Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Auto Bailout Update!

  1. #1

    Auto Bailout Update!

    The Auto Unions said today there will be no givebacks by them. My word is go to hell then!

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2866967]The Auto Unions said today there will be no givebacks by them. My word is go to hell then![/QUOTE]

    Why should they.

    Labor (Workers of the World Unite) are never to blame.

    Only Evil Corporate Managers cause problems.

    Once the Auto Industry is Nationalized, it will all be fine. We'll all get the perfect "Green" Cars our Lib friends always wanted and the workers will finally be paid what they deserve! Save the Earth (and the Auto Unions) man!

  3. #3
    maybe im missing something but bancruptcy doesn't mean they go out of business, it just means they declare insolvency. Aren't like half of the airlines already insolvent but still operating?

  4. #4
    What is the reasoning behind the unions not giving back anything?


    Also, when new people are hired do they recieve the same benefits that the old timers recieved? Does anyone know?

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2866998]maybe im missing something but bancruptcy doesn't mean they go out of business, it just means they declare insolvency. Aren't like half of the airlines already insolvent but still operating?[/QUOTE]

    You are 100% correct. The Airlines have been "bailed out" repeatedly, and many remain effectively insolvent and require constant influxes of public money to continue operations.

    The current Democrat-Proposed Auto Bailout is to avoid GM and Ford declaring bankruptcy, and if that fails (and it would) to keep them operating a la many Airlines over the years.

    Reportedly 3 Million Jobs are in jeopardy if GM and Ford "fail". Hence Nationalization and the start of permanent Taxpayer subsidy a la Airlines.

    As a fan of the poor and abused Railroads of the U.S., I sure do hope they get a similar deal someday. I'm suprised, as environmentally friendly as trains are, that there seems to be no push at all to shift all that horribly polluting truck traffic to Rail.

  6. #6
    The problem with bankruptcy here is that, in this credit environment, it will probably prevent the auto companies from being able to borrow the money to buy the parts they need to make the cars they sell.

    It is very tempting to say the companies failed because of poor business judgment, they should go bankrupt and be restructured or sold off. But it's not clear that they could operate in bankruptcy because they'd likely be unable to borrow money.

    If they failed, the number of jobs lost at a time of soaring unemployment might end up costing taxpayers as much in unemployment benefits, lost payroll taxes and soaring demand for government services as the bailout would.

    A bailout is not a good solution by any means, but it might be the "least bad" one available.

    Regardless, it is very clear that the unions are going to have to make significant concessions, because the contracts they have simply don't reflect the current realities of the business.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2867055]A bailout is not a good solution by any means, but it might be the "least bad" one available.[/QUOTE]

    So, do you support the proposed bailout? Yes or no?

    And I'm curious, were you a supporter of the earlier bailout?

    No need for long winded explainatory take-both-sides answers btw Nuu. If you were a Senator, do you or do you not vote yes on the $700 Bil Bailout and do you vote yes on this pending idea? Yes, or no?

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,926
    The banking and credit industry didn't have to give anything back when they got bailed out, so why should auto unions do so now? I'm not saying it's right, but I would be saying the same exact thing if I was in their shoes.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2867072]So, do you support the proposed bailout? Yes or no?

    And I'm curious, were you a supporter of the earlier bailout?

    No need for long winded explainatory take-both-sides answers btw Nuu. If you were a Senator, do you or do you not vote yes on the $700 Bil Bailout and do you vote yes on this pending idea? Yes, or no?[/QUOTE]

    With all due respect, it depends on what's in the bill.

    If it's a blank check, no, I don't support it.

    If it forces the automakers to cave on fuel efficiency, emissions and some of the other things that would have made their cars more marketable that they've sent every fiber of their beings fighting for decades, then I'd be inclined to support it. (I am assuming also that the bailout would give the government an equity stake that could, if the companies recovered, later be sold at a profit.)

    As far as the financial bailout goes, I supported the plan to buy up bad assets that was originally announced. I have deep misgivings that money is now not being used that way, because it appears Paulson is making it up as he goes along.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    I just don't understand why the government is so humble. Why not just pass a law making recessions illegal and outlawing poverty and unemployment? And we can just print all the money we need and throw it around....(so long as we outlaw inflation too, can't forget that crucial part).

    What's with these small potatoes solutions like a trillion here or there or whatever. Why think so small. Clearly, all of these factors are not complex at all and can be "solved" via the blunt instrument of government force?

    As we all know, this magical world of the past 50 years in which there were virtually no regulations whatsoever is what created this mess. Government (1) controlling the supply of money and (2) intervening in markets and (3) the 75,000 pages of government regulations had NOTHING to do with any of it.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2867093]With all due respect, it depends on what's in the bill.[/quote]

    With all due respect, your recent Obama-esque "both-sides-of-every-issue" opinions have grown rather tiresome to read. You seem to be for everything right before you're against it and tell everyone how right you were all along.

    Just like Obama.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2867093]If it forces the automakers to cave on fuel efficiency, emissions and some of the other things that would have made their cars more marketable that they've sent every fiber of their beings fighting for decades, then I'd be inclined to support it. (I am assuming also that the bailout would give the government an equity stake that could, if the companies recovered, later be sold at a profit.)[/quote]

    So your claim here is that U.S. Automakers failure is because they have consciously "fought with every fibre of their being" to go directly opposite "what would make their vehicles more marketable", eh?

    Could you be any less informed? Until ~1 and year and a half years ago, the U.S. Market was primarily demanding SUV's and other large, fuel-inefficient vehicles. These are what kept Ford and GM alive. The crash of that sub-market is primarily responsible, as is the (mostly uninformed) idea that Japanese cars are "more reliable" than U.S. cars. PR won the day for Japan on that one, not reality.

    Sorry Nuu, but not being "green" is not in any form what has made U.S. Cars "less marketable". Not in the past, and even today it only accounts for a VERY small part of the overall market share loss.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2867093]As far as the financial bailout goes, I supported the plan to buy up bad assets that was originally announced. I have deep misgivings that money is now not being used that way, because it appears Paulson is making it up as he goes along.[/QUOTE]

    So more taking both sides, for it before you are against it. :rolleyes:

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,793
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2866986]Why should they.

    Labor (Workers of the World Unite) are never to blame.

    Only Evil Corporate Managers cause problems.
    [/QUOTE]

    And vice-versa, 'Fish. All I hear on this board is how evil unions are and how the working man is causing all the problems.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2867197]With all due respect, your recent Obama-esque "both-sides-of-every-issue" opinions have grown rather tiresome to read. You seem to be for everything right before you're against it and tell everyone how right you were all along.

    Just like Obama.



    So your claim here is that U.S. Automakers failure is because they have consciously "fought with every fibre of their being" to go directly opposite "what would make their vehicles more marketable", eh?

    Could you be any less informed? Until ~1 and year and a half years ago, the U.S. Market was primarily demanding SUV's and other large, fuel-inefficient vehicles. These are what kept Ford and GM alive. The crash of that sub-market is primarily responsible, as is the (mostly uninformed) idea that Japanese cars are "more reliable" than U.S. cars. PR won the day for Japan on that one, not reality.

    Sorry Nuu, but not being "green" is not in any form what has made U.S. Cars "less marketable". Not in the past, and even today it only accounts for a VERY small part of the overall market share loss.



    So more taking both sides, for it before you are against it. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


    So you think it is unreasonable to state that the details of a multibillion-dollar deal (you know, what the money is spent on and what we as taxpayers get in return) matter?

    Gimme a break.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2867165]I just don't understand why the government is so humble. Why not just pass a law making recessions illegal and outlawing poverty and unemployment? And we can just print all the money we need and throw it around....(so long as we outlaw inflation too, can't forget that crucial part).

    What's with these small potatoes solutions like a trillion here or there or whatever. Why think so small. Clearly, all of these factors are not complex at all and can be "solved" via the blunt instrument of government force?

    As we all know, this magical world of the past 50 years in which there were virtually no regulations whatsoever is what created this mess. Government (1) controlling the supply of money and (2) intervening in markets and (3) the 75,000 pages of government regulations had NOTHING to do with any of it.[/QUOTE]

    Nice to have you back, you old crank.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2867197]With all due respect, your recent Obama-esque "both-sides-of-every-issue" opinions have grown rather tiresome to read. You seem to be for everything right before you're against it and tell everyone how right you were all along.

    So more taking both sides, for it before you are against it. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    I agree that Obama will sometimes flip stances for political reasons, but we also leave our heads in the sand if we never adjust opinions. It is intellectually honest to always reconsider what you know in light of what you now know; that American politics frames this as flip-flopping is kind of sad. Also no black and white categorical stance on any issue has ever met with enduring success ever. Literally.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2867197]
    Could you be any less informed? Until ~1 and year and a half years ago, the U.S. Market was primarily demanding SUV's and other large, fuel-inefficient vehicles. These are what kept Ford and GM alive. The crash of that sub-market is primarily responsible, as is the (mostly uninformed) idea that Japanese cars are "more reliable" than U.S. cars. PR won the day for Japan on that one, not reality.

    [/QUOTE]

    And, on this, despite your snide, arrogant tone, you are wrong as well.

    Check out the chart on the bottom of this page...

    [url]http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html[/url]

    What it shows is that Toyota and Honda have been gaining market share (from GM and Ford) steadily for the better part of a decade.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2867281]And, on this, despite your snide, arrogant tone, you are wrong as well.

    Check out the chart on the bottom of this page...

    [url]http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html[/url]

    What it shows is that Toyota and Honda have been gaining market share (from GM and Ford) steadily for the better part of a decade.[/QUOTE]

    Nice try, but clearly you either didn't read what I wrote, or you don't understand it. You r chart does not cover any of the issues I mention, only overall market share (which I am well aware that Japan has been steadily eroding).

    My comments, laid out as simply as possible:

    [QUOTE=Warfish]Until ~1 and year and a half years ago, the U.S. Market was primarily demanding SUV's and other large, fuel-inefficient vehicles. These are what kept Ford and GM alive.[/QUOTE]

    --The U.S. Autmoakers Lived (and now Die) on Trucks and SUV's. The market Drove that, not Car Company Executives.

    Your chart does not address this fact beyond showing that the top two selling vehicles (U.S.) are trucks/SUV's. Proves my point, thank you.

    [QUOTE=Warfish]The crash of that sub-market is primarily responsible,[/QUOTE]

    Pretty simple. Gas went from ~$2.00 to almost $5.00 in some places. Truck buyers and SUV fans fled in droves, as the market is won't to do in such cases. This was not some "Green" Revolution, it was pure and simpel economics and standard issue market fear.

    Your chart does not address Gas Prices in this regard.

    [QUOTE=Warfish]as is the (mostly uninformed) idea that Japanese cars are "more reliable" than U.S. cars. PR won the day for Japan on that one, not reality.[/QUOTE]

    I am sure you can find a chart disproving it, but the last one I looked at had just as many and as wide a variety of lemons coming from Japanese Companies as American.

    It may have been true in the past (like so many U.S. Companies, qulity of product in the 70's and 80's went int he crapper), but I simply do not believe it's true today, both from items I have read over the years, and from personal experience (I own U.S. the girl ownes Japaneese).

    But again, your chart does not cover this.

  18. #18
    I suppose I'm over simplifying here, but hey-it works for me:D

    Bought GM in the past, poor quality. Vehicles had problems inside of 30k miles and getting GM to honor warranty was pulling teeth. However, in my experience, from a quality standpoint, they were the best of the big 3.

    My father got burned by Ford in the 70's after buying a Mustang II...camshaft lobes wore out at 20k miles. Ford admitted factory defect but refused to make it right. Made the mistake of buying an F150 in the '95-another regret...won't happen again.

    Bought Dodge Intrepid in 2000. Any unfortunate past owner of this car can usually give you the laundry list of common problems ($500+ of brake work at 11K miles-cheap paper thin factory rotors(normal wear and tear per Chrysler), paint chunks coming off inside of 1 year...the really cool 'sunglass holder' they gave out to address a safety issue, bad tranny's, etc). It's funny, I was describing my previous car to my my mechanic recently without telling him the make. He asked 'So, which Chrysler product was it?'

    So, now I've been happy with my '03 Passat that is nearing 70K miles. The only problem it had, VW has corrected quickly and without issue. My new Nissan pickup truck has been performing equally impressive-as did my previous Nissan pickup.

    My point is this: As a consumer, I could give a rats ass if its corporate or union at the root of the cause. I refuse to support the big 3 by not buying their vehicles until I'm confident they will ever produce something in my price range worth my money.

    Now somebody wants to pull an end around and steal my tax dollars to prop up this garbage? Hasn't the consumer spoken loud enough already?
    Last edited by frostlich; 11-17-2008 at 02:17 PM.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=frostlich;2867336]I suppose I'm over simplifying here, but hey-it works for me:D[/quote]

    Naa, personal experience is worth disussing IMO. I just have differnt ones than you.

    My Ford is at 220,000 miles and still running fine, with what I must admit has been pathetic and uncaring maintenance over the past buncha years. It's starting to wear down now, after a LOT of abuse.

    The girls Toyota? Died at under 100k. Engine crapped out.

    Our good friends VW? A disater from day 1, electrical system issues all over the place, a complete lemon.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2867332]Nice try, but clearly you either didn't read what I wrote, or you don't understand it. You r chart does not cover any of the issues I mention, only overall market share (which I am well aware that Japan has been steadily eroding).

    My comments, laid out as simply as possible:



    --The U.S. Autmoakers Lived (and now Die) on Trucks and SUV's. The market Drove that, not Car Company Executives.

    Your chart does not address this fact beyond showing that the top two selling vehicles (U.S.) are trucks/SUV's. Proves my point, thank you.



    Pretty simple. Gas went from ~$2.00 to almost $5.00 in some places. Truck buyers and SUV fans fled in droves, as the market is won't to do in such cases. This was not some "Green" Revolution, it was pure and simpel economics and standard issue market fear.

    Your chart does not address Gas Prices in this regard.



    I am sure you can find a chart disproving it, but the last one I looked at had just as many and as wide a variety of lemons coming from Japanese Companies as American.

    It may have been true in the past (like so many U.S. Companies, qulity of product in the 70's and 80's went int he crapper), but I simply do not believe it's true today, both from items I have read over the years, and from personal experience (I own U.S. the girl ownes Japaneese).

    But again, your chart does not cover this.[/QUOTE]

    I think we are in agreement on some of these points. I'm not arguing that "all U.S. cars are bad." Obviously there have been some quality problems, but many U.S. nameplates deliver excellent quality.

    My main criticism of GM (and Ford and Chrysler) is that they missed the boat on the demand for fuel efficient cars. From a selling-to-consumers perspective, I don't consider it purely a green trend (it has more to do with gas prices) but when you add higher gas prices to a rising awareness and concern about environmental impact, you have a pretty potent trend that any marketer would be nuts to be on the wrong side of.

    I think GM and Ford were very slow to embrace higher MPG cars, they were slow to offer hybrids and have been resistant to any number of other things (like flex fuel) that could have put them on the right side of consumer trends.

    You are right that they did ride the wave of domestic demand for trucks and SUV's, but they failed to see an inevitable spike in the price of gas coming. (It's a volatile commodity of limited supply, after all.) And when that happened they were basically wholly dependent on gas guzzlers at a time of record gas prices, as well as at a time of popular disgust with the pollution they cause, which is a colossal and catastrophic failure of management.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us