Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?

1101113151680

Comments

  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    I aw an interview with Paul Krugman last night that has me leaning toward his view which is to do something to get them to February when the new administration can take the issue on. Doesn't think we can make intelligent long term choices before that. Given what's happening with the bank bailout bill he's right.

    He also qualified his support of a bailout. He said if this were 1999 and the economy is humming and unemployment at 4% he'd let them go bankrupt. Doing so now would only worsen the recession. He's got a point.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    I don't know why, but I have this gut feeling that we're going to see a "bankruptcy that's not a bankruptcy". I don't think anything is going to happen until Congress returns from a TWO MONTH VACATION. :surprise:

    But no matter who is President, they're simply not going let the automakers take down the economy. It's not that a bankruptcy filing by a company, even as big as GM, would be enough to take us down. But given the current emotional state of the economy, we don't need anythng more piled on top.

    Just a gut guess, but I'm thinking that any "bailout" package is going to void UAW contracts and force labor costs back into line. And if there's resistance to that, then the other option is a REAL bankruptcy filing which will get the automaker out from under those contracts.

    Now how would that play out for real? Imagine GM filing Chapt 11 so they can restructure. Suddenly their labor costs are eased. How long does it take for the other automakers to follow suit and try to find a way to cut their labor costs?

    I know that's a simplistic view that ignores parts suppliers and creditors and all that, but at the core of this, within the walls of the Castle of the Domestic Automaker, looms the labor cost dragon.

    Bubbles grow and burst all the time. The dot.com bubble, housing bubble, oil and gas prices... UAW wages have been moving in one direction for a loooong time.
  • gmctruckgmctruck Member Posts: 186
    Why should the government have to spend their time on fixing a problem that the US automakers created themselves? Why prop them up with taxpayer dollars when many other businesses and major retailers are also shrinking or going out of business and cutting jobs?

    Without a feasible business recovery plan, all the bailout money in the world will not save GM. Get all the pain out of the way now instead of waiting until later and causing another setback when everything is finally starting to recover. GM's problems started long before the financial crisis and bailing them out will only prolong the inevitable.
  • gmctruckgmctruck Member Posts: 186
    "I have this gut feeling that we're going to see a "bankruptcy that's not a bankruptcy".

    I doubt it. Private businesses file for bankruptcy and go out of business every day, so why should the automakers receive special treatment when they haven't done enough on their own to make things better?

    It is simply unfair for the government to step in and save automotive industry related jobs when workers in other industries are also losing their job by the thousands. Selective private business protection by the government is unfair and will eventually backfire.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    That's the thing, I don't think they're going to step in to "save jobs". Too many cars are being made for the number being purchased. Given the emotional state of the consumer at the moment, I don't think buying a new car is on the top of list for a lot of people, so new car sales will take some time to recover. The only option is to scale back production to match demand, so manufacturing jobs seem likely to be lost until that demand rebounds.

    I'm not sure how I feel about Waggoner's assertion that GM is ready to move forward and just needs this money to "tide it over". It bothers me that people seem to think we can avoid ALL pain or that the pain will be "fair".

    And the numbers that get thrown around bother me, as if $25 billion was some insignificant amount compared to the $700 billion financial package.

    Nobody ever puts those in perspective.

    The automakers want $25 billion? OK, let's break out the checkbook. According to the US Census Bureau population clock there are approximately 305,699,790 citizens in the US. Do we want to write a check for $81.78 for each of us to do this thing? Is it worth $327 to my family of four ONE time? Will that get the job done?

    But this seems like crack... if we "save" one private industry, where do we stop?
    The airline industry certainly is important to the business world, yet a fair number of airlines were allowed to go into bankruptcy protection and restructure themselves and are still flying today.

    I've said it before. I need assurances that this money isn't going down a perpetually hungry black hole. I need to hear what pain the automaker and the UAW is going to take in exchange for the taxpayer's pain. Right now I'm only hearing how this money will help them avoid pain.
  • graphicguygraphicguy Member Posts: 14,135
    sell.....Chrysler's buyout of AMC was typical of when one company takes over another. Yeah, some of the AMC guys were kept around for a little while.

    But, this was Lee Iaccocca's deal. Lee, and all the other execs with Chrysler at the time were running the show with both Chrysler and their new acquisition.....AMC.

    Matter of fact, most of the AMC/Renault team was blamed for much of the problem with AMC. It didn't take long for them to be jettisoned and for Chrysler's design and engineering teams to take over. They were responsible for something of a renaissance of the Jeep brand....overhauling and reengineering all the Jeep vehicles.

    The design/engineering portion of AMC/Renault (Eagle) didn't last very long in the marketplace. The most influential portion of that team had a hand in the development of the Eagle Premiere. But, even that car was thoroughly re-designed by Chrysler engineering (spawning the successful "cab-forward" design for the Dodge Intrepid and Chrysler 300M).
    2024 Kia EV6 GT-Line AWD Long Range
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    this morning that there will not be a vote on the bailout package today, as originally scheduled. They had a sound bite from some congressman who reiterated the view we have been hearing again and again that it is unlikely there will be anything passed before February. The Congress feels it is being rushed, and that this is not something they should be rushing.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • graphicguygraphicguy Member Posts: 14,135
    pf.....I'm with you. GIve me (all of us taxpayers) a reason to think that our "handout" is going to give rise to a better U.S. automotive industry.

    I want to hear from the "big 3" how they're planning to right their own ship....how they're going to use the money....and, how/when they plan to be solvent again...for now, and in the future.

    I'm not hearing anything like that now. All I'm hearing is "give us money".
    2024 Kia EV6 GT-Line AWD Long Range
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    I don't think it's too much to ask do you?

    There are questions that need to be asked and need to be answered. That's a big part of why were in the place we're at right now. Here's how I THOUGHT it went:

    So, you'd like to borrow some money for a (insert CAR, TRUCK, BOAT, HOUSE here)?

    Um yea...

    OK, let's take a look at your credit...

    Hmm... sorry, but since you can't afford this loan, we can't give it to you. Have a nice day.

    Silly me, thinking things worked like that. :P
  • sellaturcicasellaturcica Member Posts: 145
    The sad thing is the pain that is needed needs to come from the workers and the dealers. The symbolic points about the CEOs flying on jets is great, but their underlying business is flawed. It costs them too much to fire people, to close down factories and to shutter brands. They need to get rid of dealers. They can't do it because of the laws governing dealer franchises, and the UAW agreement. A much smaller Big 3 is what's needed, they need to have some help to get there. Offloading their pensions was a good step, but won't start helping them until 2010. I am not sure why they didn't go through the pain of trying to break the unions earlier in the 2000s- I am not sure about the laws, they may not have been able to.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    If they give GM money without a detailed plan to become solvent and PAY THE MONEY BACK, there will be a huge backlash.

    I am willing to bet $25B that their plan will not work.

    Begging the teacher to change an "F" to an "A" never worked for me. All of a sudden we can give money away to failed businesses??? :cry:

    Regards,
    OW
  • gmctruckgmctruck Member Posts: 186
    That is exactly why filing for bankruptcy is the best option, at least for GM. Bankruptcy will remove some of those burdens and allow GM time to restructure.

    Dealerships are already beginning to go under, so the stronger dealers will be the ones left standing when the smoke clears. Survival of the fittest has been happening for centuries and the automotive market is no different in that regard.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    They were trying to break the unions since 1981. I worked there from '93 to '04 and the breaking was on when I hired in.
    A smaller big 3 means a bigger honda, toyota, and 15 other imports. The resources to compete like develop future technology will mot be there, they will be in S. Korea and Japan. Only the big 3 hire college grads and college coops in significant numbers, even though they are but 3 of the 20 automakers now making cars in the US.

    The GM model was based on continual growth. The US gov't is run the same way. The theory is that population will grow, there will be more car buyers (taxpayers) in the future so you can start a program like a pension ($700B bailout) and finance it with future earnings from car sales to a larger population (future inciome tax from a larger population). Having foreigh car imports is then like deporting taxpayers faster than they are born. The plan starts to fall apart. High gas prices increases the demand for the foreign cars because the media brainwashes us into thinking the foreign car is the only good choice for economy. It certainly is not, but maybe most of us don't want to retain technology development in this country. We want to rely on Asia to provide it to us. When 1 in 10 loses their US auto industry related job and every street in the US has a foreclosure on it, the Japanese car that gets the same mileage as the Focus will be the silver lining?
  • mikefm58mikefm58 Member Posts: 2,882
    the Japanese car that gets the same mileage as the Focus will be the silver lining?

    Image.....Is everything. Why should I buy a Ford Focus when for the same money and a quantifiable (using Edmunds) difference in depriciation, I can buy a Honda Civic that retains much more of its original value?

    It's going to be painful, but it's long overdue.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Don't forget the Imperial. The 1950s-60s Imperials were truly fantastic automobiles.

    Don't forget to include the incredible looking 58 Buick Roadmaster and 58 Olds 98.

    Modern iteration by GM of these monstrosities was the recent Pontiac Aztek.

    Best case for not giving a loan to the Big 3 would be a picture show given to Congress of some of their grotesque designs vs the leaner and more purposeful Japanese and German cars in the same eras. Big 3 was beaten in design, engineering and reliability for last 25 years and did not take adequate mesures to catch up, let alone excel, until recently.
  • joel0622joel0622 Member Posts: 3,299
    What were the other 5 bestselling cars?

    F150
    Taurus
    Ranger
    Escort
    E150
    Explorer

    Mustang has always led its segment and is the #1 selling sports car.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    " I believe the only way for this bailout to work is for the government to dictate the terms. First, the government should force GM and Chrysler to merge."

    The above idea is liberal socialistic answer to a capitalistic system that includes both pleasure and pain. Pain is now being endured. Government stay out, NO bailouts and let the market process run its course. Bankruptcy is the only salve that will ease the pain of tax payers. That retired UAW's get a reduction in their undeserved benefits is part of the capitalistic pain. Get real, get tough, get on with it. :mad:

    PS. Hardball business is not a "feel good" activity. ;)
  • joel0622joel0622 Member Posts: 3,299
    The jist of what I got out of the original statement was that the Big 3 have never had a car that was the best in its segment. Meaning that we have never dominated sales in any one segment, I was just trying to point out that we have had and still do have segment leaders. To me what sells the best is the best.

    The Silverado does not hold a candle to the F150, but that is a whole other discussion for a whole other forum :D

    BTW if you all did not catch it, I don't favor a buy out. If I was positive Ford could survive GM going under I would loudly oppose it. I just don't know what the full ramifications would be.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Listening to a UAW presser right now and Gettlefinger is making the case that the bailout has to happen. Something needs to be done. Not ONE WORD about the concessions the UAW is obviously going to have to make, either voluntarily or under court order during a restructuring.

    You can tell all the sad stories you want about UAW retirees and how the changes in the auto industry are going to hurt people. I want to know what it is that makes a UAW worker so special that they rate feeling no pain.

    Not to beat an old horse (pun intended) but I imagine the buggy whip makers wanted to continue making as many buggy whips as they always had as well. The difference here is that the auto industry is NOT going away, just undergoing some changing market conditions and adjustments HAVE to be made.

    On CNBC they just called it "one of the most irritating press conferences" they've ever heard. And asked the question, Why doesn't the UAW accelerate the concession that are supposed to kick in in 2010?"

    And finally I hear someone ask... When are we going to find out what the changes in the Big Three and the way they operate are going to be?

    Gettlefinger didn't do anything to help make his case to the public today in my estimation
  • gmctruckgmctruck Member Posts: 186
    Well said pf......

    Until the big 3 and the UAW are willing to set aside their arrogance and stubbornness, there will be no viable solutions put on the table.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Reporting that some kind of deal has been reached and there's going to be an announcement at 6:30 this evening.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    The UAW definitely came across as arrogant and unwilling to bend today.
  • chikoochikoo Member Posts: 3,008
    simple reason.....and everybody in Washington can also see it

    link title
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Warning of economic disaster, Democrats and Republicans from auto industry states reached a deal Thursday on an alternative package that would temporarily divert money from a fuel-efficiency loan program to cover the Big Three's immediate costs. But it was unclear whether it could draw enough support to pass.

    Using money that's already been appropriated MIGHT get it to sneak by.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    Yeah, it looks like the compromise is what Bush wanted to do - divert the retooling money into the bailout. Of course come February we will then "owe" them another $25 billion.

    This is like when you r kid asks for $20 for gas and you only have 10 and give it to him and he says "That's OK . You can owe me."
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Then when the kid runs out of gas, he calls for you to rescue him again after he knows he went too far in the first place.

    Alcoholism isn't cured by giving the drunk a drink.

    Bailing anybody is being an enabler.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    I think if they don't put REAL strict limits on how the money is used, changes we need to see, etc., then we need to remind the politicos of one thing...

    The 2010 elections

    I think people are angry enough that this time it's not going to be an idle threat against Congress. Do the job WE want you to do or you'll be looking for a real job :mad:
  • jpfjpf Member Posts: 496
    So, let's get real tough. Let Ford, GM, and Chrysler fail. That's say 300,000 to 400,000 people unemployed. Now, throw in the 30% to 40% of the dealers that will go under, another say 100,000 unemployed people. Many of the parts suppliers who supply GM, Ford and Chrysler also supply Toyota's, Honda's, and Nissan's domestic production. These businesses can not survive if they lose their business to the Detroit 3. Thus, Toyota's, Honda's, and Nissan's plants will come to a standstill as well. How many more thousands of people will be thrown out of work? Can you say another Great Depression? Further, if you think we live in a true capitalistic society, dream on. Let's see, our agricultural sector is totally subsidized, likewise perks given to the defense industry, the bailout of banks, etc. The fact is we can fix the Detroit 3 by making it a Detroit 2 and forcing the rationalizing upon them that that they desparately need.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Prepare to witness, then, the awesome capacity of an unreformed Detroit to consume taxpayer billions with nothing to show for it.
  • jae5jae5 Member Posts: 1,206
    I gathered that as well listening / watching them the past two days. Gettlefinger flat-out stated that the concessions already made (to begin in 2010) were already in place and there was no need to make any more. Really blamed the management for this fiasco, who in turn blamed the financial crisis for their needing money.

    To me it seems the CEOs and Gettlefinger are shooting themselves in the foot with their actions, arrogance and 1950s thinking (with the possible exception of Mulally). With Wagoner's comments / thoughts about resignation, acting as though he's playing the Neo character from "The Matrix" in the way he dodges any questions about having a plan in place for long-term profitability, GM may be done. He looks like a deer in headlights to me. And I don't think they made an impression by coming in with prepared statements that were obviously written by someone in marketing and sales. I mean, it's all right to have crib notes of a speech you prepared, and glance down every now and again to remember the fine points, but to not be able to look your audience in the eyes because you're too busy looking down at your speech doesn't exude readiness and knowledge of the subject matter at hand. They weren't even passionate while making those speeches; I mean, the professor was more passionate and he kind of looked like death warmed-over!! And where were the suppliers? These guys should have had some of their core and smaller suppliers there, or at least letters from them.

    And with what's been happening with the TARP, AIG, getting fooled by Paulson, their own stupidity and all the other mistakes Congress made just giving the banks money, they need to posture and beat on somebody and unfortunately it's these people.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    The sad truth that many don't seem to understand is that the Detroit 3 will have a tough time doing a Chapter 11 because of their lack of cash flow versus the huge lawyer and accounting firm costs that will be entailed. That means a strong probability of Chapter 7 and all the ugly things that will come with that. Its not just unemployment and economic costs. If you look at history, it takes awhile for sudden lost capacity to be replaced. That likely means a several year period of vehicle shortages and much higher purchase prices due to the reduced competition brought on by the reduced supply and the startup and/or expansion costs of new or remaining producers and suppliers. In the short term the $25B in LOANS (not cash give aways) is probably the better way to go, but consolidation needs to take place over time. Besides, Uncle made a tidy profit off the the Chrysler loans in the 80's.

    As for the UAW, I'm not in a position to really know whether their primary cost issue is salary, benefits or excessive work rules and restrictions. However, if the government is hitting the auto workers, it seems to me that they should be doing the same thing to the Wall Street and other financial people and their $700B bailout. Detroit's loan is puny compared to what the banks and financial service companies are getting, and I haven't seen any indication that the finance world is changing their ways either!
  • gmctruckgmctruck Member Posts: 186
    We're not talking about shutting the big 3 down completely. Bankruptcy would allow them time to restructure their business and make the necessary changes.

    Mulally from Ford is OK, but Wagoner needs to go and then bring in someone with a viable business plan and the guts to make the necessary changes at GM to expedite it's recovery. It's long past time for Wagoner to retire.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Unfortunately, Chapter 7 often ends up in a rather fast fall and demise whether intended or not. I'm not sure that GM or Chrysler have the cash flow and time to wait out a thorough restructuring. And once bankruptcy hits, lawsuits start flying and the company has less time and resources to focus on restructuring. Also control is usually ceded to the courts. It really isn't all that easy to successfully navigate the bankruptcy game that is often filled with unexpected problems and complications. An awful lot of Chapter 11's don't make it through restructure. Politicians know this since most are lawyers, but its easy and expedient to flaunt bankruptcy as the "solution" to most people that aren't knowledgeable of the real process.
  • joel0622joel0622 Member Posts: 3,299
    I think it is pretty arogantof them to sit there and belittle the group on how they run there business. Whats the National Debt right now??????
  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    Take this quiz:

    1) Do you think the Big 3 have too much manufacturing capacity for a market on pace to sell 10-12 million vehicles per year?

    YES NO

    2) Do you think the Big 3 have a dealer network that is too large to support the sales of 5-6 million vehicles per year?

    YES NO

    If you answered either question with a "YES", then what do you propose should be done?

    If you answered both questions with a "NO", well, then, there isn't any chance that anything that is said, either here in this forum or in the media at large, is going to have any affect on your perspective.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    So, let's get real tough. Let Ford, GM, and Chrysler fail.

    They're all not going to fail at once, so your theories flawed right there. If GM declares BK, that does not change the number of cars that people are going to buy. Ford and Chrysler would benefit by having more sales, along with the others. People who buy GM would probably go to Ford and Chrysler - buying doemstic type cars, rather than the imports.

    If the suppliers make parts for Ford, GM, and Chrysler, well then their business will not change. The only thing that changes is that the supplier makes more of parts F and C and none of GM.

    The rest of your story, you've probably picked up from the people who would benefit from the $25B, and thus is so biased and phoney, trying to get the gullible public to believe this sort of economic nonsense.

    If McDonald's closes today, this does not put the meat suppliers out of business, decrease jobs, and cause a Depression in farmland. Burger King, Wendies and such are going to see more business, hire more, and buy the beef that otherwise McD's would have.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    If you look at history, it takes awhile for sudden lost capacity to be replaced. That likely means a several year period of vehicle shortages and much higher purchase prices due to the reduced competition brought on by the reduced supply and the startup and/or expansion costs of new or remaining producers and suppliers.

    Could you give some examples of that history? I don't see why if GM goes BK the bankruptcy courts couldn't sell off the assets quickly. The government can cut their own red-tape if they want. GM goes bankrupt and I'll be willing to bid on the Bowling Green plant tomorrow, and start the production lines up again on Mon. pumping out Corvettes.
    Also if you want to consider startup time and look at history, do some research on what a little motivation can do. The Russians moved tractor factories hundreds of miles during WWII with their lousy infrastructure, and had them up and running within days converting them to making T-34 tanks and cannons. It does not years or months to convert from making a GM mirror to making a Ford mirror especially since the tooling exists, and the suppliers are running at low capacity now.

    Detroit's loan is puny compared to what the banks and financial service companies are getting, and I haven't seen any indication that the finance world is changing their ways either!

    I'm only asking for $5M so why not throw that my way. ;) What's the difference right(?); we're already so far in debt as a nation. But seriously, are you ignoring the fact that Citi just layed off 52,000 more people in addition to 20,000 last month? Are you ignoring that some stock brokerage firms have closed? The $700B is not going to save many in the fianancial and insurance sectors.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    It took quite awhile after WWII to convert their equipment back to pure consumer. Production really didn't get rolling until the late forties. During wars capital isn't really an issue, so in Russia at that time there was essentially a blank check to get it done and whatever labor and equipment was needed was government provided quickly. Few will want the Detroit facilites because many are old and they are all UAW workforce. Ford and Chrysler already have too much capacity. Plants can't be moved around like jetliners. A lot of the Detroit workforce has also lost jobs over the past years whereas Wall St. was in a hiring boom until recently, and even with the job losses I'm not seeing pay cuts for those remaining other than bonuses. If GM goes under, the volume impact will pressure common vendors because overall demand will decrease. Trust me, Toyota and Honda don't want a sudden collapse of GM. GM failure will have an economic impact on lost jobs, govt pension guarantees, etc. What little is gained from a bankruptcy will quickly be divided between creditors, not reinvested. Its going to cost the taxpayers either way. You appear to assume that bankruptcy is inevitable and GM will not be able to pay back the loan. Chrysler was in awful shape in the eighties, but paid the loan back early giving Uncle a nice profit. Today, if GM gets over their short term liquidity, I think they are actually in better shape than Chrysler product wise. Please explain to me why Wall Street's AIG is more important than GM to the economy? Individually, this insurance company has already received far more cash infusion than all of Detroit is asking and it doesn't make anything.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Few will want the Detroit facilites because many are old and they are all UAW workforce.

    Many may be old, but as Dave just posted, who worked for GM they are very modernized with robotics. The workers are only UAW while working for one of the Big3. If GM sells me, or I buy at auction an auto factory, I can hire who I want.

    You appear to assume that bankruptcy is inevitable and GM will not be able to pay back the loan.

    Why won't anyone loan them the money then, such that they're begging to the government? Let's look at the opinion here - http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Lame-ducks-lurch-toward-a/story.aspx?guid=- - %7BB42C8F84%2D5FF8%2D4F25%2DA0E2%2D8964F117878E%7D

    "But the bailout doesn't even remotely solve the long-term issues facing Detroit. Taxpayers and investors can still rightfully wonder what these companies are going to look like when the money runs out. Will they have achieved in a few months the turnaround their executives claim they have been pushing through for the past two years? Anyone willing to bet on that outcome is probably more prayerful than realistic."

    GM failure will have an economic impact on lost jobs, govt pension guarantees, etc.

    The Wall Street Journal thinks many others will pickup the business lost by Detroit.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714059184542693.html?mod=mktw

    Please explain to me why Wall Street's AIG is more important than GM to the economy?

    I don't believe AIG should have been bailed out, and I feel the same way about the Big3. The government should not play favorites. There are too many lobbyists in DC to believe intervention in the economic market can be fair. Do you think it looks fair if Chrysler which is owned by Cerberus, who's CEO is former VP Dan Quayle gets billions of $'s? Maybe then Cerberus can funnel mucho $ back to Quayle's friends in DC to get elected? That is why typically the US government does not loan $ to businesses, and allows banks to.

    This argument that because A got $, then B should, and we should is what could break this country financially. :mad: We have to stop promoting this drunken-sailor routine. Because we have wasted $ in the past, is not an excuse to say let's wate some more. It needs to STOP.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    Image is shallow.

    The silver lining in a 11 year low in the S&P is a little less depreciation comes with the colonization?
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I certainly understand and respect your opinion. This is a very complicated issue and there are arguments and counter-arguments to both sides. The experts are just as divided as we bloggers are and you can easily find professional sources and quotes to both sides. If bankruptcy was an easy solution, then Delphi would have been an easy pre-packaged resolution. Instead it drags on, only existing because GM has propped it up. Bankruptcies almost always have unexpected problems and consequences. I think it boils down to whether you think GM is a lost cause. If you think it is over, they shouldn't get any money and the US should pay any short term economic consequences because it will be better off in the long run. If you think they can survive, then a loan that will make the taxpayers a profit down the road makes long term sense. Incidently, I don't currently own a Detroit vehicle and am not a union member. I just think GM can make it, so we should ride with it a bit, avoid any short term hits, and make a few taxpayer bucks out of it when it is resolved. If I were to throw a company out it would probably be Chrysler because I just don't see the product and quality down the road, even though Nardelli may be a better executive than Wagoner (GE people will probably say that, Home Depot will probably not!).. Of course, Congress is its usual cowardly self injecting politics and avoiding decisons (whichever side they may favor).
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Please explain to me why Wall Street's AIG is more important than GM to the economy?

    Because when large companies get themselves in hot water, they need to borrow money to get themselves out. AIG if it failed had the ability to bring down the entire banking system (because of its unique positioning with regard to the "toxic" mortgages), which would then mean that companies across the whole spectrum of industries would be unable to borrow to get out of hot water, causing a cascading effect into deep recession. AIG was essentially attached to the banks at the hip, and the banking industry (being the industry everyone depends on when things go wrong in the economy) couldn't be allowed to collapse.

    GM if it fails does NOT have the ability to bring down the banking system, just as no manufacturing concern does.

    NPR is announcing that the Congress has told the automakers "no for now", and asked them to return in December with a detailed turnaround plan. I wonder if Ford will be at that second meeting?

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Short term I hear what you are saying about AIG, but longer term I'm not so sure. There isn't going to be much for banks and insurance companies to support if we keep losing manufacturing. If China and India can make stuff, they soon will be able to engineer and finance all that stuff as well. Dubai is already starting to become a world financier. We've lost steel, electronics, textiles and Boeing is working toward us losing aircraft as they transplant more and more of it. I don't believe this argument that we can be strong as simply an intellectual and service economy, and I don't think stock investors are buying it right now either. Computers are going overseas, SAP has made strides into software and Linux is in effect international in basis, more and more software development and programming goes to India. As our standard of living goes down, foreigners will invest less and less here and buy more and more elsewhere. I'm afraid automotive is one our last industrial capabilities and if it dies I think our future just looks dimmer. Imports may fill the product bill over time, but they won't generate as many jobs as American manufacturing. Yes, China needs us today, but maybe not so much in 10 or 20 years. They will have learned American style management and will increasingly have other alternatives for finance and technology. These are big decisions and our kids futures rest in them. We'd better be right however we decide.

    Ford will have to be at those hearings because it can't let the others get a financial advantage over them. I think Mullaley is doing a decent job, but he had to make some big bets on products and consumers are fickle. Ford still has plenty of risk.
  • rangerover2rangerover2 Member Posts: 2
    I wonder if Ford will participate in the second round as well. I have read some of your posts that GM is in the best shape of the Big 3. I think Ford is more interested in these loans to keep GM from going under. If GM or Chrysler go under there is noone to pick up the excess capacity. Unlike what naive posters say. This capacity cannot be replaced overnite. A shock like this will cost the industry dearly. Noone can afford to prop up bankrupt suppliers and this could bring many automakers that operate in the U.S. to their knees. I think many underestimate the long lead times when it comes to automobile manufacturing. Yes, eventually the markets will right themselves but at what cost? It definately will be more than $50 billion. The last laugh wil be on the U.S. Taxpayer as usual.

    By not giving this bridge loan we as a country are playing with fire. These are not normal times and we need to take drastic measures as a country to sure up our industries or else we may look back on how we used to be a superpower. We have been losing the economic war for decades to countries that do not respect our free trade principals and have been using them to bring our country to it's knees. As a people we need to wake up and start leveling the playing field before it is too late. We also need to stop chasing the lowest price. American business cannot compete with Korean, Chinese, Indian labor rates nor do we want to.

    We need to stop being cheap and suport our own. If the playing field were level these countries would not be able to dump on our markets with their child labor and inhuman working conditions and their manipulated currencies to keep their prices low. This survival of the fittest crap is pie in the sky idealism. Toyota is the fittest because they have been the beneficiary of corporate welfare by their govervenment and have a home market that is protected from imports. Toyota is an awesome company but Ford kicks their [non-permissible content removed] in most countries where they compete on a level playing field like Europe.

    Ford is in the best shape. There quality is improving and they are launching a lot of cars over the next 2 years. There spending on cars is going to be up to 2/3 of there product spending come 2010. They have also spent the last several years making difficult operational adjustments that have been costly but necessary. GM has not done this to the same extent as Ford. Let's not forget that Ford was gaining moment with a Q1 profit for 2008 that was derailed by gas prices and now the credit crisis.

    It blows my mind that anyone would expect the big 3 to present a business plan. They are constantly facing off the wall conditions that noone can anticipate and then critics drag them through the mud. Did anyone see $140 gas? Did anyone see a credit crisis? How can anyone make a viable business plan with external conditions like this.

    The Big 3 have problems but they did not get into this state by themselves. The U.S. government with their Free Trade policies and inept healthcare policies does not help. Anyone can setup shop with no import penalities, no legacy costs and Government sponsorship (Japanes & U.S. State governments looking for an import plant).

    The American people also need to accept some blame. We are very fickle and we talk out of both sides of our mouth depending on what is most beneficial to us right now. We have short term memories and goals with no patience or appreciate for long term goals.

    I do believe in captialism and basic market principals. That it is why I cannot understand why Americans act like SUV/Trucks and large cars were forced on us. They chose these vehicles and voted with there dollars. If they did not value them the Big 3 would not have made them in such volumes if wedid not demand them.
    Now that the American people have changed there interests as easily as the wind blows they expect the Big 3 to just up and start making small cars.

    The only reason Europe and Japan have an advantage in average fuel economy is because that is what there governments and people demanded. Americans were drunk on cheap gas and the need to keep up with the joneses while the U.S. gov't was protecting big oil.

    We must support our own if we are to survive and allow our future generations to iive the American Dream. This is a great country with unbelievable talent and capabilites. There is no way the Big 3 cannot compete in the U.S. when they are successful in every other market around the world that is not protectionist like Japan and Korea. We owe it to the Big 3 and ourselves to stop the madness of destroying our industries because of unfairn policies that handicap U.S. manufacturing. We are putting our fellow Americans out of work. Soon it will be each one of us out on the street. Then who do we blame and ridicule? At least we can say we sure taught the Big 3 a lesson?
  • dodgendodgen Member Posts: 2
    Let's show the U.S. how much the real economy does depend on the Big 3. On all of your paper money write these words: "This $ made by the Big 3"

    As it circulates around the nation, every person who touches it will have proof in their hands how they are personally impacted by the US auto industry.

    Copy this message, and paste it into every forum and comment area of every auto discussion you can find.

    Canada, Germany and even Romania has said they are willing to help the US automakers. Where is OUR government????
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    I think it boils down to whether you think GM is a lost cause.

    GM is a lost cause in its present form. Half or third-sized, with new executive management -- that's a different story. The sooner we can get them to that point the better. Which is why there should be no bailout until Wagoner and his first line goes, and there is a plan to radically downsize, including eliminating all but 2 divisions. That may take BK.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Canada, Germany and even Romania has said they are willing to help the US automakers. Where is OUR government????

    Locked up in politics as usual. Bush, like him or not, seemed to offer a reasonable compromise in letting the Detroit 3 tap their currrent $25B in environmental and fuel efficiency subsidy to cover their current liquidity problems. Some in both parties agreed, but then the political machines got into gear. The Dems didn't want to go for it because they need to feed their left and it's push for environment, as well as their loathing of Bush. The Republicans didn't buy in because of their far right beliefs that Adam Smith still defines Capitalism. Each side wants to one up the other. Obama may truly be a centrist hoping to unite government, but he faces a steep uphill battle. Each party seems aligned with their political interests and special interest lobby money. The middle class only counts at election time, otherwise they don't provide the big cash payouts that lobbyists can. We need more politcal parties and some competition in politics. I'm not sure that either party stands for middle class America and its desires any more. Unfortunately, Washington may be more broken than Detroit!
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The first $25B was to be devoted to R&D, especially fuel efficient things that would appeal to the greens. Bush is just trying to stick it to the environmentalists, just like he'll try to stick it to them in the next two months when he'll start signing all his lame duck executive orders. I don't reasonable compromise entered his mind. :blush:
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    Just a gut guess, but I'm thinking that any "bailout" package is going to void UAW contracts and force labor costs back into line. And if there's resistance to that, then the other option is a REAL bankruptcy filing which will get the automaker out from under those contracts.

    That was the point of a prior post I made. If the bailout does occur it cannot just void the three legal contract that the UAW has in place. Unless the UAW agrees to reopen the negotiations the D3 are stuck with those contracts....unless they go BK.

    If I was Gettlefinger I wouldn't budge. I'd want part of that $25 Billion for myself and my members. Otherwise nyet.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    This paragraph is at the heart of your presentation and it's basically flawed so your conclusion is erroneous....

    The Big 3 have problems but they did not get into this state by themselves. The U.S. government with their Free Trade policies and inept healthcare policies does not help. Anyone can setup shop with no import penalities, no legacy costs and Government sponsorship (Japanes & U.S. State governments looking for an import plant).

    Absolutely, absolutely wrong. The detroiters got into the cost, health benefit, unbalanced product portfolion all by themselves. There are hundreds of thousands of other business that have been in existence since the 50's when the irrevocable slide began in Detroit. Many of these business like MS and Intel and Boeing and GE and others just got it right and didn't sell out to the union in order to keep the peace. Look at CAT.

    No the detoiters did it to themselves because they weren't willing to make tough decisons. Everyone else in the US was operating under the same system of rules and regs as the vehicles makers. It's just that the detroiters screwed themselves.
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.