Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?

1707173757680

Comments

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."I have theories about how to get PEOPLE to buy cars, but ultimately it's the consumer's decision on what to buy. That's the free market."...

    Indeed you do agree with me. But the "FREE" markets would let the four FORD/GM/Chysler/UAW FALL.

    And I do agree with you that the fact of the matter the unions are congressionally created monopolies and do legally exist. They do lobby congress (albeit successfully) etc, etc. While they do like to wear "common man/woman super hero costumes, theydo indeed belong to the power elite in this country.

    It would appear YOU are hung up on them. Before college, I have worked several "union's" jobs, teamster, postal, communications. So I have been there... done that.... Was I ever in the UAW? No. Were you?

    As good as you say the Ford products are, significant volumes and percentages of folks are LITERALLYNOT buying them , either the "superior" products you say they are, and/or... what you are saying !! So while you say you understand, your responses indicate a whole lot of issues discussed just aren't sinking in.

    Your direct bypass of the question: Have you bought a Ford lately? is probably THE most telling........ UAW member?...

    That is why I found the WASH DC informal liberal support of OBAMA 93% to McCain 7% and car choices survey article... humorous !! Seems like it was like waving a red flag in front of the bull to some.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Would never buy a Focus or Fiesta in their present form, let alone the other offerings. The names stink IMHO as well.

    Regards,
    OW
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Indeed you do agree with me. And I do agree with you that the fact of the matter the unions are congressionally created monopolies and do legally exist.

    If they were a monopoly then Honda and Toyota wouldn't be able to run factories with non-Union labor.

    Was i ever in the UAW? No. Were you?

    I was never even in a Union. Don't particularly want to be. But if others want to be, that's their thing. It's legal.

    Have you bought a Ford lately? is probably THE most telling

    I currently drive a mazda3, which is a Mazda-tuned Ford Focus, pretty much. My next car will likely be a Fiesta or Fusion, as those are the two vehicles I'm most impressed by right now. Nissan is running a close 3rd with the Cube and Rogue, and after that comes the Subaru Forester. But I like the Fords the most.

    Lemee ask you something: what do YOU drive? Since you're so all-fired up about it. Are you properly supporting the Domestic Auto industry by buying a UAW built car, or are you supporting those government-subsidized foreigners by buying a foreign make?
  • ingvaringvar Member Posts: 205
    Have you bought a Ford lately?
    I didn't but I rented with no issues, car was 10 years ahead of Chrysler Sibring.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."If they were a monopoly then Honda and Toyota wouldn't be able to run factories with non-Union labor."...

    That is obviously not true and a total mis reading of the union's monopoly.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I have test driven and ridden in Navigator, Excursion, Fusion, Fiesta, Focus, F150, F250, Dodge trucks, Viper, Sebring. None were a real inspiration to buy.

    Indeed in a past business we owned several Ford full sized vans (150's, 250's) None were satisfying to own. They ate front tires like there was no tomorrow. I was glad for the ( 40 gal) two tank as they consumed fuel like there was no tomorrow either. I have been in and driven a buddy's 2 ea, Ford 250 diesels, but he hauls three horse trailers with them and previously a 35 foot "camper". Since I had license to drive tractor trailer rigs in the service, he did me the honor of letting me drive his wife's "babies" around. (competition quarter horses)

    However, it is good to see a rabid American car fan. Really can't fault you for that. Makes for a lively discussion. The current manifestation are like NASCAR fans. In the late 40's and 50's folks used to be fans of Ford/GM/Chysler, etc.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    That is obviously not true and a total mis reading of the union's monopoly.

    No, it's proving the fact that they're not a monopoly. Much as you wish they were so they could be the devil incarnate.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Well you still misunderstand.

    Devil incarnate?

    You yourself said most of the managements didn't want to lock them out like they should have in the past and then look what happened.... Again unless you do not grasp what has happened....

    Yes the NON union places are obviously doing better albeit marginally in this economic environment. . But that is a no brainer.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    You yourself said most of the managements didn't want to lock them out like they should have in the past and then look what happened.... Again unless you do not grasp what has happened....

    Yes the NON union places are obviously doing better albeit marginally in this economic environment. . But that is a no brainer.


    I said most of the management were dumb enough to give them exactly what they wanted. When you're dumb enough to sign contracts that hurt your business, you're not smart enough to stay in business. THAT'S why Chrysler's in BK and GM is on the ropes. Ford is doing OK, Nissan is doing OK, Honda is doing OK. It ain't all because of a lack of UAW, because Ford has to deal with them. It IS because the guys running Ford, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, VW, etc, are much smarter and better businessmen than the guys running GM and Chrysler. period.

    If you know what you're doing, it doesn't matter if you have to deal with the UAW or not. If you don't know what you're doing, it doesn't matter if you have to deal with the UAW or not. it's that simple.

    If the UAW never existed, I'd bet every cent I have that Chrysler would still be in the same position it's in today.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Then you agree with me and others, let em fall. Seems that is pretty hard for you to say.

    If you don't and WE pump massive amounts of money to make em survive, it will be as a reward for as you put it "most of the management were dumb enough to give them exactly what they wanted". On the other side of the equation, because now the UAW knows ABSOLUTELY and POSITIVELY the (STILL) "dummies" CAN NOT fail, they will insist even MORE on their way.!!!

    Again for the third time, SOS DD. One difference being there are the new owners in the barrel, and you know who they are. If YOU don't, most of us do!!! TOTAL mistake for our GOV to own car company's !!!!!

    Well look on the bright side, YOU in the near future will have a shot at getting FIATS (fix it again TONY) I am sure YOU can hardly wait.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    It ain't all because of a lack of UAW, because Ford has to deal with them. It IS because the guys running Ford, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, VW, etc, are much smarter and better businessmen than the guys running GM and Chrysler. period.

    Nissan was on the ropes in late 90's. They brought in a guy Ghosn and he turned it around. What if they had lured (mistakenly) Wagoner over to Nissan.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Then you agree with me and others, let em fall. Seems that is pretty hard for you to say.

    Thought I said that. I think that what's going on now, Ch11, is the right thing. Should have been done a long time ago, but the previous administration started giving handouts.

    I'm a bit surprised that Obama let it go to Ch11, given that Dems are usually pretty beholden to unions, but I think he did the right thing here. And ultimately, I think it'll be the best thing for the UAW too, because they'll end up working with a smarter and stronger company.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Nissan was on the ropes in late 90's. They brought in a guy Ghosn and he turned it around. What if they had lured (mistakenly) Wagoner over to Nissan.

    Then Nissan would be in deep manure right now. :shades:
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    Nissan wouldn't exist anymore.

    Meanwhile, well sure we'll have Fiats again but these will be built with legendary Chrysler dependability. :sick:
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Oh, like Fiat dependability was all that?

    Fix It Again, Tony!!! ;)

    Ironic that Renault saved Nissan. They were second-worse to Fiat reliability.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    A writer being interview on Detroit yesterday said the UAW made minor concessions adn in return received $5 bill and 55% of the company. We're all set for the 2012 elections.

    Well it is at least going to be entertaining to see the union try to run a profitable company. That should be a real show. Too bad Goldfinger won't be running the union by then. Will they succeed, or fail to see the light? I put my money on eventual failure. Perhaps we should start a pool:

    Chrysler's eventual failure and breakup - August 15, 2010 (prediction)
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Nissan was on the ropes in late 90's. They brought in a guy Ghosn and he turned it around. What if they had lured (mistakenly) Wagoner over to Nissan.

    Obviously the Board at Nissan was not as stupid as the Board at GM.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    link title

    So are we really preserving the ability to manufacture cars that most of the intented market really don't want dont like, and will not buy in numbers and volume to be profitable?
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    So are we really preserving the ability to manufacture cars that most of the intented market really don't want dont like, and will not buy in numbers and volume to be profitable?

    Nope, the idea is to drop those. I don't see Jeep going anywhere though, it's still pretty popular. The Ram and Minivan lines might get sold off. Fiat will get to pick and choose here, and I figure they'll transition...don't know how gradually. There will be some demand to keep building Ram and Caravan because Nissan and VW re-sell them as their own (I wonder if the plant shutdown will create any sort of shortage of those models for Nissan and VW?). They could keep things as is, or just sell the product and production lines.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Really? What's Nissan's version called? I know the VW is called the Routan.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Well we all know the idea/ideal. However EVERYTHING that is being done indicates that is the EXACT road (we) they are traveling.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Nissan just kept the Titan name. The original Titan kinda flopped.

    Ironically, while the Titan flopped, the Titan platform still underpins the Frontier, Xterra, Pathfinder and Armada so they got their money's worth out of the thing anyway. Now THAT'S smart.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,691
    >Well it is at least going to be entertaining to see the union try to run a profitable company. That

    We don't agree on much, but this is a given.

    I want a list of the union concessions for C in this. The analyst being interviewed said they gave nothing of meaning.

    The one problem is it's political with BO and keeping the UAW at full pay means the company can't work. There needed to be real cost concessions.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Yes it is their time in the "management seat". It is also certainly looking like they will have a seat on the board. While I wish them well, the posted conclusion is the most likely..
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    My point exactly. Fiat is Chrysler with more spectacular unreliability.

    Agree on Renault too. I still can't believe that.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    My point exactly. Fiat is Chrysler with more spectacular unreliability.

    For that to be possible they will have to spontaneously explode! LOL
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    It's not really the UAW that's getting 55% of Chrysler - it's the VEBA trust. That outfit has to try to keep the health benefits going for the retirees, so their interests aren't completely aligned with the rank and file.

    "The U.S. Treasury will administer the 55 percent stake that Chrysler LLC's Voluntary Employee Benefit Association will receive in a new company comprising most of Chrysler's assets, according to the terms of the Chrysler-Fiat alliance outlined Thursday by Fiat SpA.

    The VEBA was promised 55 percent equity in Chrysler in lieu of half the cash the automaker would have paid into the trust for the health care of retirees, or around $5 billion."

    Detroit News
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    It of course would be very interesting to get MB's take, since they have moved on and by all indications have done well since they sold (aka took a bath on) their ownership shares.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Details such as what you have posted should have been part of the congressional hearings BEFORE and not AFTER ownership......... For all we know, SOS DD. Indeed this adds to the bureaucracy.

    A translation of that can easily be: GW had his FRIENDS and BO has his FRIENDS.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    They gave the unions the chance to buy the company so that the member could continue to work and the retirees could continue to get paid and we the taxpayers wouldn't have to foot the bill for the pensions nor the weight of the collapse of employment.

    I am not against employees owning the Company. I am against the Tax payers keeping it going to pay back UAW loyalty. We will NEVER see a penny of that bailout money back from GM or Chrysler. I find it offensive that all the auto makers were not given the same deal also. Talk about an uneven playing field.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Indeed if I were ANYBODY in any of those other than big III ,auto companies (vendors/suppliers included who followed the rules,) I would be cynical at best.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    "Fiat will own a major American auto manufacturer when pigs fly."

    Yesterday? Swine flu
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    SUE EEEEEE........ P P P.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Last century, someone tried to organize a small chemical plant on LI, NY where I worked but we resisted due to the added cost of the "support". The management gave raises immediately as the threat was discovered....Gone in 60 Seconds!

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Yes. Absolutely! We don't want to run the company...that's not what our Administration is about.

    Who will run the company...and his wife will collect every dollar of his bonus. ;)

    Regards,
    OW
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    You know I just flashed on depression. It sucks to know you lost 5 years in advance. :sick: :lemon:
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Last century, someone tried to organize a small chemical plant on LI, NY where I worked but we resisted due to the added cost of the "support". The management gave raises immediately as the threat was discovered....Gone in 60 Seconds!


    Heh, that's an interesting story in several ways. Yeah, you didn't want it, but also your company was smart enough to make real sure to avoid dealing with a union in the first place...of course, one must ask why you had to threaten to organize to get a pay raise, but you got to have your cake and eat it too in that case. :shades:
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    This is the beginning of the wash cycle...there will be many chapters to this saga. Hopefully in 5 years, Who will be back on First Base!

    Regards,
    OW
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    I want a list of the union concessions for C in this. The analyst being interviewed said they gave nothing of meaning.

    The one problem is it's political with BO and keeping the UAW at full pay means the company can't work. There needed to be real cost concessions.


    The BIG benefit to the unions and to the new owners whoever they might be is that going into the future all vehicles will be freed of the burden of $2000 - $4000 legacy costs. That essentially is the profit on a small to medium sized auto. Until now that profit was simply shipped to the retired UAW workers not kept in house to improve the brand and the model.

    As long as the unions don't go nuts on the next contract and demand all the profits as bonuses they should be OK. I'd make it a stipulation that bonuses are paid in stock and options like the top management gets....not cash. Cash goes back into the company.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    If past performances are followed then as soon as the economy and the markets revive the stated goal of Treasury is to sell off the taxpayers share of the company in an IPO to another owner. It might be Fiat and/or some investment consortium. Invest $6 Billion and sell it for $7 Billion.

    This is what the govt is actually very good at doing. It might be 2 or 3 or 7 yrs but all that time the new entity will also be paying us interest or dividends presumably.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Surprise, surprise, there are ... ISSUES!? Dag nab it !! (doggone it, actually)

    link title
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    If it was easy, Daimler wouldn't have walked away.

    I'm curious to see who the government appointees to the board are going to be.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    News flash...Chrysler could have (and maybe should have) liquidated. Then they'd get significantly less than .28 cents on the dollar. As it is, now they're probably going to get less anyway, and they should have expected that, since the company isn't worth NEAR that much right now.

    Oh, but I forgot....they're big companies and hedge funds. If they make a bet on stocks or bonds and lose, the taxpayers are supposed to cover it, right? So not only do my own Chrysler bond investments go south (provided I have any...luckily I don't) but we have to parcel out additional money to cover the losses of Wall Street, USA.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    News flash? ... more like ancient history. They should have let it go away before Iaccoca went to Congress to ask for money.

    Evidently that is the course being followed.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    This is what the govt is actually very good at doing. It might be 2 or 3 or 7 yrs but all that time the new entity will also be paying us interest or dividends presumably.

    We shall see. :sick: You are much more optimistic than I am, that our government is good at anything except wasting money.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    No good turn goes unpunished ! :lemon:
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    You are much more optimistic than I am, that our government is good at anything except wasting money.

    Agreed. I do not expect to see any of this bailout money coming back to the taxpayer. They are already forgiving the debts previously incurred in the first bailouts.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,709
    can you imagine the credit card companies forgivng your debt to them like that? Fuu-gett-aa-bout-dit! Printing the paper money to plug the latest leak seems to be the overall modus of this Adminstration. Don't expect such a soft attitude with your Federal income taxes owed, though.

    The latest on income taxes I heard is the $800 tax "cut" Obama is giving out is not really working out to be a gift at all. It will have to be repaid. Evidently the tax tables are built incorrectly and it does not look like they're getting fixed in real time. Anyone else heard anything about this.

    So, if both spouses work and earn somewhere above $48,000 and get this $800 metered out throughout 2009 in tax "relief" in the form of less Federal taxes held out of your check, that couple will owe money back at tax time in early 2010. The tax needing to be paid will still be $1200, in this earning example. So they'll owe some $400 to the Fed's on their 2009 taxes.

    All because the tax tables are built with some major flaws in them. And this is happening now, the tax "relief" is underway as I type! Google the problem and you'll get a better explanation than I gave, I just found out about it a couple a days ago. If they could implement an accurate set of tax tables in right now, or ASAP, that would mitigate it and people would actually get real "relief" that the bill was meant to give in the first place.

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."Lemee ask you something: what do YOU drive?"...

    Like you, I drive AMERICAN link title..... ;) :surprise:

    Indeed unless you are paying the 25% import car duty, it is (at least partially) MADE IN AMERICA.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I heard that the IRS was working on the tables ... not sure what that has to do with the topic. And credit card companies eat debt every day in bankruptcy court.

    Inflation is coming so that'll make it easier to pay on some of the federal debt (the idea being that debt incurred in past dollars can be paid with future dollars at a reduced cost - sounds like Bernake's plan eh?).

    Back to topical news, GMAC, Chrysler auto loan financing arms combine (Financial Post).

    GMAC get TARP money, so auto financing should ease.
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.