Meanwhile, Detroit is lobbying for a doubling of these prospective loans, to $50 billion over three years, arguing that the government has an obligation for imposing fuel-economy standards.
Doesn't Honda already meet the standards or something? The point being, they could have done this long ago in the normal course of product development, but took the lazy man's path to profits instead.
Let 'em go to bankruptcy court instead. Do people really think these enterprises will just disappear and strand a million working people in the Midwest? Of course not, it will just be United Airlines all over again, only hopefully with better results (as it looks like United might not make it DESPITE the reorganization).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Actually Honda and Toyota can apply for those loans. It is for upgrading any factory that is 20 years old or older. It applies only to US factories and supposedly to encourage them to build more economical cars. Toyota has said it was not interested. Not sure if Honda has responded.
Actually, it was Honda that said it was not interested. Toyota had officially stated it had no position as of late this week.
Toyota and Honda each have one eligible plant, I think I read. But I wonder if Toyota doesn't have the cash to revamp if it needs to without borrowing at 5%. They have enough money to build the brand new plant in Tupelo, after all.
Send 'em to the bankruptcy court! These companies need some sober oversight as to how they are spending their money.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I knew I read that one of the Japanese turned it down. You may be right about letting them go bankrupt. They may be able to shed the UAW and recover. If that is possible. Those that are looking for the old glory days of the Big 3 are just not being realistic. I like big trucks and SUVs as much as anyone. Yet the handwriting is on the wall. There is not enough fossil fuel to have 20 million soccer moms with a big SUV idling in front of the schools waiting to pick up the little darlings for many more years.
why would honda or toyota be interested?, They have cash on hand that they need to loan out. They probably can't get a 5% return on that cash sitting idle now. They can probably borrow from their own gov't at 2% anyway. The dems like it because it keeps higher paying jobs at home. The Dems hate it because they think it will allow an overly enriched lousy mgmt team to be more so. I like it because it will provide R&D jobs in our country. Can you imagine if for the next war, we have to wait for humvees to be sent in from factories in Japan?
dave8697. I can just hear John McCain or Bush talking about the need to save GM at least in order for their potential warmaking implements and supplies. Oh, that is a really good point that I hadn't yet considered. There are plenty of hardcore war freaks around that will no doubt push for manufacturing facilities of an automotive nature needing to stay around, not just Boeing and Lockheed, etc., for warplanes.
Those dopey Hummers just won't go away. Or will they? Hopefully?
As for the loans, I think they're gonna get the 25$B at least, if not the 50$B, so this discussion may just very well be a lot of hot air filling the tires.
LOL! Whether or not the domestics get the $50 billion gift, Hummer is gone, probably to an Indian company....
Of course AM General, who is not likely to receive any of this windfall, will go right on building the military HumVees here in the good ol' USA. We wouldn't want to let anything hamper the American war machine. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It is a fundamental business mistake to pump money into a business that has proven to be unprofitable and a money loser. It doesn't matter what caused the failure or who is responsible, you only invest in businesses that are profitable.
If Mopar, Ford, & GM fold due to their lack of business expertise, so be it. That formerly coddled union members lose their jobs, so be it.
My tax dollars are not there to reward management and union goof balls.
The market took a hit today, but remember when it was running around 2,000, a loss of 88 wasn't a worry so why should the hit today be so bad?
History tells us the business world has been declining for about two years and that correlates to which political party has been in control of Congress in the meantime?
When the Big 3 goes under, it will not be the end of the world.
If one has any experience in real business and not in a crony capitalist fiefdom in a backwards SW town, they would know Congress has little impact on the "business world" and that two years would not be enough time to create such an impact. If you want to see the true evildoers in the business world, look to the neocon supporting banks and brokerage firms, and the neocon federal reserve and similar treasury etc Then go seek some studies in money and finance.
But on the other hand, a bailout of the big 2.5, while not the soundest investment, couldn't be worse than bailing out a bunch of banks and their worthless overpaid irresponsible executive management.
Having had real business experience in a Conservative SW WA town, & having made employment possible for others by always meeting the payroll demands, armed with a degree in Business, not from the college on 45th, & 50 years in my field, it is irresponsible to believe Congress is not a major player in the drama of today''s economy. Those who adhere to the Keynesian theory of Economics are not in the laboratory of the business world, but pseudo intellectuals relying on the government for their existence if not the union as well.
As for the banking industry, when they fail, they fail. If you can't handle the doctrine of "Survival of the Fittest" or hard ball business, maybe you are a Socialist in the Peoples Republic of Puget Sound.
What did Congress do in the past 18 or so months to create the disaster of today? If you claim to have these credentials, you should have no problem explaining your point. You might want to know others also have a degree in business...sometimes not only one degree...and have every right to be skeptical due to seeing the poor way podunk towns are able to manage themselves.
I will guess insurance industry or maybe property development...
fintail: If one has any experience in real business and not in a crony capitalist fiefdom in a backwards SW town, they would know Congress has little impact on the "business world" and that two years would not be enough time to create such an impact.
Rules and regulations create a huge impact on businesses. The current Congress hasn't been able to do much of anything because every impartial political observer agrees that the leadership has been ineffective, and some of their actions have actually made things worse. Which might be why their approval rating is below President Bush's rating. (For example, their changes to the student loan program have made banks less willing to make these loans, so the availability of student loans has declined. These changes were supposed to help students by reducing the fees that could be charged by banks. Didn't work out that way.)
fintail: If you want to see the true evildoers in the business world, look to the neocon supporting banks and brokerage firms, and the neocon federal reserve and similar treasury etc Then go seek some studies in money and finance.
The roots of the present crisis stretch back to the 1990s, when groups such as ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining" against minorities. Among those pushing for a loosening of underwriting standards were former Clinton Administration official Deval Patrick, now governor of Massachusetts.
Eventually credit standards were loosened across the industry (for credit cards, car loans, etc.), and the Bush Administration joined in the act (the "ownership society"). This kept the economy going in the wake of the dotcom implosion and 9/11, but it would eventually lead to a credit and housing bubble, which is now bursting. Its roots began before the Bush Administration took power. He continued those policies, and in some cases made them worse, but these aren't "neocon" policies, unless ACORN, Deval Patrick and various liberal interest groups are now neocons.
fintail: But on the other hand, a bailout of the big 2.5, while not the soundest investment, couldn't be worse than bailing out a bunch of banks and their worthless overpaid irresponsible executive management.
There was no "bailout" as most people understand the term. What happened in the case of Bear Stearns is that the federal government assisted in the takeover of the financial institution and its remaining assets by another insitution. Shareholders still lost everything, and current management was shown the door.
This is exactly the role envisioned by the federal government when progressives agitated for the formation of the Federal Reserve Board in the early 1900s. They were concerned that, in the Panic of 1907, J.P. Morgan the MAN (not the institution) stepped forward with his own money to prevent a financial collapse. The Federal Reserve Board was designed to eliminate the reliance on one person for financial stability, and do exactly what it has done in the past few weeks.
Whether it will work or not is another matter.
For the equivalent to happen in the auto industry, the federal government would basically have to take the assets of GM, fire present management, strip the shareholders of everything, and give what is left to another automobile company to run. Given that Ford is only marginally healthier than GM, and the condition of Chrysler is a mystery (although sales are awful), exactly WHICH domestic company would run GM is a very big question. The government would probably be better off giving GM to Toyota to run, but that would cause a political uproar.
Student loan issues aren't influences on the financial meltdowns of recent days. Which specific rules passed by doddering Congress in the past 20 months have led to this chaos?
The "ownership" society is very much embraced by neocons, for corporate profit. Easy credit is the way to obtain this when real incomes are simply not keeping pace No side is free from guilt, but these problems are much deeper than the past 2 years, and have their deepest roots in the Bush regime.
The Fed used public funds for guarantees for Bear Stearns, right? That's enough of a bailout for me. Let's see if neocon Bernanke's planned rate cut can save the day. One trick pony.
People tend to forget that the Senate has been tied for the last two years, 49 to 49. The other two members are independents - makes for even more inertia (which may not be such a bad thing in some cases).
Meanwhile, do you favor a loan to the Detroit automakers or a Bear Stearns type of bailout or Chapter 11?
Sorry to get off subject, but I never heard the term "neocon" applied to the recent and current bailouts of financial institutions. Neocons alledgedly influenced the Bush Administration to invade Iraq, in the hopes of establishing a democracy that could serve as an example for other countries in the region. Can you name two or three "neocon evildoers." I won't rebut you, and will get back on topic, but as long as you brought this up I'd like to be enlightened.
"I will guess insurance industry or maybe property development..."
Why not both? There is a Third enterprise, but it's usually beyond the imagination of those whose pay is based solely on one government regular monthly check.
Chapter 11 is the only way for the automakers. Bear Stearns-style rescue is a tempting vision, but it's like someone said: who would run the companies after current management were ejected? I think Toyota would probably do a very good job, but would be a politically untenable candidate.
This "loan" to the automakers is a gift that will never be repaid. I have just learned that taxpayers like me will be on the hook for the rest of my working life to pay off the losses generated by the idiots at Lehman, and Fannie and Freddie, and maybe Morgan Stanley next, and AIG, and....
I don't need billions of dollars going down the toilet to the Detroit automakers as well.
If we have an honest-to-goodness depression as a result of all of this, maybe we will finally learn we need to better regulate markets that are totally dominated by such a few companies. And to let the badly run ones fail. I lump at least Chrysler and Ford in that category, and mostly GM too.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
A third enterprise...hmmm....got it...slumlord. Seems in those SW WA towns a few families own 90% of the substandard rental housing and milk it for all it is worth. The podunk inheritance elite.
I will wager my life welfare rates are far higher in your zip code than mine
Maybe a depression as has been mentioned will teach some people a lesson...of course, one can claim it didn't do so in the 30s.
When the Big 3 goes under, it will not be the end of the world.
It'll be the end of my world! It doesn't matter how rich or successful I become if I can no longer purchase a new Cadillac or Buick! I'd sooner see the world burnt to cinders and the ashes flung into the void than live in a world without my beloved General Motors!
"I'd sooner see the world burnt to cinders and the ashes flung into the void than live in a world without my beloved General Motors!"
Hyperbole aside, you don't have to worry. GM will always be GM. They'll continue to run factories and build cars. They may have to kiss the UAW goodbye, and start paying their executives the way Japanese car companies pay them -- a few hundred thousand per year, not several million.
Oh, and they may have to build cars that reflect new trends in the consumer market, not just churn out the same thing decade after decade and tell themselves, "This is what buyers wanted 15 years ago, so this is what they want now!"
But no matter what economic circumstances befall the auto industry, factories and design facilities have inherent value, and they won't be abandoned just because management spent the past 40 years driving the company into the ground. And people will always want Corvettes for speed, Caddies for status, and Buicks for comfort at a bargain price.
Well, let's hope that GM survives, but even if the company as we know it, and its management doesn't, I think that the Chevrolet, Buick and Cadillac brands will. Even as they struggle and remain unprofitable in North America, these brands seem to be gaining traction in other parts of the world The question is whether you'll like a Chinese designed and built Buick, as an example, enough to buy one.
fintail: Student loan issues aren't influences on the financial meltdowns of recent days. Which specific rules passed by doddering Congress in the past 20 months have led to this chaos?
Congress reduced the fees that banks can charge for student loans, which has made the entire business less desirable for banks. This, in turn, has led to difficulty in getting student loans, which is part of the overall credit crunch. If you wish, I can put you into contact with someone from the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) to better explain how this has worked.
fintail: The "ownership" society is very much embraced by neocons, for corporate profit.
The ownership society has been embraced across the political spectrum, and it was a perfect case of good intentions gone haywire.
fintail: Easy credit is the way to obtain this when real incomes are simply not keeping pace.
Or, you have price cuts. Only problem is that neither side wants to tell home owners the truth - that housing values have been inflated for the past 5-7 years, and the correction means that a slide in prices is inevitable and necessary. Policies to prop up home values are a waste of time and money.
Focusing on the auto industry, neither side wants to tell the auto industry that price cuts are inevitable and necessary, as that would mean telling management and UAW that the fat has to go (goodbye, Jobs Bank) and that salaries for management and many workers also need to be reduced, starting with top management.
Of course, it also means telling people that instead of a BMW 3-Series, a Honda Accord or Ford Fusion is the car that they can really afford, and that commuting to work in a Silverado or 4Runner is just not financially viable anymore.
fintail: No side is free from guilt, but these problems are much deeper than the past 2 years, and have their deepest roots in the Bush regime.
These problems have been brewing for well over a decade, and they have their roots in policies adopted in the 1990s. This didn't start two years ago (note that housing prices have been accelerating for long before that), nor does it have its deepest roots in the Bush regime, unless Deval Patrick, ACORN, former President Bill Clinton and a few others who have either advocated policies or helped pass specific legislation are now members of the Bush regime.
fintail: The Fed used public funds for guarantees for Bear Stearns, right? That's enough of a bailout for me. Let's see if neocon Bernanke's planned rate cut can save the day. One trick pony.
The Federal Reserve Board is a government entity; where else was it supposed to get the money?
You initially suggested that, a. this action was designed to enrich the shareholders and management of Bear Stearns, and b. this was somehow a "neocon" action.
The shareholders of Bear Stearns lost their equity and management was told to hit the streets. And the federal government has been empowered to take such an action long before the George W. Bush took office.
This all affects the auto industry in two ways. One, it makes risky consumers much less able to get credit for new vehicles (which, in all honesty, they should never have been buying anyway), and two, it makes even credit-worthy customers much less likely to pull the trigger for a new vehicle. Look for sales to be depressed through at least part of next year.
as long as the credit market is tight as it is for a prolong period of time, it is inevitable gm and ford will have to go under or will be bought. I think gm and ford will seperate their NA operations with the rest of their worldwide group and put it on the block. But investors who looked at how cerberus is dealing with chrysler will think twice about taking over an auto manufacturer no matter how good the deal is. If a buyout does happen it will definitely be with a group that consist of another auto manufacturer. Is renault done digesting nissan yet? Me thinks if the fed cuts the rate again and further devalue the dollar, ghosn might pull the trigger.
in hindsight, gm and ford are a decade too late to do platform sharing with their euro divisions.
" can put you into contact with someone from the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) to better explain how this has worked. "
I never questioned the impact to student loans, I questioned the impact of the ease of student loans on the overall economy. It's a pretty small component.
I've also pretty much never seen the left embrace home ownership rates as some kind of sign of a just society, as the right loves to embrace. Looks like those numbers were inflated to fit the agenda of the past 8 years.
"These problems have been brewing for well over a decade, and they have their roots in policies adopted in the 1990s."
The explosion in easy mortgages and rampant speculation is something of this century. Unless actions in the mid 90s somehow took 6 years to come to fruition, while less than 2 years of a non-GOP-majority congress have created instant results. Funny how that works.
"You initially suggested that, a. this action was designed to enrich the shareholders and management of Bear Stearns"
Quote please. The Fed couldn't care less about 99% of shareholders. I doubt the management (especially executive) of these firms is held to any true accountability, where in reality the fortunes they stole over the past several years should evaporate.
"and b. this was somehow a "neocon" action."
Well, who is in control of the decisionmaking?
"And the federal government has been empowered to take such an action long before the George W. Bush took office."
Being empowered and taking specific action are not one in the same. The Federal Reserve in truth benefiting a few above all else will really come to light now.
Tight credit will be a good thing, maybe not so tight as simply realistic or responsible.
It'll be the end of my world! It doesn't matter how rich or successful I become if I can no longer purchase a new Cadillac or Buick!
I'm sure SAIC would be glad to sell you new ones. Failing that, there will be no shortage of 'like-new' estate sale Buicks and Caddies as their owners regularly shuffle off.
fintail: I've also pretty much never seen the left embrace home ownership rates as some kind of sign of a just society, as the right loves to embrace. Looks like those numbers were inflated to fit the agenda of the past 8 years.
I've met with representatives of ACORN, a far-left organization, and, while sitting acrosss from me, these representatives advocated home ownership for low-income individuals.
Habitat for Humanity, a housing organization designed to provide low-income individuals with their own homes, was founded by Jimmy Carter. I served on a committee of the local chapter for about two years, and the goal was to bring home ownership within the reach of qualified low-income families. Granted, they do it the right way - carefully screening applicants, requiring them to put '"sweat equity" into their homes by assisting with construction, and requiring to have either no debt, or very little debt, before signing up for the mortgage (which is either low-interest, or no-interest).
These are just two left-leaning organizations that have encouraged home ownership among low-income people.
Another example is below...
fintail: The explosion in easy mortgages and rampant speculation is something of this century. Unless actions in the mid 90s somehow took 6 years to come to fruition, while less than 2 years of a non-GOP-majority congress have created instant results. Funny how that works.
The effort really began when President Clinton began using the Community Redevelopment Act to require lenders to lower lending standards in "high-risk" areas. The goal was to encourage more home ownership in these areas. Given that most of these areas had a very high concentration of minorities within their borders, this was seen as a civil rights issue.
Wall Street, which will find a way to make money on anything, let greed take over, and soon began overleveraged in the secondary market for subprime mortgages, while banks and credit card companies began relaxing lending standards for EVERYONE.
Also note that it was Clinton appointee Franklin Delano Raines who, after taking the helm at Fannie Mae in 1999, took almost $100 million in personal compensation until he left under a cloud of charges relating to unethical behavior. He was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so that he and other senior officers could earn big bonuses.
His actions necessitated the recent government rescue of Fannie Mae.
The current mess was taking root before January 20, 2001. Unfortunately, Alan Greenspan let things go on for far too long, but blaming it all on the "neocons" isn't accurate.
And if he had tried to reverse any actions, he would have been loudly condemned by many of those who are now wailing about the market meltdown. Which is because quite a few were in on it themselves.
fintail: Quote please. The Fed couldn't care less about 99% of shareholders. I doubt the management (especially executive) of these firms is held to any true accountability, where in reality the fortunes they stole over the past several years should evaporate.
Here is exactly what you said in a prior post: But on the other hand, a bailout of the big 2.5, while not the soundest investment, couldn't be worse than bailing out a bunch of banks and their worthless overpaid irresponsible executive management.
Management wasn't bailed out; they lost their jobs.
fintail: Being empowered and taking specific action are not one in the same. The Federal Reserve in truth benefiting a few above all else will really come to light now.
The federal government's moves in regard to Bear Stearns are not "neocon" actions. These policy levers were in place long before George W. Bush was in office. He used them, but he didn't lobby Congress to pass them; and didn't come up with them on his own. One of the latter two would have to apply for this to be considered a "neocon" policy.
fintail: Tight credit will be a good thing, maybe not so tight as simply realistic or responsible.
Very true...only problem is that people don't want to hear that their house will not fetch the same price that it did in 2005 (although this is good for buyers), which is why the recent home bailout law was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Bush.
In the automobile industry, the domestics and some of the high-line foreign marques have come to depend on buyers using easy credit to purchase their vehicles. GM, in particular, has been financing "anyone with a pulse" to keep sales afloat.
If lending standards really do return to sanity, then more than a few people who were stretching to own that Mercedes C-Class and BMW 3-Series will be told to look at their Honda, Toyota or Ford dealer instead. Good for them (although they won't like it), but not necessarily good for BWM and Mercedes.
What percentage of housing is contained in habitat for humanity and other low income schemes? I don't see these as being the key factor in the slide today.
"but blaming it all on the "neocons" isn't accurate."
They've had nearly 8 years to right the ship, but they just continued to cash in.
"And if he had tried to reverse any actions, he would have been loudly condemned by many of those who are now wailing about the market meltdown. Which is because quite a few were in on it themselves. "
So because some don't like his decision, he shouldn't make it?
"Management wasn't bailed out; they lost their jobs."
Yet Cayne is still a very rich man, along with his cronies.
"One of the latter two would have to apply for this to be considered a "neocon" policy. "
Now we get some semantics. Supported (at all costs) by the neocons is equivalent enough for me. If it isn't for you, you're more than free to oppose it.
"people don't want to hear"
If that was less of an influence on decision makers in comparison to what is correct, we wouldn't be facing the hard times ahead. Things will get worse before they get better. The past decade has been all about what people want to hear, and look what it has wrought.
"but not necessarily good for BWM and Mercedes"
Luckily for them, those two are pretty well diversified in the global market. MB sales worldwide have been up this year, even with the general slowdown seen most everywhere. Subsidized leases couldn't last forever, just like interest only notes. I'd say the domestics have a lot more to worry about.
automotive industry bailout, steve. As far as ripoffs in the mortgage industry or any of the Federal financial units, or the banks, greed is the reason for this mess. Re-read this from grbeck:
Also note that it was Clinton appointee Franklin Delano Raines who, after taking the helm at Fannie Mae in 1999, took almost $100 million in personal compensation until he left under a cloud of charges relating to unethical behavior. He was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so that he and other senior officers could earn big bonuses.
His actions necessitated the recent government rescue of Fannie Mae.
The current mess was taking root before January 20, 2001. Unfortunately, Alan Greenspan let things go on for far too long, but blaming it all on the "neocons" isn't accurate.
It doesn't matter which party has "control" if they are determind to screw somebody over and become immorally rich, they'll use their power and influence to do just that.
I don't know about this automotive bailout. I think Cerberus is stuck with Chrysler and however they see fit to unite with a worldwide automaker of their choice to merge is their sweet choice. But that automaker has got to be close to falling for good and I don't see why Uncle Sam and the taxpayers should bail them out. Not as big, not as much influence on job losses.
Ford, OTOH, is teetering and in need of help and IMO making better vehicles that the public wants more at this time. Help for them makes more sense.
GM, with their strong foothold in China and South Korea, make more sense in helping out but might just make it from the Asian source outward. The UAW is only making their U.S. presence more tough to hold. Bigger and larger problem, GM, but a bigger potential for goodness if the cash really can help them. In other words, the best gamble in rolling the dice and helping one of these 3 seems to me to be GM. Just to kind of get things "moving" a little, a la Austin Powers.
fintail: What percentage of housing is contained in habitat for humanity and other low income schemes? I don't see these as being the key factor in the slide today.
You originally said that no left-wing groups have advocated ownership of homes for low-income individuals. This is not correct.
I never said that Habitat for Humanity was a major factor in the current housing bust. If you will re-read my post, you will see that I specifically praised them for their screeing processes. But the push to spread home ownership to lower income people was not just a Bush Administration initiative, and has, in fact, been supported my many groups and individuals on the left side of the political spectrum.
fintail: They've had nearly 8 years to right the ship, but they just continued to cash in.
As I've shown, the roots of this stretch beyond the Bush Administration, and both parties were quite interested in "cashing in."
If you doubt that, read about what Rep. Chris Dodd was doing, along with Clinton appointee Franklin Delano Raines, as well as now-Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. It's not just the Bush Administration with a problem here.
fintail: Yet Cayne is still a very rich man, along with his cronies.
Just like Franklin Delano Raines, no doubt. But I doubt that either one was poor before taking their latest job.
fintail: Now we get some semantics. Supported (at all costs) by the neocons is equivalent enough for me. If it isn't for you, you're more than free to oppose it.
That's not semantics - it's the proper way to gauge the history of various policies, and their roots. This approach is the correct one to take when looking at who is responsible for various policies.
fintail: If that was less of an influence on decision makers in comparison to what is correct, we wouldn't be facing the hard times ahead. Things will get worse before they get better. The past decade has been all about what people want to hear, and look what it has wrought.
Very true. Except that whenever anyone has suggested reforming entitlement programs - which any economist who didn't get his or her degree from a Cracker Jack box realizes is the big budget challenge in the coming years - it has been the Democrats who have suggested that this is tantamout to throwing grandpa on the street. Why? Because that is what the audience wanted to hear. So the suggestion that only the Bush Administration is telling people want to hear is inaccurate at best.
So far I have yet to see evidence that there is a real discussion about what government should do and can afford.
fintail: Luckily for them, those two are pretty well diversified in the global market.
So are GM and Ford. They are very successful outside the U.S.
have NO idea what the hell you are all talking about. The Left.... the Right... the neocons...tight credit...loose credit...overpaid...numbers inflated....What the hell is going on?????
I said the left haven't embraced home ownership stats, I didn't narrow it down by income group. Home ownership stats, as the last 8 years prove, are a hollow measure of health.
The Bush regime has had relatively total power for nearly the last decade. If the neocons are so responsible, prudent, and honest as their propaganda states, why haven't they made any reforms to the policies of those crooked Dems? The responsibility was theirs, and they failed. They have guilt, and will dodge it.
"This approach is the correct one to take when looking at who is responsible for various policies. "
Yes, absolve the high ranking criminals of responsibility. That's correct per standard public sector procedure
"So the suggestion that only the Bush Administration is telling people want to hear is inaccurate at best. "
BS. The Bush regime has had plenty of time to do what is needed to be done no matter how some whine. And they have failed, because they are simply both corrupt and incapable of producing positive change. The Dems may cry at the thought of reforms, but the neocons are even more guilty, for they have power, yet create no progress....and yet they will escape criticism.
I think the PNGV from the 90s provides an important precedent here: the domestics got a whole bunch of money to develop fuel-efficient cars. That is what they say they are lacking now, and one of the big reasons they are suddenly feeling even more pressure on their necks since 1-1-08.
Yet they took all the money from the PNGV and ran. They abandoned all that work as soon as the money stopped coming from the government, and less than a decade later they are in a big mess because of it.
I have NO FAITH that these loans/gifts will have ANY long-term beneficial effect in making our domestic automakers viable. NONE.
It is 2008, 30 years since the effects of globalization began to be felt in this industry. Our domestics seem to be the only automakers that after all that time still claim they have trouble building and selling a small car profitably. They don't have the vision or the management structure to make it - their North American divisions are going to drag them into the abyss. No amount of money thrown at them by the Feds is going to change that.
I think GM can squeak by with its whiskers intact with the plan it currently has, as long as they continue to consolidate at maximum pace and as long as Chrysler and possibly Ford gets broken up/sold/whatever and loses gobs of market share in the next five years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
who out there really believes that either the Repub's or the Dem's really have the public's interest at heart, anyway. Where went the logic that the politico's are all about power and...you guessed it...their own financial situation.
If you believe the lies they tell you then I've got some oceanfront property here in my home state of Arizona I'd like to sell you.That's what motivates people like Ron Paul(at least in part)to attempt to fix the tax structure, pull the troops out of Iraq, etc., it's because he doesn't like the fiscal mess and hog-tying of people that is so evident in this country.
Name me a former President who was noble for the people and honest. Ike? JFK? Umm...not quite. Ike goes back too far for me to know much about, maybe he had the people's expressed interest at heart.
Like a former Boeing workmate always said..."It's a crock." If you're a young man like rockylee, maybe you have more confidence in this political system.
I will say this, I was helped immensely by one of Uncle Sam's Guv-Mint programs, The Trade Act, to get re-outfitted to enter the nationwide workforce again. After some of the upper-level dorks at The Boeing Company decided that it was more imprtant for Boeing to save a few million in 2002-2003 than to keep investing in one of their best assets, their people, the benefits of The Trade Act became evident to me. The program was started in 1974 by the Carter Adminstration and I partly owe my current improved situation to the availability of The Trade Act.
Wow...it was a mountain of paperwork, but it paid for my college tuition and books and linked the state of Washington to it to make weekly U.I.payments to me while I studied. So we could put bread, butter and pork and beans on the table. So I wouldn't just rifle all government programs, workers, dare I loop in Head Honcho's in to this sentence and keep a straight face at the same time?
I would loan Guv-Mint cash to GM and Ford, but not Chrysler. They're still piddling around with huge pick-em-up trucks and SUV's and for whatever reason can't seem to get their Hornet program launched, when they really need it launched and marketed. :confuse:
I get the sneaking suspicion that the Chinese(Chery Motors)played hardball a bit too much on their anticipated share of each Hornet sold and the program failed. Chrysler desperately needs a car like the Hornet to sell to worldwide markets right now.
But really...looking at the ability of Jag to guzzle money, and the awesome amount of innovation and competence in the Indian motor industry...I can't say I believe there will be a Jag in 20 years, other than maybe as a badge put on a special top of the line Nano transportation pod made for the enserfment commute of the brave new world.
to offer loans, grants, tax breaks ... to particular companies in an industry or to particualr industries.
All companies unless directly tied to the highest security need of the country should be allowed to rise and fail on their own. This is a normal course of companies in businesses.
Government should not play favorites. It should not choose whether to save, or which to save and which should wither - in the auto, steel, clothing, retail ... industries. Government should provide a level playing field, with certain rules - acting like officials in a sporting event. It should not make the rules such that the Patriots only have to go 90 yards for a TD, or say that teams in the AFC East can have 12 players on the field, because we think they are a weaker division.
Why do we have such a hard time applying fair rules to all? I think it is because we (or people in power) want "Fair+" when it benefits us/them in some way personally.
I think the point was that especially in the banking and mortgage industries, there are some companies that are "too big to fail", in the sense that if they do fail they will drag everything else straight into the toilet. Apparently that included Bear Stearns and Fannie and Freddie, but not Lehman Brothers.
IMO it MOST CERTAINLY doesn't include the domestic automakers.
I am in a rental today: a 2008 Ford Mustang with 28K miles. My six year old, 100K-mile Echo has more refinement and less rattles. If this is the best Ford can do in the year 2008, they ABSOLUTELY MUST NOT get bailout money from the government. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
about the new world order 2008 Ford Mustang. I would've guessed better fit and finish and not the rattling you're mentioning. I thought Ford's quality was improving more to the extent that they were getting honorable mentions for it from the automotive pundits. Not true? Say it isn't so. :shades:
Well I had heard the same thing! Of course, build quality is where they have been getting high marks lately, so rattles notwithstanding, the issues I have with the car have nothing to do with the good press Ford has been getting.
It is tacky and clanky, and nothing about it meets the standard I would expect from a $20K+ car. It is a decent engine linked to a bad automatic in what is otherwise a $2000 car. This thing has as much body roll in corners as my Matrix (which seats 2 more adults, costs less, has a much higher roof, and is not a dedicated sport model as Mustang is). :sick:
Anyway, enough about the Mustang, but I believe it exemplifies Ford in 2008, and a bailout will not save Ford in the long run.
And now I see the government has also bailed out AIG???!!! Geez, there won't be any money LEFT for the automaker bailout!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
No, nippon, I am not set on my belief that Ford and GM deserve a bailout at all. I just think that, if this thing takes Congress a while to figure out, and both McCain and Obama are for this thing, the Big Two and a Half are going to get Guv-Mint loans.
Hopefully they're not going to be grants! Yikes. :sick:
Why are the Japanese, Korean, or German automakers not even interested in these loans the big three are begging for? Isn't it apparent? I really like the new Edmunds article by The Mechanic, he goes in detail explaining how "Ford, Chrysler and General Motors are forever in catch-up mode."
About a year ago a car salesman told me that a Jaguar is just a Taurus with a cat on the hood. :surprise:
The financial mess has pushed the automaker loan issue to the back burner. I have tried to follow it anyway. It is somewhat confusing deal. $25 billion in loans have already been approved. They were included in an energy bill last year. The loans were to help offset costs associated with meeting the new CAFE standards. Congress just hasn't appropriated the funds yet. So, in essence the loans have already been approved, but the checks haven't been written yet. The loans are available to any auto manufacturer who wants them.
The current lobbying efforts by the domestic automakers have been seeking an additional $25 billion and a relaxation of requirements on how the loans are used. The loans already approved can only be used to retool or upgrade auto plants that are at least 20 years old. That eligibility requirement pretty much targets the loans to domestic automakers. I have not read anything that says the loans can be used to fund R&D activities. Anyone here know anything about that?
After $85 billion to AIG today, $25-50 billion starts to look like a bargain. I have a feeling the automakers will get what they are seeking.
Comments
Doesn't Honda already meet the standards or something? The point being, they could have done this long ago in the normal course of product development, but took the lazy man's path to profits instead.
Let 'em go to bankruptcy court instead. Do people really think these enterprises will just disappear and strand a million working people in the Midwest? Of course not, it will just be United Airlines all over again, only hopefully with better results (as it looks like United might not make it DESPITE the reorganization).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Toyota and Honda each have one eligible plant, I think I read. But I wonder if Toyota doesn't have the cash to revamp if it needs to without borrowing at 5%. They have enough money to build the brand new plant in Tupelo, after all.
Send 'em to the bankruptcy court! These companies need some sober oversight as to how they are spending their money.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Those dopey Hummers just won't go away. Or will they? Hopefully?
As for the loans, I think they're gonna get the 25$B at least, if not the 50$B, so this discussion may just very well be a lot of hot air filling the tires.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Of course AM General, who is not likely to receive any of this windfall, will go right on building the military HumVees here in the good ol' USA. We wouldn't want to let anything hamper the American war machine. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If Mopar, Ford, & GM fold due to their lack of business expertise, so be it. That formerly coddled union members lose their jobs, so be it.
My tax dollars are not there to reward management and union goof balls.
The market took a hit today, but remember when it was running around 2,000, a loss of 88 wasn't a worry so why should the hit today be so bad?
History tells us the business world has been declining for about two years and that correlates to which political party has been in control of Congress in the meantime?
When the Big 3 goes under, it will not be the end of the world.
But on the other hand, a bailout of the big 2.5, while not the soundest investment, couldn't be worse than bailing out a bunch of banks and their worthless overpaid irresponsible executive management.
As for the banking industry, when they fail, they fail. If you can't handle the doctrine of "Survival of the Fittest" or hard ball business, maybe you are a Socialist in the Peoples Republic of Puget Sound.
I will guess insurance industry or maybe property development...
Rules and regulations create a huge impact on businesses. The current Congress hasn't been able to do much of anything because every impartial political observer agrees that the leadership has been ineffective, and some of their actions have actually made things worse. Which might be why their approval rating is below President Bush's rating. (For example, their changes to the student loan program have made banks less willing to make these loans, so the availability of student loans has declined. These changes were supposed to help students by reducing the fees that could be charged by banks. Didn't work out that way.)
fintail: If you want to see the true evildoers in the business world, look to the neocon supporting banks and brokerage firms, and the neocon federal reserve and similar treasury etc Then go seek some studies in money and finance.
The roots of the present crisis stretch back to the 1990s, when groups such as ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining" against minorities. Among those pushing for a loosening of underwriting standards were former Clinton Administration official Deval Patrick, now governor of Massachusetts.
Eventually credit standards were loosened across the industry (for credit cards, car loans, etc.), and the Bush Administration joined in the act (the "ownership society"). This kept the economy going in the wake of the dotcom implosion and 9/11, but it would eventually lead to a credit and housing bubble, which is now bursting. Its roots began before the Bush Administration took power. He continued those policies, and in some cases made them worse, but these aren't "neocon" policies, unless ACORN, Deval Patrick and various liberal interest groups are now neocons.
fintail: But on the other hand, a bailout of the big 2.5, while not the soundest investment, couldn't be worse than bailing out a bunch of banks and their worthless overpaid irresponsible executive management.
There was no "bailout" as most people understand the term. What happened in the case of Bear Stearns is that the federal government assisted in the takeover of the financial institution and its remaining assets by another insitution. Shareholders still lost everything, and current management was shown the door.
This is exactly the role envisioned by the federal government when progressives agitated for the formation of the Federal Reserve Board in the early 1900s. They were concerned that, in the Panic of 1907, J.P. Morgan the MAN (not the institution) stepped forward with his own money to prevent a financial collapse. The Federal Reserve Board was designed to eliminate the reliance on one person for financial stability, and do exactly what it has done in the past few weeks.
Whether it will work or not is another matter.
For the equivalent to happen in the auto industry, the federal government would basically have to take the assets of GM, fire present management, strip the shareholders of everything, and give what is left to another automobile company to run. Given that Ford is only marginally healthier than GM, and the condition of Chrysler is a mystery (although sales are awful), exactly WHICH domestic company would run GM is a very big question. The government would probably be better off giving GM to Toyota to run, but that would cause a political uproar.
The "ownership" society is very much embraced by neocons, for corporate profit. Easy credit is the way to obtain this when real incomes are simply not keeping pace No side is free from guilt, but these problems are much deeper than the past 2 years, and have their deepest roots in the Bush regime.
The Fed used public funds for guarantees for Bear Stearns, right? That's enough of a bailout for me. Let's see if neocon Bernanke's planned rate cut can save the day. One trick pony.
Meanwhile, do you favor a loan to the Detroit automakers or a Bear Stearns type of bailout or Chapter 11?
Is Sirius XM next?
But to be general, a few names that come to mind can be Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kissinger, and Rummy, among others.
Why not both? There is a Third enterprise, but it's usually beyond the imagination of those whose pay is based solely on one government regular monthly check.
This "loan" to the automakers is a gift that will never be repaid. I have just learned that taxpayers like me will be on the hook for the rest of my working life to pay off the losses generated by the idiots at Lehman, and Fannie and Freddie, and maybe Morgan Stanley next, and AIG, and....
I don't need billions of dollars going down the toilet to the Detroit automakers as well.
If we have an honest-to-goodness depression as a result of all of this, maybe we will finally learn we need to better regulate markets that are totally dominated by such a few companies. And to let the badly run ones fail. I lump at least Chrysler and Ford in that category, and mostly GM too.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I will wager my life welfare rates are far higher in your zip code than mine
Maybe a depression as has been mentioned will teach some people a lesson...of course, one can claim it didn't do so in the 30s.
It'll be the end of my world! It doesn't matter how rich or successful I become if I can no longer purchase a new Cadillac or Buick! I'd sooner see the world burnt to cinders and the ashes flung into the void than live in a world without my beloved General Motors!
Hyperbole aside, you don't have to worry. GM will always be GM. They'll continue to run factories and build cars. They may have to kiss the UAW goodbye, and start paying their executives the way Japanese car companies pay them -- a few hundred thousand per year, not several million.
Oh, and they may have to build cars that reflect new trends in the consumer market, not just churn out the same thing decade after decade and tell themselves, "This is what buyers wanted 15 years ago, so this is what they want now!"
But no matter what economic circumstances befall the auto industry, factories and design facilities have inherent value, and they won't be abandoned just because management spent the past 40 years driving the company into the ground. And people will always want Corvettes for speed, Caddies for status, and Buicks for comfort at a bargain price.
Incidentally, I also want each of the Detroit 3 to survive, but not to the point where
"lemko!"
Congress reduced the fees that banks can charge for student loans, which has made the entire business less desirable for banks. This, in turn, has led to difficulty in getting student loans, which is part of the overall credit crunch. If you wish, I can put you into contact with someone from the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) to better explain how this has worked.
fintail: The "ownership" society is very much embraced by neocons, for corporate profit.
The ownership society has been embraced across the political spectrum, and it was a perfect case of good intentions gone haywire.
fintail: Easy credit is the way to obtain this when real incomes are simply not keeping pace.
Or, you have price cuts. Only problem is that neither side wants to tell home owners the truth - that housing values have been inflated for the past 5-7 years, and the correction means that a slide in prices is inevitable and necessary. Policies to prop up home values are a waste of time and money.
Focusing on the auto industry, neither side wants to tell the auto industry that price cuts are inevitable and necessary, as that would mean telling management and UAW that the fat has to go (goodbye, Jobs Bank) and that salaries for management and many workers also need to be reduced, starting with top management.
Of course, it also means telling people that instead of a BMW 3-Series, a Honda Accord or Ford Fusion is the car that they can really afford, and that commuting to work in a Silverado or 4Runner is just not financially viable anymore.
fintail: No side is free from guilt, but these problems are much deeper than the past 2 years, and have their deepest roots in the Bush regime.
These problems have been brewing for well over a decade, and they have their roots in policies adopted in the 1990s. This didn't start two years ago (note that housing prices have been accelerating for long before that), nor does it have its deepest roots in the Bush regime, unless Deval Patrick, ACORN, former President Bill Clinton and a few others who have either advocated policies or helped pass specific legislation are now members of the Bush regime.
fintail: The Fed used public funds for guarantees for Bear Stearns, right? That's enough of a bailout for me. Let's see if neocon Bernanke's planned rate cut can save the day. One trick pony.
The Federal Reserve Board is a government entity; where else was it supposed to get the money?
You initially suggested that, a. this action was designed to enrich the shareholders and management of Bear Stearns, and b. this was somehow a "neocon" action.
The shareholders of Bear Stearns lost their equity and management was told to hit the streets. And the federal government has been empowered to take such an action long before the George W. Bush took office.
This all affects the auto industry in two ways. One, it makes risky consumers much less able to get credit for new vehicles (which, in all honesty, they should never have been buying anyway), and two, it makes even credit-worthy customers much less likely to pull the trigger for a new vehicle. Look for sales to be depressed through at least part of next year.
in hindsight, gm and ford are a decade too late to do platform sharing with their euro divisions.
I never questioned the impact to student loans, I questioned the impact of the ease of student loans on the overall economy. It's a pretty small component.
I've also pretty much never seen the left embrace home ownership rates as some kind of sign of a just society, as the right loves to embrace. Looks like those numbers were inflated to fit the agenda of the past 8 years.
"These problems have been brewing for well over a decade, and they have their roots in policies adopted in the 1990s."
The explosion in easy mortgages and rampant speculation is something of this century. Unless actions in the mid 90s somehow took 6 years to come to fruition, while less than 2 years of a non-GOP-majority congress have created instant results. Funny how that works.
"You initially suggested that, a. this action was designed to enrich the shareholders and management of Bear Stearns"
Quote please. The Fed couldn't care less about 99% of shareholders. I doubt the management (especially executive) of these firms is held to any true accountability, where in reality the fortunes they stole over the past several years should evaporate.
"and b. this was somehow a "neocon" action."
Well, who is in control of the decisionmaking?
"And the federal government has been empowered to take such an action long before the George W. Bush took office."
Being empowered and taking specific action are not one in the same. The Federal Reserve in truth benefiting a few above all else will really come to light now.
Tight credit will be a good thing, maybe not so tight as simply realistic or responsible.
I'm sure SAIC would be glad to sell you new ones. Failing that, there will be no shortage of 'like-new' estate sale Buicks and Caddies as their owners regularly shuffle off.
I've met with representatives of ACORN, a far-left organization, and, while sitting acrosss from me, these representatives advocated home ownership for low-income individuals.
Habitat for Humanity, a housing organization designed to provide low-income individuals with their own homes, was founded by Jimmy Carter. I served on a committee of the local chapter for about two years, and the goal was to bring home ownership within the reach of qualified low-income families. Granted, they do it the right way - carefully screening applicants, requiring them to put '"sweat equity" into their homes by assisting with construction, and requiring to have either no debt, or very little debt, before signing up for the mortgage (which is either low-interest, or no-interest).
These are just two left-leaning organizations that have encouraged home ownership among low-income people.
Another example is below...
fintail: The explosion in easy mortgages and rampant speculation is something of this century. Unless actions in the mid 90s somehow took 6 years to come to fruition, while less than 2 years of a non-GOP-majority congress have created instant results. Funny how that works.
The effort really began when President Clinton began using the Community Redevelopment Act to require lenders to lower lending standards in "high-risk" areas. The goal was to encourage more home ownership in these areas. Given that most of these areas had a very high concentration of minorities within their borders, this was seen as a civil rights issue.
Wall Street, which will find a way to make money on anything, let greed take over, and soon began overleveraged in the secondary market for subprime mortgages, while banks and credit card companies began relaxing lending standards for EVERYONE.
Also note that it was Clinton appointee Franklin Delano Raines who, after taking the helm at Fannie Mae in 1999, took almost $100 million in personal compensation until he left under a cloud of charges relating to unethical behavior. He was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so that he and other senior officers could earn big bonuses.
His actions necessitated the recent government rescue of Fannie Mae.
The current mess was taking root before January 20, 2001. Unfortunately, Alan Greenspan let things go on for far too long, but blaming it all on the "neocons" isn't accurate.
And if he had tried to reverse any actions, he would have been loudly condemned by many of those who are now wailing about the market meltdown. Which is because quite a few were in on it themselves.
fintail: Quote please. The Fed couldn't care less about 99% of shareholders. I doubt the management (especially executive) of these firms is held to any true accountability, where in reality the fortunes they stole over the past several years should evaporate.
Here is exactly what you said in a prior post: But on the other hand, a bailout of the big 2.5, while not the soundest investment, couldn't be worse than bailing out a bunch of banks and their worthless overpaid irresponsible executive management.
Management wasn't bailed out; they lost their jobs.
fintail: Being empowered and taking specific action are not one in the same. The Federal Reserve in truth benefiting a few above all else will really come to light now.
The federal government's moves in regard to Bear Stearns are not "neocon" actions. These policy levers were in place long before George W. Bush was in office. He used them, but he didn't lobby Congress to pass them; and didn't come up with them on his own. One of the latter two would have to apply for this to be considered a "neocon" policy.
fintail: Tight credit will be a good thing, maybe not so tight as simply realistic or responsible.
Very true...only problem is that people don't want to hear that their house will not fetch the same price that it did in 2005 (although this is good for buyers), which is why the recent home bailout law was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Bush.
In the automobile industry, the domestics and some of the high-line foreign marques have come to depend on buyers using easy credit to purchase their vehicles. GM, in particular, has been financing "anyone with a pulse" to keep sales afloat.
If lending standards really do return to sanity, then more than a few people who were stretching to own that Mercedes C-Class and BMW 3-Series will be told to look at their Honda, Toyota or Ford dealer instead. Good for them (although they won't like it), but not necessarily good for BWM and Mercedes.
"but blaming it all on the "neocons" isn't accurate."
They've had nearly 8 years to right the ship, but they just continued to cash in.
"And if he had tried to reverse any actions, he would have been loudly condemned by many of those who are now wailing about the market meltdown. Which is because quite a few were in on it themselves. "
So because some don't like his decision, he shouldn't make it?
"Management wasn't bailed out; they lost their jobs."
Yet Cayne is still a very rich man, along with his cronies.
"One of the latter two would have to apply for this to be considered a "neocon" policy. "
Now we get some semantics. Supported (at all costs) by the neocons is equivalent enough for me. If it isn't for you, you're more than free to oppose it.
"people don't want to hear"
If that was less of an influence on decision makers in comparison to what is correct, we wouldn't be facing the hard times ahead. Things will get worse before they get better. The past decade has been all about what people want to hear, and look what it has wrought.
"but not necessarily good for BWM and Mercedes"
Luckily for them, those two are pretty well diversified in the global market. MB sales worldwide have been up this year, even with the general slowdown seen most everywhere. Subsidized leases couldn't last forever, just like interest only notes. I'd say the domestics have a lot more to worry about.
If someone buys Cadillac from GM, does Cadillac stop being Cadillac?
The brokerage banking mess has swept the automaker bailout news off the front pages it seems. Anyone heard anything?
Also note that it was Clinton appointee Franklin Delano Raines who, after taking the helm at Fannie Mae in 1999, took almost $100 million in personal compensation until he left under a cloud of charges relating to unethical behavior. He was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so that he and other senior officers could earn big bonuses.
His actions necessitated the recent government rescue of Fannie Mae.
The current mess was taking root before January 20, 2001. Unfortunately, Alan Greenspan let things go on for far too long, but blaming it all on the "neocons" isn't accurate.
It doesn't matter which party has "control" if they are determind to screw somebody over and become immorally rich, they'll use their power and influence to do just that.
I don't know about this automotive bailout. I think Cerberus is stuck with Chrysler and however they see fit to unite with a worldwide automaker of their choice to merge is their sweet choice. But that automaker has got to be close to falling for good and I don't see why Uncle Sam and the taxpayers should bail them out. Not as big, not as much influence on job losses.
Ford, OTOH, is teetering and in need of help and IMO making better vehicles that the public wants more at this time. Help for them makes more sense.
GM, with their strong foothold in China and South Korea, make more sense in helping out but might just make it from the Asian source outward. The UAW is only making their U.S. presence more tough to hold. Bigger and larger problem, GM, but a bigger potential for goodness if the cash really can help them. In other words, the best gamble in rolling the dice and helping one of these 3 seems to me to be GM. Just to kind of get things "moving" a little, a la Austin Powers.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
You originally said that no left-wing groups have advocated ownership of homes for low-income individuals. This is not correct.
I never said that Habitat for Humanity was a major factor in the current housing bust. If you will re-read my post, you will see that I specifically praised them for their screeing processes. But the push to spread home ownership to lower income people was not just a Bush Administration initiative, and has, in fact, been supported my many groups and individuals on the left side of the political spectrum.
fintail: They've had nearly 8 years to right the ship, but they just continued to cash in.
As I've shown, the roots of this stretch beyond the Bush Administration, and both parties were quite interested in "cashing in."
If you doubt that, read about what Rep. Chris Dodd was doing, along with Clinton appointee Franklin Delano Raines, as well as now-Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. It's not just the Bush Administration with a problem here.
fintail: Yet Cayne is still a very rich man, along with his cronies.
Just like Franklin Delano Raines, no doubt. But I doubt that either one was poor before taking their latest job.
fintail: Now we get some semantics. Supported (at all costs) by the neocons is equivalent enough for me. If it isn't for you, you're more than free to oppose it.
That's not semantics - it's the proper way to gauge the history of various policies, and their roots. This approach is the correct one to take when looking at who is responsible for various policies.
fintail: If that was less of an influence on decision makers in comparison to what is correct, we wouldn't be facing the hard times ahead. Things will get worse before they get better. The past decade has been all about what people want to hear, and look what it has wrought.
Very true. Except that whenever anyone has suggested reforming entitlement programs - which any economist who didn't get his or her degree from a Cracker Jack box realizes is the big budget challenge in the coming years - it has been the Democrats who have suggested that this is tantamout to throwing grandpa on the street. Why? Because that is what the audience wanted to hear. So the suggestion that only the Bush Administration is telling people want to hear is inaccurate at best.
So far I have yet to see evidence that there is a real discussion about what government should do and can afford.
fintail: Luckily for them, those two are pretty well diversified in the global market.
So are GM and Ford. They are very successful outside the U.S.
The Bush regime has had relatively total power for nearly the last decade. If the neocons are so responsible, prudent, and honest as their propaganda states, why haven't they made any reforms to the policies of those crooked Dems? The responsibility was theirs, and they failed. They have guilt, and will dodge it.
"This approach is the correct one to take when looking at who is responsible for various policies. "
Yes, absolve the high ranking criminals of responsibility. That's correct per standard public sector procedure
"So the suggestion that only the Bush Administration is telling people want to hear is inaccurate at best. "
BS. The Bush regime has had plenty of time to do what is needed to be done no matter how some whine. And they have failed, because they are simply both corrupt and incapable of producing positive change. The Dems may cry at the thought of reforms, but the neocons are even more guilty, for they have power, yet create no progress....and yet they will escape criticism.
Yet they took all the money from the PNGV and ran. They abandoned all that work as soon as the money stopped coming from the government, and less than a decade later they are in a big mess because of it.
I have NO FAITH that these loans/gifts will have ANY long-term beneficial effect in making our domestic automakers viable. NONE.
It is 2008, 30 years since the effects of globalization began to be felt in this industry. Our domestics seem to be the only automakers that after all that time still claim they have trouble building and selling a small car profitably. They don't have the vision or the management structure to make it - their North American divisions are going to drag them into the abyss. No amount of money thrown at them by the Feds is going to change that.
I think GM can squeak by with its whiskers intact with the plan it currently has, as long as they continue to consolidate at maximum pace and as long as Chrysler and possibly Ford gets broken up/sold/whatever and loses gobs of market share in the next five years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If you believe the lies they tell you then I've got some oceanfront property here in my home state of Arizona I'd like to sell you.That's what motivates people like Ron Paul(at least in part)to attempt to fix the tax structure, pull the troops out of Iraq, etc., it's because he doesn't like the fiscal mess and hog-tying of people that is so evident in this country.
Name me a former President who was noble for the people and honest. Ike? JFK? Umm...not quite. Ike goes back too far for me to know much about, maybe he had the people's expressed interest at heart.
Like a former Boeing workmate always said..."It's a crock." If you're a young man like rockylee, maybe you have more confidence in this political system.
I will say this, I was helped immensely by one of Uncle Sam's Guv-Mint programs, The Trade Act, to get re-outfitted to enter the nationwide workforce again. After some of the upper-level dorks at The Boeing Company decided that it was more imprtant for Boeing to save a few million in 2002-2003 than to keep investing in one of their best assets, their people, the benefits of The Trade Act became evident to me. The program was started in 1974 by the Carter Adminstration and I partly owe my current improved situation to the availability of The Trade Act.
Wow...it was a mountain of paperwork, but it paid for my college tuition and books and linked the state of Washington to it to make weekly U.I.payments to me while I studied. So we could put bread, butter and pork and beans on the table. So I wouldn't just rifle all government programs, workers, dare I loop in Head Honcho's in to this sentence and keep a straight face at the same time?
I would loan Guv-Mint cash to GM and Ford, but not Chrysler. They're still piddling around with huge pick-em-up trucks and SUV's and for whatever reason can't seem to get their Hornet program launched, when they really need it launched and marketed. :confuse:
I get the sneaking suspicion that the Chinese(Chery Motors)played hardball a bit too much on their anticipated share of each Hornet sold and the program failed. Chrysler desperately needs a car like the Hornet to sell to worldwide markets right now.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
They will all come out with Red dots between the headlilghts.
But really...looking at the ability of Jag to guzzle money, and the awesome amount of innovation and competence in the Indian motor industry...I can't say I believe there will be a Jag in 20 years, other than maybe as a badge put on a special top of the line Nano transportation pod made for the enserfment commute of the brave new world.
All companies unless directly tied to the highest security need of the country should be allowed to rise and fail on their own. This is a normal course of companies in businesses.
Government should not play favorites. It should not choose whether to save, or which to save and which should wither - in the auto, steel, clothing, retail ... industries. Government should provide a level playing field, with certain rules - acting like officials in a sporting event. It should not make the rules such that the Patriots only have to go 90 yards for a TD, or say that teams in the AFC East can have 12 players on the field, because we think they are a weaker division.
Why do we have such a hard time applying fair rules to all? I think it is because we (or people in power) want "Fair+" when it benefits us/them in some way personally.
IMO it MOST CERTAINLY doesn't include the domestic automakers.
I am in a rental today: a 2008 Ford Mustang with 28K miles. My six year old, 100K-mile Echo has more refinement and less rattles. If this is the best Ford can do in the year 2008, they ABSOLUTELY MUST NOT get bailout money from the government. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
It is tacky and clanky, and nothing about it meets the standard I would expect from a $20K+ car. It is a decent engine linked to a bad automatic in what is otherwise a $2000 car. This thing has as much body roll in corners as my Matrix (which seats 2 more adults, costs less, has a much higher roof, and is not a dedicated sport model as Mustang is). :sick:
Anyway, enough about the Mustang, but I believe it exemplifies Ford in 2008, and a bailout will not save Ford in the long run.
And now I see the government has also bailed out AIG???!!! Geez, there won't be any money LEFT for the automaker bailout!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
No, nippon, I am not set on my belief that Ford and GM deserve a bailout at all. I just think that, if this thing takes Congress a while to figure out, and both McCain and Obama are for this thing, the Big Two and a Half are going to get Guv-Mint loans.
Hopefully they're not going to be grants! Yikes. :sick:
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The financial mess has pushed the automaker loan issue to the back burner. I have tried to follow it anyway. It is somewhat confusing deal. $25 billion in loans have already been approved. They were included in an energy bill last year. The loans were to help offset costs associated with meeting the new CAFE standards. Congress just hasn't appropriated the funds yet. So, in essence the loans have already been approved, but the checks haven't been written yet. The loans are available to any auto manufacturer who wants them.
The current lobbying efforts by the domestic automakers have been seeking an additional $25 billion and a relaxation of requirements on how the loans are used. The loans already approved can only be used to retool or upgrade auto plants that are at least 20 years old. That eligibility requirement pretty much targets the loans to domestic automakers. I have not read anything that says the loans can be used to fund R&D activities. Anyone here know anything about that?
After $85 billion to AIG today, $25-50 billion starts to look like a bargain.