with, but if you bailout fucking banks and maggot insurance companies, you might as well bailout the people that actually worked for their money. Fuck all banks and insurance companies.
I seriously think we need to kill all top level bankers. Fuck them, they built this time bomb, they detonated it, they profited from it all the way through. Fuck em......Kill em, then fuck em.
In away I'm for it and in away I"m not.
The reason I'm for it is because 1 in 10 jobs in the US have something to do with the Auto industry, it could be sales, manufacturering, parts, auto insurance and many more. If they don't get the bailout all those jobs are going to be lost and then this country is going to be in a world of shit, if it doesn't happed we are definitely headed for another great depression.
Now on the other hand I'm against it because if all three go bankrupt, what this does is it will void all the contracts that these companies have with the Unions, and then both sides can come up with different contracts that fit both sides. Some of these Union guys are getting paid 85 to 100 dollars an hour compared to Toyota and Honda which there guys are doing the same exact job and getting paid much less somewhere in the range of 35 to 55 an hour.
I also agree with Lyle in the fact that we don't need our government getting involved and telling the big three what kind of vehicles are going to be made.
So in away I'm torn between the both views. I don't want to see our country go to shit but then again it might just be the best thing for the top three. I really don't know.
Lyle, nobody is going to buy a car from a company that has declared bankruptcy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
And well before the current crisis the Big 3 have been making excellent cars that are every bit as good in quality as their Japanese counterparts. The truer problem comes from them already being in manageable difficulties and then the economic crunch that had nothing to do with them that affected everyone.
It's not a bailout so much as a floater loan for them to get by until this mess ends. I don't think they're being totally honest and they can't be because they don't know how long it'll be, but it's not really different than any individual who gets a floater loan and eventually pays it back with interest. Considering the long track record the Big 3 have in this country with pretty much driving the American economy I don't think it's out of line to ask for a loan to be paid back with interest.
I started this so I may as well offer my take....in 100 words or less...this is incredibly complex....
the big three built shit, were uncompetitive, inefficient, and failed to address the current macroeconomic factors and trends driving the marketplace. They built shit gas guzzlers when the japs were producing things smaller and better. But to their credit, they also fought hard to establish a standard of living that we've all come to enjoy.
On the other hand, it's the shareholders and Wall st analysts demanding annual returns forcing them to make cuts that will boost eps. it's a short term fix, and adds nothing to organic growth.
on the third hand, the west has freely and openly engaged in RTAs with countries who are not at the same level of economic development. They've also sat back and allowed domestic firms to offshore contracts to these countries, thereby eliminating domestic work and shifting it to countries that pay no attention to basic human rights, CSR, sustainability, etc.
No party is beyond reproach here. That's why I agree with the bailout--b/c the gov't contributed to this mess. But I don't think they should be state run. But they should have a damn sound business plan in place....
Our current model of free trade goes against everything David Ricardo intended gains from trade and comparative advantage to mean.
Wadeb, did you also know that if the big 3 go bankrupt that surveys have revealed that people won't buy cars from them? And also, the big 3 won't have to honor any retirement benefits and that the gov't would have to come in and do it? It is to your benefit that the auto loans happen because at least there's a good chance you could be putting your money to work for you as opposed to it just being tossed out the window.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wadeb_21
#1 GM needs to restructure their business model...they have too many models which sell to virtually the same demographicQuote:
Originally Posted by Killface
#2 The retirement benefits will be paid for by the taxpayer BUT that's a smaller tab to run up than just throwing money at the car companies.
Lyle that's called cannibalization. :)
Plus GM products tend to be ugly. Plain and simple. Old men with no creativity design them.
Lets see,Detroit puts out nothing but giant turd burgers
Theres a gas crunch
People start wanting more fuel efficient cars
Detroits profits plummet
They go to Washington for a bailout
Im having a case of Deja Vu here
Detroit puts out good cars but it's too little too late for them. They need to cut back on the models and styles of cars that they make.
The new Mustang and Camaro look better than anything from Europe for the same price. Cadillac still puts out great cars.
The problem with GM is they can't make a profit easily, they owe too much to their former (and current) workers. It's not a problem of quality anymore (it used to be) it's a problem of the cars costing too much along with GM not making much profit at all and therefore they aren't able to offer great deals and warrenties that other companies can.
GM was built on quality cars for cheap prices with cheap parts, and good service....it's going to take a while to right the ship but it can be done Harley Davidson did it.
The big three respond too slow to changing market conditions. e.g. the price of gas goes up up up starting in about 2005, and they take an absolute pounding in the SUV side of the business. Now gas is low, and in a recession, sales of big ticket items like cars are the first to fall. IMO this responsiveness needs to improve.
Also, consumers are not that reponsive. They switch to Japanese cars like Toyota for reliability and fuel economy, they find that Toyota makes decent cars, and guess what, lots of those customers don't come back to the big three, even when the big three do make improvements to be more competitive with Japanese makes.
In principle I tend to think the private sector should solve their own problems, but now the stakes are so high, I really don't think there's any advantage at all in letting the big three fail. :-\ There should be a better answer.
If GM responds too slowly adding in government bureaucrats isn't going to help.
No business is too big to fail, this might sting but it's been a long time coming and we need to take our medicine and that way we'll come back bigger, better, and stronger with new products and new ideas. But I suppose that's just too much to ask. Bakruptcy would be cheaper and have a better effect than government interference
Government assistance in the form of loan guarantees worked for Chrysler back in the day, I thought Lee Iaccoca did a great job in improving Chrysler's business model. In that case I think we can say that gov't assistance was a good thing. No reason why that sort of thing can't happen again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
You're right about beaurocracy though, that we don't need. But there should be a way of doing it right. Anyways, we shall see.
Youve never worked on a Horizon or a K-car,sorry thats only half a joke,my now wife owned one of each,and I hated repairing either one of them,they were freaking nightmares to work on.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMGovernment assistance in the form of loan guarantees worked for Chrysler back in the day, I thought Lee Iaccoca did a great job in improving Chrysler's business model. In that case I think we can say that gov't assistance was a good thing. No reason why that sort of thing can't happen again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
You're right about beaurocracy though, that we don't need. But there should be a way of doing it right. Anyways, we shall see.
Good ol' K-Car hahaha. In the mid to late 1970's for some reason the American car industry took a major turn for the worse....quality was crap, the cars were ugly and they just thought "We've got a monopoly, nothing will ever go wrong".....surprise
More or less what happened this time,when gas was $1.42 a gallon everybody wanted an SUV that wasnt even really an SUV like a Tahoe,when gas hit $4.00 a gallon suddenly they didnt seem as popular,and Detroit didnt have a plan b kicking around,Japan did. Just like in the 70'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Ok well if that's true then the consumer a big fact sucker, don't it? Fact is, the Kcar provided value for the money, and Chrysler came back quite nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Your mid to late 70s remark tells me the big three did not adapt well to changing market conditions (The Energy Crisis) it took them a while to get a handle on both quality and fuel effficency in the same car. Including Chrysler. Iaccoca ran the show from 78-92. (late '70s onwards) The kcar was Iaccoca's idea.
Actually the K-Car was absolute garbage,the transaxle on any of those Mopars sucked,the back end exhaust sytem tended to litterally explode in a shower of plastic,the whole car was crap warmed over,I dont know if Ioccoca would want that as his crowning achievmentQuote:
Originally Posted by CGMOk well if that's true then the consumer a big fact sucker, don't it? Fact is, the Kcar provided value for the money, and Chrysler came back quite nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Your mid to late 70s remark tells me the big three did not adapt well to changing market conditions (The Energy Crisis) it took them a while to get a handle on both quality and fuel effficency in the same car. Including Chrysler. Iaccoca ran the show from 78-92. (late '70s onwards) The kcar was Iaccoca's idea.
So CGM you're saying we're going to give a ton of money to the car companies so we can get more K Cars....wonderful
Hate to beak this to you CGM,Lyle and I are going to agree about K-cars,somebody should have opened fire on them as they rolled off the production line,saving many future car owners the desire to open fire on them later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
That's the problem with you people, to argue a case, you take someone's point and push it to an absurd extreme in attempt to make your own point. ;) ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
TM and Lyle, Say what you want about the Kcar, maybe they weren't perfect, but they sold very well for most of the 80s, and took Chrysler away from bankruptcy and into profitability. The Reliant K was Motor Trend's car of the year for 1981.