Bailing out the auto industry where do you stand?

This is a no win situation no matter how you look at it. I would actually have rather put cash into GM than the bank bailout, because at least they actually produce something. But the fact of the matter is, the bank bailout isn't working, and neither will this most likely.

But what we need to realize is what we think doesn't really matter, I think the bank bailout proved that. Despite all the protest, congress still passed it. I have a nice form letter here from my senator telling me how he understood how we felt, and that his office got an overwhelming number of letters, calls and emails asking him to vote NO, but.. the letter basically says he knows better than us and "had" to vote for it despite our protests. That is not representation, it is tyranny.

 

Wait? I just woke up, am I getting a free car?

 

................................................................................................

Yeah, the auto industry has made some very bad deals for themselves, deals that are now driving them out of business. Is that my problem as a tax payer; to subsidize somebody elses bad bargain?

Where will you draw the line?

 

http://www.thedeal.com/corporatedealmaker/2008/11/general_motors_bailouts_and_th.php

http://www.thedeal.com/corporatedealmaker/2008/11/gm_to_acquire_bigger_stake_in.php

SAIC, Dongfeng said to buy GM, Chrysler assets

so we give them the capital to further entrench themselves in china so when china buys them out they can get a better price???

and that serves to protect the american economy how?

 

New York and California are coming to Washington hat-in-hand.
Proof positive that higher and higher taxes cannot trump fiscal mismanagement.

 

the bottom line in my mind is the quicker we just butt out and let nature take its course the quicker we can begin to rebuild a new america..

anything less is just prolonging the inevitable..

 

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90778/90858/90864/6536705.html

 

Exactly. GM and Ford are businesses. Were they passing their big profits from years ago to the tax payer? NO. I say, let them go under. When and if that happens there will be 2 new companies to take their place.

 

BURN BABY BURN

and that is all I have to say about that

 

I am no longer sure where I stand after reading some of the links. I do wish we could rescind the 700 billion dollar financial bailout. Especially AIG's. I think those folks are just taking us for a ride.

If it's truly a free market let it succeed or fail on it's own. It appears only certain firms are too big to allow to fail.

 

The Bank Bail out seeemed rushed.

Now Citibank will lay off 50,000 workers. Do Citibank employees have lobbyists in Washington?

Wells Fargo will purchase Wachovia Bank, more of "too big to fail". Why such a big merger?

Sounds lilke the money left in the bail out fund will be retained for the Obama Administration. Perhaps the balance is half of the original $700B.

 

Really? I think that the UAW screwed themselves pretty hardcore, $50 an hour when $70 a month could make rent in many parts of the country, to do one thing all day?

that fucked the companies they worked for, that fucked consumers, that fucked up a lot of stuff, and now, the UAW is blaming the government for not being protectionist, and the companies.

and, honestly? the companies have a lot of blame to absorb for producing goliath vehicles when they KNEW oil was going to run out.

if we're going to bail them out there need to be more conditions than the car companies will be willing to accept initially, this needs to be an incredibly bitter pill to swallow.

 

I used to work for Citibank. Terrible company who tried to rip me off and bully me.

I have this little bit to say that I posted in another post, but it's more appropriate here, so I'll copy and paste:

I think companies like GM or Chrysler have always made claims that they are innovative, inventive companies that are bringing the latest technologies and widgets to the marketplace to sell.

Corporations are geared to be highly consumer responsive, and for years we the public have been telling them we want fuel efficient cars that run on renewable energy. The oil prices jumped nearly 30% after the Gulf War. People and the EPA have been going to the car manufacturers with emissions data for decades and it took these companies years to even acknowledge there was even a problem. They denied everything about the pollution and externalized costs they were creating on the environment and made it seem like they were doing a service to the government by creating jobs, and nothing more.

And that's another issue, the UAW (or CAW here in Canada) is one of the largest and influential worker's union in both countries. I know they are the largest in Canada, so I assume they are just as powerful in the USA. They're also one of the most public and vocal unions around. Most of us would like to support the workers and allow them to keep their jobs, especially if they were making vehicles with renewable sources of energy.

It's difficult to target a particular company and say "it's your turn to fall" when effectively the workers are all organized under the same collective.

That's part of my reasoning why I believe they should not fail, but nor do I favour a bail out package either. A nationalized car manufacturing company makes sense in this type of situation. Make it a public company for a limited time. That way people can buy cars and their money goes to pay for someone's social security or health care. Or make it a partially-public company where the divide is half and half government owned and private company owned. Make the government have a little more involvement in the management of the company instead of just investments in its stocks.

Instead of letting the investment bankers dictate what hunk of tin they can sell to us for the highest price, I think it's high time the government steps in and manages the unregulated and failing industry with the public's interest and tax dollars at stake, not the profit margin line and exponential growth rate based on immediate consumption that the auto is so readily gambling on.

 

in america it'd end up with some former GM exec running the show who was buddies with the administration in charge at the time it happened, who would strengthen GM and weaken the competition (or the other way around) and his stock options would explode.

 

Why would you blame the workers and not the management? Common sense.

Because cars are a product with relatively low labour costs, UAW has been able to get constant increases in pay. Even when the industry hasn't been doing well. Now, executive compensation is -- like at all big companies -- also part of the problem. When even fuck ups get million dollar salaries and bonuses, that's an issue. Also, it likes to move jobs overseas.

Just handing them $25 billion won't do anything, and I see no reason to do that.

They manufactured what was selling, which was SUVs. That's what the market wanted, that's what they produced. Despite rising fuel costs, living standards, inflation and despite all the people out there who hated SUVs and everything they stood for. It's their own fault for not anticipating a market where SUVs wouldn't sell forever. Not the people who were trying to make a decent wage.

Everyone knows that short term profits almost always outweigh long term development. I can't see why we should bail them out if we have no say in how they manage their business. It's just bad economics. Bad investments.

And if they fail, with them go parts jobs, steel jobs, rubber and tire jobs, all the way down the line. Car companies are on top of a very extensive food chain. It's a good time to nationalize a company. The industry needs to have restructuring to develop a sustainable car.

People want to drive green cars supplied by renewable sources of energy. That is what people have been wanting to buy for a long time now.

Government monetary incentives are how things traditionally have been done, but instead of dangling a carrot in front of them to restructure their production lines, why not take them over or share a leading role? I know it's unpopular in America. But just think about it.

Care belong to the people, to the public, to everyone. It's a revolutionary idea, I know. But sometimes you have to get behind radical ideas if they're going to work to provoke the right kind of change and it just might take the spotlight in the midst of the green revolution that we're in today.

 

I've never heard of a place that is $70 a month for rent. Are you talking about subsidized shelters?

 

in the 1960's, UAW workers were being paid $50 an hour, and rent in some places was around $70 a month, in many parts of the country, yes, that's bottom of the row rent (single bedroom apartment, before studios were popular) but, if you compare that to a modern $600 in many areas for the same thing.

imagine if you were being paid 428 an hour, and change to rivet the same panel, all day.

 

I'm sorry, what?

The 60's? Somebody likes to stretch the truth!

 

I spend entirely too much time looking at microfiche, I know reno is an expensive place to live in now, I know it hasn't always been this way, but I know that in the early sixties you could get a one bedroom apartment here for ~70 a month.it'd be small, but, point being, they existed.

regardless

at that time, $50 an hour is fucking ridiculous for the work they were doing.

 

dude,research it,auto workers average about 30 bucks a hour plus benefits..

thats current wages.. where do you get this 50 dollar a hour figure for the 60's from?

granted there benefit packages really jack their totals up but 50 dollars a hour in the 60's?? poppycock!!!!