Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: slingshot on November 13, 2008, 10:18:56 PM
-
It is complicated. I lean toward a loan package or essentially government credit for the time being. I believe the Democrats are sure to push something through because of the unions. But I would want some union concessions prior to any money changing hands. Unions say it's a partnership, so let's make it one. Both parties give. The viagra thing with General Motors bugs me to no end; $17 million. What are your thoughts?
-
Hell NO.
Let them FAIL.
The Big Three have screwed themselves, and it's time to pay the piper. Letting the unions take control and producing crappy cars...they need to GO.
-
I am very torn on this issue as it the Democrats who destroyed the economy and now are in charge of the whole bailout. I can (very slightly) see the need to give the COs money to keep operating, but it should not be in any way under the control of the Dems.
Also, I am firmly opposed to .gov have any sort of ownership in any of these companies.
The Gov caused this problem so they are responsible to fix it, but it should have never happened in the first place.
It just amazes me that the Dems somehow convinced the people (and the Repubs did nothing to refute it) that the Repubs and deregulation are the cause of the problem.
-
chapter 11. Those who dealed/loaned/owned are up the creek a bit, but the assets would be liberated for use by a company that might actually be able to make a profit with them.
They need to shed their legacy costs and legacy overpaid management.
One guy at work asked me what would happen if the company that his mortgage is through goes belly up - I responded that his contract would be up for bid like all the other assets- at most he'd have to change his payment address.
-
I am very torn on this issue as it the Democrats who destroyed the economy and now are in charge of the whole bailout. I can (very slightly) see the need to give the COs money to keep operating, but it should not be in any way under the control of the Dems.
Also, I am firmly opposed to .gov have any sort of ownership in any of these companies.
The Gov caused this problem so they are responsible to fix it, but it should have never happened in the first place.
It just amazes me that the Dems somehow convinced the people (and the Repubs did nothing to refute it) that the Repubs and deregulation are the cause of the problem.
How did the government cause the failure of the big three auto makers?
-
should the .gov bail out union infested big 3 auto makers??
Abso-friggin-lutly not.
-
Not with my tax dollars! Not under any version of the Constitution I've ever read!
-
Depends....do I get a free Toyota if I say yes?
-
How did the government cause the failure of the big three auto makers?
Please reread my post. Federal regulation overburdened the Financial Industry which is now causing problems with other industries. I never said .gov caused the failure of the big three auto makers.
-
I don't agree with bailing them out.
But you do have to look at the number of jobs involved.
Not just the UAW.
There are a lot of vendors that live on those contracts.
Then you have the dealerships.
Then you have the blow to America.
A car is a big investment.
If you don't think a manufacturer will be around to back it, you don't want to buy that product.
There are still a lot of Americans that are stuck on buying American only.
It is a very rough call on this one.
-
Yes, it's a tough call. I don't see an upside for our economy if they go under, especially right now when the economy is teetering as it is.
On the other hand, when I saw that my business was headed south, I sold all of my equipment, cashed in all of my retirement savings, and paid off my creditors. Nobody bailed me out. Also, in spite of the fact that I've worked 60-100 hours a week for over 20 years, I don't get the equivalent of $81 an hour in wages and benefits that production line workers do.
Hard to be sympathetic when the white and blue collar guys who were flashing their cash now want little guys like me to pay for their self-inflicted problems.
-
Nope. The big three have turned out garbage for years, letting the Asian manufacturers eat their lunch on reasonable priced transportation that was well built AND failing to live up to their image on the high priced SUV/Lux market.
Bailing 'em out makes as much sense as bailing out makers of whips & tack would have 100 some years ago. If they MUST spend our money, put it into revitalizing the road and rail systems.
-
Bankruptcy is not a bad thing. It means they HAVE to reorganize and toss out dead weight.
The factories will exist, the machines will exist. The companies will still exist, they'll just be leaner and quicker to respond to the market, with the Old Guard execs tossed out.
Any bailout is just denying the inevitable.
To be a bit crude, the Big Three really, really, REALLY need to use the restroom to do a #2. And if you try to stop that from happening, you'll delay that for a short time, and then they'll just expire completely.
Better to just let it happen now, there's a lot that has to go.
Why did people get this idea that bankruptcy means anything more than forced reorganization to return to profitability? That's what the laws are meant for!!!
-
Bankruptcy is not a bad thing. It means they HAVE to reorganize and toss out dead weight.
The factories will exist, the machines will exist. The companies will still exist, they'll just be leaner and quicker to respond to the market, with the Old Guard execs tossed out.
Any bailout is just denying the inevitable.
To be a bit crude, the Big Three really, really, REALLY need to use the restroom to do a #2. And if you try to stop that from happening, you'll delay that for a short time, and then they'll just expire completely.
Better to just let it happen now, there's a lot that has to go.
Why did people get this idea that bankruptcy means anything more than forced reorganization to return to profitability? That's what the laws are meant for!!!
I take it you were not a vendor burned by a TWA bankruptcy.
-
I take it you were not a vendor burned by a TWA bankruptcy.
It doesn't matter. Either they go bankrupt NOW, or they fail completely LATER no matter how much taxpayer funds are thrown at them.
Today's word is: inevitable
-
It doesn't matter. Either they go bankrupt NOW, or they fail completely LATER no matter how much taxpayer funds are thrown at them.
Today's word is: inevitable
Yeah, but does putting 3 million people out of work at a time when banks are already failing left and right because consumers can't pay their bills, and when retail is free-falling because no one has money to buy....have the same effect as delaying the unemployment to a point where the economy is otherwise better off?
-
Maybe AIG will buy the Big Three. ;/
-
Yeah, but does putting 3 million people out of work at a time when banks are already failing left and right because consumers can't pay their bills, and when retail is free-falling because no one has money to buy....have the same effect as delaying the unemployment to a point where the economy is otherwise better off?
You're not getting it.
No matter how many taxpayer billions are thrown at the Big Three, they will burn through them and end up at exactly the same place in a short time if they do not change.
The only way to change is to let them be bankrupt and break the UAW chokehold that is destroying them. Or there will be no companies, and no jobs, period! Ever! They will be gone.
A bailout is trying to throw paper at a fire to put it out, instead of water. The fire will just consume the paper, and still be a fire, perhaps even bigger.
-
You're not getting it.
No matter how many taxpayer billions are thrown at the Big Three, they will burn through them and end up at exactly the same place in a short time if they do not change.
Yeah, you're not getting what I said though: Do you recognize the difference between having 3 million people go unemployed in this economy, where banks are already failing and retail is in a free fall, and having those same 3 million unemployment notices delayed to a time where the banks and other sectors are in a stronger position to face the losses in customer/payment amounts?
-
Shoot,
I don't think there's enough money in the treasury to stretch them out that long.
-
Does anyone remember Harley coming back from the brink of bankruptcy in the 1980's? The executives got Citibank to agree to dimes on the dollar for the company, and bought it out from AMF. They also got an agreement from the White House to have temporary tariffs put on foreign bikes. Then they got to work producing new bikes that people wanted to buy.
They didn't need the tariffs for as long as they thought they would and told the government to lift them. They didn't ask for taxpayer dollars.
If the auto executives and the workers want to stay in the market, they need to do a couple of things. First they need to do what everyone else does when their income drops: adapt. Second, they need to produce products that people will want to buy.
I don't have a problem with the government helping them buy some time to get their acts together, but I don't think that help should take the form of welfare.
-
The UAW and the Big Three recently made a deal to shift their crushing pension and health care obligations off the carmakers. The corporations will fund a huge trust that the UAW will operate and use pay the workers/retirees their benefits. On the surface, this is a great plan. The Big Three won't have to carry their crippling pension obligations going forward. The union gets major clout. The workers still get their promised checks. Everyone wins
Thinking deeper, though, there are major problems. The biggest of those is the fact that the Big Three don't have the scratch to fund the trust right now. They're near bankrupt as it is, and they just don't have the spare billions they need for the trust. So, they're knocking on Uncle Sam's door.
Should Uncle Same give 'em the cash? Obviously not.
The money would go straight into the UAW trust and be paid out to retired UAW members. It would amount to massive theft, UAW workers staling from the taxpaying public, from their neighbors. That's not how a free country is supposed to work.
Will Uncle Same give 'em the cash? Probably. Definitely.
Obama is too Marxist to pass up an opportunity like this. He'll give the car companies a few billion, knowing that he's really giving it to a labor union. Worse, Obama will probably push through his universal health care system. That'll mean that the UAW won't have to use their new trust wealth to pay for worker health care, because Uncle Sam will do that for 'em.
It's all about wealth transfer. Government under Obama will be all to eager to do that.
-
Considering the POS GM calls the Monte Carlo I can understand what their problem is, they're selling POSs. Nothing but trouble with that car, and then the GM "Not So Smart" buy program where they screw you in places you don't want to be screwed? We were going to bite the bullet, pay off the loan and keep the car, but it's just been one thing after another with it and we only have 75,000 miles on it. We don't want no stinkin' lemon. Can't wait to see what they try to pull when we go to turn it in. Eff em, the losers. Nobody's going to bail me out if MY business fails. But then again, my business is not failing, it's doing rather well actually. ;)
-
One of the main reasons why Obama won:
-Crying foul when money might go to a pension fund for people who worked their whole lives, but not saying much when 700 billion shows up in the federal budget to bail out millionaire investment bankers and insurance industry executives.
It is probably necessary, but it's welfare. Why is it such a crime when a bunch of retired workers get paychecks that will sustain them through retirement, but not so horribly marxist when the government gives out billions to aid failing corporations?
That question right there is why people are voting for a candidate like Obama. It's simply not possible to pretend that either party opposes welfare; so given that, the majority of the population is obviously going to vote for welfare for the majority, which Obama seems to favor, as opposed to the welfare for Wall Street and select corporations that conservatives tend to champion.
-
How did the government cause the failure of the big three auto makers?
Allowing unions to create "union shops" where the automakers are not allowed to hire anyone other than union members is a major contributor to the problem . . . it's a policy worthy of Tony Soprano.
-
When you read the news, figures like 3 million jobs may be affected. But this is IF all three US (Big Three) auto makers go under, not a single auto maker. Folks will be layed off regardless. If there is reduced demand for their products, they aren't going to build the cars. So what does a bail out actually accomplish? My take is the retiree pension fund which the union is totally mixed up with. Chapter 11 may be the correct answer to the problem so the company or compaines can really look at their business and streamline the product line to match likely buying habits of US consumers. I understand Chapter 11 would force a new union contract to be approved and significant concessions will be sought. Do what most other companies are doing... move to 401K type plans.
Folks say they build a bad product. I understand Ford has really improved their product line. I was looking at cars a while back and Ford was the only manufacturer I would consider other than the foreign manufactures. I didn't even bother visiting a GM dealership. The only product that I might be interested in are their pickups and vans. I bought a Ford product (van actually) which is amazing since I have owned exclusively Toyota products since 1980. You could say that I have been a satisfied customer. Toyota has never let me down. So why would I even consider changing? There lies the problem..... US Car makers lost my business a long time ago. It was the result of their not adjusting to a changing market at that time. I honestly don't know if that is true any more and I guess I really don't care.
-
The basic reality is that the bailout to any of them would go right into the UAW retirement funds, not into retooling the companies. The unions would run off with the money from the taxpayers.
-
NO taxpayer money for the big three. Let the bastids sink.
Umber
-
Shootinstudent, are people still voting for Obama? I suppose it's possible.
When the bailout was being discussed, I recall Obama being conspicuously vague. Can you point me to very specific comments he made?
Just so you don't think I'm one of those cold-hearted rich conservatives, here's a couple of points: I'm not rich; and my 90 year-old mother lives on my late father's GM pension. If the pension goes away, she's going to have a hard time.
I don't know what every single person here on APS does for a living, so I may be stepping on some toes when I ask if nobody finds it incredible that union members get such a fantastic deal. Work on a production line for X number of years, retire in your 50's if you like, and have a pension and health insurance the rest of your life. Same deal with government workers, especially cops (at least here in Milwaukee).
I'm sorry if I don't have sympathy for those folks. Life isn't fair. If GM employees lose their pensions, I don't want to pay for their retirement when I can't afford to retire myself. If my father's pension stops, my brothers and I will make sure our mother has money to live on.
-
In a word, NO. They did it to themselves. Let them rot on the vine.
-
One of the problems of this changing corporate environment is the little guy, (the production worker and the low to middle level management or professional types), who will not have a pension when they retire. Frankly I'll probably have to work until the day I can't any more. I won't have a GM pension available and all there is is social security and what little I have saved. Then the stock market did several major flips in the last 10 years and there is not much saved now. I think I may be typical of many in present day America. The last two stock market adjustments have absolutely slaughtered any hopes of retiring ever unless I want to live in Section 8 housing, get food stamps and welfare.
-
One of the main reasons why Obama won:
-Crying foul when money might go to a pension fund for people who worked their whole lives, but not saying much when 700 billion shows up in the federal budget to bail out millionaire investment bankers and insurance industry executives.
It is probably necessary, but it's welfare. Why is it such a crime when a bunch of retired workers get paychecks that will sustain them through retirement, but not so horribly marxist when the government gives out billions to aid failing corporations?
That question right there is why people are voting for a candidate like Obama. It's simply not possible to pretend that either party opposes welfare; so given that, the majority of the population is obviously going to vote for welfare for the majority, which Obama seems to favor, as opposed to the welfare for Wall Street and select corporations that conservatives tend to champion.
Hmm... I seem to recall most people (especially here) being opposed to the Wall Street bailout as well.
In this case, it is such a crime because they need to take responsibility for their own actions. These workers, through their unions, are directly responsible for the situation the "Big Three" are in now.
I can see NO BETTER OPTION than to let those who caused this situation suffer the consequences.
If they wanted to have security for the rest of their lives, perhaps they should have aided the future profitability of the company rather than sucking every bit of life from it they could.
-
If they wanted to have security for the rest of their lives, perhaps they should have aided the future profitability of the company rather than sucking every bit of life from it they could.
That is a good point. The problem is that it may not have changed anything from today's perspective. The legacy costs are the killer infection. As a tax payer, I really don't want to pay for their retirement packages. What is the result? GM falls. Folks loose their pensions and health benefits. The whole economic scenario is going to make it so much easier for Obama to permanently alter health care in the USA.
Collectively the unions may have caused the problem. But the ones that really caused the problem from both industry and the union side will never suffer any financial consequences. It will be the little guy who suffers as always.
-
If they wanted to have security for the rest of their lives, perhaps they should have aided the future profitability of the company rather than sucking every bit of life from it they could.
Actually, I think if these people wanted to have security for the rest of their lives, they should have saved some of their substantial income and built up a nest egg.
Counting on someone else to take care for you 30 years in the future is just plain foolish.
-
I don't know what every single person here on APS does for a living, so I may be stepping on some toes when I ask if nobody finds it incredible that union members get such a fantastic deal. Work on a production line for X number of years, retire in your 50's if you like, and have a pension and health insurance the rest of your life.
I don't find it incredible, I think it's absolutely ludicrous.
UAW workers get white collar pay for unskilled (or semi-skilled) blue collar labor, plus benefits a professional athlete would be happy with. Many of my now-retired family members had this deal; they graduated from high school and walked into lucrative jobs. No college. No capital investment. No taking their work worries home with them as I do, being a struggling small business owner. There's a part of me that envies them, but now we get to pay for the fairy tale they lived.
The bottom line is that the unions have to go.
GM is not primarily an auto manufacturer; they're a pension and health insurance company that happens to make cars.
-
One of the main reasons why Obama won:
-Crying foul when money might go to a pension fund for people who worked their whole lives, but not saying much when 700 billion shows up in the federal budget to bail out millionaire investment bankers and insurance industry executives.
It is probably necessary, but it's welfare. Why is it such a crime when a bunch of retired workers get paychecks that will sustain them through retirement, but not so horribly marxist when the government gives out billions to aid failing corporations?
That question right there is why people are voting for a candidate like Obama. It's simply not possible to pretend that either party opposes welfare; so given that, the majority of the population is obviously going to vote for welfare for the majority, which Obama seems to favor, as opposed to the welfare for Wall Street and select corporations that conservatives tend to champion.
Banks and automakers are both big capitalist corporations. Bail out either, and it's the same situation as far as those eeevil wealthy executives go. The executives of the bailed out company continue receiving their multimillion dollar bonuses, whether they make cars or make investments.
The difference is that the finance industry is vital to the national economy. Without it, we might enter the next great depression. You can see why lawmakers might want to keep it alive, even if on life support. You can't say that about the obsolete and inefficient domestic car manufacturers.
Regardless, failed companies in either industry need to be allowed to fail. Despite all the talk about bailouts for big banks, all of the banks who've needed "bailouts" have in fact gone out of business. Bear Sterns, Lehmans, Merril Lynch, AIG, WaMu, all down the line, these companies are taken over, closed down, or are in the process of being closed down. The bailouts didn't keep these companies alive, they served only to keep the damage from their failures from spreading to other companies.
Will the failed automakers be closed down or taken over just like failed banks were?
-
at this point anything the government does will almost certainly only prolong the pain and make things worse longer term.
doing nothing will be painful, but i just do not see there is anything government can do that will resolve any of the structural problems the industry has.
the way the market deals with companies that are badly run is that they go under and are replaced by better run companies.
-
at this point anything the government does will almost certainly only prolong the pain and make things worse longer term.
doing nothing will be painful, but i just do not see there is anything government can do that will resolve any of the structural problems the industry has.
the way the market deals with companies that are badly run is that they go under and are replaced by better run companies.
This is something I've tried to explain to many people.
The government can't create growth.
The government can't fix an economy. Even if they are the ones who screwed it up.
The best they can do is NOT screw up the economy.
-
The government can't fix an economy. Even if they are the ones who screwed it up.
Actually they can. Privatising and scaling back their activities.
-
Actually they can. Privatising and scaling back their activities.
Ok, this is true.
Perhaps I should have said, government cannot by positive action fix an economy. They can be negative action (i.e. stopping doing things).
-
Let the UAW fund the bailout from their PAC.
Anygunanywhere
-
Let's assume that GM has gone bankrupt. Does GM not have plants and machinery that another automaker might want to buy? For dimes on the dollar Toyota could produce Buicks and Chevrolets, but with better quality. It could be a smart move on their part.
Unions have done in the US automakers. They've also destroyed the economies of states like Wisconsin where we're now running a $5 billion budget deficit, yet the teachers and state workers through their unions continue to get phenomenal benefits and pension packages that are draining the state's economy.
-
Overall profits and share prices are certainly important...but then again so is the retirement and ability to survive of a few hundred thousand voters.
The selective outrage is what doesn't make sense to me: A massive welfare package that will increase corporate profits and share prices is a necessary evil, some subdued criticism....but a welfare package that might actually end up paying some "blue collar workers" the "white collar wages" that they were contractually promised is the worst case of marxism since Stalin.
I've been saying for a while that corporate welfare is welfare, and eventually the electorate will just decide it should get in on more of the welfare train too. Now that millions of people are underwater on their houses, wages are declining, and unemployment is up, combined with the fact that the corporate welfare package hasn't saved all the private funds (which the UAW workers wouldn't be living on now anyway, given the condition of the market, had they saved instead of had contracted pensions)...look at which party, and which ideology, is winning the elections.
When it's painfully obvious that both the right and the left support welfare, the welfare plan that gives money to more individual voters is going to be the one that wins, regardless of the tooth gnashing about how only people who help corporations make a profit should get money, how unfair union contracts are, etc etc. That is a basic political and economic reality: If the government is in the business of handing out money in the billions, you'd better believe that sooner or later the voters are going to smarten up and vote for money-direct, rather than money to a few corporations.
-
Absolutely not. Half of creative destruction is destruction. If US automakers cannot compete, they need to get out of the way and let in someone who can.
-
Allowing unions to create "union shops" where the automakers are not allowed to hire anyone other than union members is a major contributor to the problem
That's it in a nutshell. The government gave the unions an artificial advantage over the corporations, so YES, they created this mess.
However, they can't fix it, only obligate us (the taxpayers) to fix it. I say let the companies go bankrupt.
Then again, I also say they have a right to replace workers who will not work, regardless of the reason.
The government can't fix an economy. Even if they are the ones who screwed it up.
The best they can do is NOT screw up the economy.
QFT.
-
In yesterday's USA Today newspaper, GM took out a full-page ad begging for the bailout, and listing off what would happen to America if they didn't get the cash influx.
Two pages over, there was a similar full-page ad from the head of the Automotive Dealer's Association, again begging for the bailout, and warning of dire consequences were that bailout not to happen.
Of course, the former ad didn't say word one about scaling back union wages, executive salaries and bonuses, etc.
Some excerpts:
"The Auto Industry Matters...Telling It Like It Is."
* 1 out of 10 people in America is employed in a service related to the U.S. auto industry.
* 3 million jobs would be lost in year 1, and another 2.5 million in the next two years.
* Personal income would drop by $150.7 Billion.
* $156.4 Billion over 3 years in lost taxes.
* Domestic auto production (including by int'l producers) would fall to zero due to supplier bankruptcies.
And a flashy video, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72cHfOKoA1c
-
Should they? Hell NO, but they will anyways.
-
At worst, we should give them a loan under the most common terms given by GMAC: 8-15% interest, require them to take out insurance on the business with the US Taxpayer as the beneficiary, etc.
Seriously, though, no. THAT'S socialism. It's bad enough we have stakes in banks.
Bankruptcy is probably the best thing for those automakers; as it'll let them renegotiate some disastrous union contracts, and other agreements that are, err, bankrupting them. Hopefully, they'll take some lessons from far more successful automakers and mend their ways.
I doubt it.
A bailout will only reward poor decisions.
If we're going to be socialists, i'd much rather grab a successful industry that can make money, or at least be turned arouind.
-
In another post I mentioned Harley Davidson's recovery in the early 1980's. The company was already bankrupt, it's just that the bank didn't know it.
One thing that helped save Harley was concessions by the workers, who realized they'd be out of jobs if the company folded.
The Big Three haven't even received the $25 billion yet, and they're already talking about more. Absent any radical changes in the way the companies operate, if we give them the money now we'll be giving them more until they go under. Better they get it over with now.
-
Corporate Welfare/Socialism does not work; these and many other companies have received billions over the years.
They have no incentive to do a good job when help is just around the corner.
If you are blaming the unions for auto industry problems, don't forget to blame the management as well. They took billions from companies they ran into the ground.
I know a few folks that run small businesses. They would like to be bailed out as well.
Democrats AND Republicans are both responsible for dispensing corporate welfare. They are to blame as well.
-
If they're in that much trouble, I have the answer.
All three file chapter 11 in Federal Bankruptcy Court....the proper mechanism for this type of problem.
Allow the court to reorganize the company, overrule the compensation committee on matters of corporate payroll and review union contracts, as well as other more involved items of issue.
-
I'm not blaming unions entirely, but they're a big part of the problem. The wages and benefits add $2000 to the price of each vehicle. The manufacturer can either raise the price of the car by $2000 to make the same profit as Toyota, or cut corners on quality. The Big Three seem to have chosen the latter, at least in most instances.
Management has made some ridiculous blunders as well. Here's an example:
A couple of months ago I stopped at a Ford dealership to see what kind of price I'd be looking at for a 2009 Mustang GT. I gave the salesman my list: GT body package, 5-speed manual, red. Should be simple, right?
Wrong. He did a search at dealerships within a 200 mile radius, but could not come up with the car I wanted in red. Why? Because red is the most popular color.
If red is the most popular color, why the hell don't they make more of the cars in red?
-
As I've watched the house representatives grille and criticize the big 3 automakers CEO's on how poorly they've run their respective companies it sickens me that these are the same govt officials who have driven our economy into the ditch.
These representatives sit up there and tell others how poorly they've done while our country goes down in flames due to their own corrupt or incompetent policies.
-
As I've watched the house representatives grille and criticize the big 3 automakers CEO's on how poorly they've run their respective companies it sickens me that these are the same govt officials who have driven our economy into the ditch.
These representatives sit up there and tell others how poorly they've done while our country goes down in flames due to their own corrupt or incompetent policies.
Just because they are hipocrites doesn't mean they aren't correct.
Don't worry, they will get a bailout; this was just for show to their constituents and the press. :rolleyes:
-
Just because they are hipocrites doesn't mean they aren't correct.
Don't worry, they will get a bailout; this was just for show to their constituents and the press. :rolleyes:
Well just imagine the fallout from the relevant districts reps if the automakers decided to bag the unions and to stop complying with EPA OSHA and other govt mandated regs to trim costs to become profitable.
The automakers can't win.
I'm not concerned if they get a bailout or not, perhaps bankruptcy restructuring would help gets things back on track.
It's also not that the companies are producing the crap that they turned out in the 70's and 80's, they are making good products that are safe but they're still at least 10 years behind let's say Lexus in engineering and quality. All one rep could come up with was his disgruntlement in having trouble in finding the car of his choice in "blue". Another complained that the cars Detroit was producing were too good and lasting too long thusly taking new buyers out of the marketplace for too long.
The automakers have to got get free of the union and healthcare/retirement stranglehold they're saddled with or they will never see the light of day.
-
We've easily lost 3 million jobs over the last 10 years to the wonders of offshoring. We didn't seem to concerned at the time. So howcome it is we are now bleeting over the loss of another 3 million jobs? Is it because we have a different and new president beholden to labor unions?
The loss of auto maker and supporting jobs is are lead pipe cinch. But is makes absolutely no sense to keep pumping money into the current business plan BECAUSE WHAT THEY ARE DOING NOW IS NOT WORKING.
Go into bankrupcy, bust the contracts, off-load pensions on PBGC (I don't approve of it but that is what every other industry does when their business plans tank), clear cut management, stand around waiting for The O to deliver national healthcare, and finally emerge mean and lean.
-
Wait, wait. Let me get this clear. We let the Big 3 die now, UAW goes with them, right?
-
Make 'em split up. Reorganize as to their core competencies. Which is probably boiled down to running a line.
Make the lines available to diverse companies who want to build cars.
Let them hire who they want, but let Auto keep the parts flowing...
-
Reorganize under Chapter 11.
Dunno what that would do to the spare parts supply, or the defense contracts, though...
-
Nope. Let them use Chap 11 to actually reorganize. I agree that bailing them out will only delay the inevitable.