GOP to Detroit: Drop dead

[pktruckdriver]

What do you think, post election, don't give a poop attitude, or what?


Before election, 850 billion dollars to anyone who asks, but after election, nothing.

Of the possible bailouts, nethier one works for me, but if one had to be done, I would'a chose Automakers, over Financial services,


Which would you choose?

[delayjf]

Make them file for bankrupcy then loan them the money. That way they can start all over again - while the jobs stay put.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Straw Man #1

Could use the money for sizeable discounts for taxpayers to purchase new U.S. built cars, and loans, keep the people employed and generate sales, and get people to try the latest U.S. built cars again.

Straw Man #2

Use the money to help support the workers (beyond their UAW benefits) and help fund retooling while the struggling companies are sold to the more successful competitors (domestic and foreign) and their products are built in the revised U.S. located plants.

[RobinFromIreland]

From WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669746125629365.html) :

...Over the past decade, the capital destruction by GM has been breathtaking, on a greater scale than documented by Mr. Jensen for the 1980s. GM has invested $310 billion in its business between 1998 and 2007. The total depreciation of GM's physical plant during this period was $128 billion, meaning that a net $182 billion of society's capital has been pumped into GM over the past decade -- a waste of about $1.5 billion per month of national savings. The story at Ford has not been as adverse but is still disheartening, as Ford has invested $155 billion and consumed $8 billion net of depreciation since 1998.

As a society, we have very little to show for this $465 billion. At the end of 1998, GM's market capitalization was $46 billion and Ford's was $71 billion. Today both firms have negligible value, with share prices in the low single digits. Both are facing imminent bankruptcy and delisting from the major stock exchanges. Along with management, the companies' unions and even their regulators in Washington may have their own culpability, a topic that merits its own separate discussion. Yet one can only imagine how the $465 billion could have been used better -- for instance, GM and Ford could have closed their own facilities and acquired all of the shares of Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Volkswagen...

[OTM Al]

Everyone seems to be commenting on the automakers as if they were just another business. Like it or not, they are not. They got too big. Some estimates I've seen have 10% of all jobs in the US dependant on the auto industry. You allow them to declare bankruptcy, you save them at the expense of all the businesses dependant on them. We will once again see towns annihilated as happened in the late 70s. I'm not saying that I am in total support of giving money to an industry that got where it is through their own fault, but this is something to always think of in the balance. Honestly I don't know where the answer is on this one.

[prospector]

don't see this as political at all...
level heads in all parties think this bailout is a bad idea, most didn't like the first one..
this is a case of politicians telling us common folk that we don't know better than they do..
sit down, shut up, and watch congress piss away our kids future...the tax burden will bury them..

[michiken]

Here is an article (http://www.freep.com/article/20081117/COL14/811170379/?imw=Y) about myths of Detroit Autos.

If these are true, then why does the industry need a bailout?

[pktruckdriver]

Michiken

Nice article :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: if true , that is.

[JustRalph]

I have seen several Toyota's and Honda's with 200k miles on them and some much more.

I can count on "one finger" how many I have seen made by GM

[delayjf]

Just because they file for bankrucpy does not me they shut their doors. But if they don't start taking the companies in new directions - what's the chance they don't need another bail out in a year or two?? :confused:

[prospector]

I have seen several Toyota's and Honda's with 200k miles on them and some much more.

I can count on "one finger" how many I have seen made by GM
in august i traded in my toyota tacoma truck with 95,000 miles on it for a new toyota tundra truck...the only thing i did during those 95,000 miles was oil/filter changes and new tires at 65,000 miles..i'd have kept it, except i bought a travel trailer and needed more power to pull the trailer..that little tacoma truck took me prospecting to places a jeep would fear to go..never a problem..

this morning i had a dead battery..i called the salesman up to grumble...he drove 22 miles to my house, jumped the battery and had me follow him back to the dealership..i immediately got a new battery at no cost....that's service..
just another reason why i buy toyota...

[Lefty]

No matter what happends, if the fed govt doesn't get out of the way with ridiculous cafe standards that can't be met, won't be long they'll need it again.
Meanwhile Union head says the union unwilling to do anything, won't make any concessions; just bring on the bailout.
an pt truckdriver, your title for this thread is about as ridiculous as the union pres' words.
there ya go...

[DRIVEWAY]

The auto bailout proposal is fo 25 Billion. If GM got every penny, they would last an extra 16 weeks. Currently, they are bleeding 1.5 Billion per week.

GM has 200K employees. They have 784K retirees. Their cost per car for healthcare is $1600. Ford is at $1500 and Toyota(USA) is at $300.

The unit hourly labor cost for GM is $71hr. Toyota is at $47hr in USA.

The future of GM is in the hands of the UAW(United Auto Workers). Most likely the UAW will not make enough concessions. GM should file for Chapter 11 bankrupcy and then begin negotiations with the UAW.

GM needs to get it's hourly rate in line with their major competitor. Current contract must change dramatically. Retirees must forego healthcare and take a haircut on their pensions of 30-50%. Management must take a 50-60% haircut on their compensation.

The most likely outcome is a slow but steady death. The UAW, retirees and management will not make the needed sacrifices. In the end they will all wind up with nothing.

Incredibly it's bye bye for GM.

[JustRalph]

I have seen several Toyota's and Honda's with 200k miles on them and some much more.

I can count on "one finger" how many I have seen made by GM

I maybe should have mentioned , I drive a Chevy Tahoe :lol: I am taking the big gamble myself. After 1 year the tires were cupped so bad I had to replace them. Just a few months back I had to pay 500 bucks to have a "sensor" switch in the 4 wheel drive system changed. The switch was 95 bucks but the labor was over 400 bucks to tear down the transfer case etc. I love the truck.......but I was all of 6k miles out of warranty on the transfer case switch. If Toyota or Honda made a similar vehicle I would jump in a minute.

[HUSKER55]

If Honda builds a plant in the US don't they have to have Union workers? How do they get by so cheap compared to the Big 3 as the other posters said?

[SCSAYS]

The business plan of Honda and Toyota is high quality and value as opposed to GM's business plan of greed and extremely poor quality vehicles.

[michiken]

GM, Ford and Chrysler made there pacts with the Unions many years ago. They let them dictate how the cars would be built and increased there power over time. These contracts have been renegotiated with nothing but the UAW interests first.

The difference between the rice burners and the US auto companies is that the later has too many legacy costs i,e. health care and pensions. The import manufacturers have no such costs.

It is not a requirement that cars being 'assembled' (most of the parts are china or japanese imports) be unionized. At most Honda, Nissan and Toyota plants that I have visited for work, union is a bad word.

The foreigners intentionally selected areas where they could get cheap help. This is why Farmer Bob who switched to be a Honda Assembler is so protective of his job. He will wear his lime green jump suit and perform morning excercises because he NEVER had a job so good.

For all of you who support these overseas companies, you have to realize that you helped ship dollars and jobs abroad. Sure the wages support the local economy but overall the majority of profits go back overseas. The US economy sees very little benefit. Think about your grandchildren. They will never have what you do.

It's time for us to take back the US. One job at a time!!!!!!

[JustRalph]

If Honda builds a plant in the US don't they have to have Union workers? How do they get by so cheap compared to the Big 3 as the other posters said?

No. Honda Accords and Goldwing Motorcycles have been built in Marysville Ohio for about 25 years if my memory serves me right. My Sister actually had a job at Honda for a couple of years. One of my best buds from High School has been working there since they opened. Honda is moving the Goldwing Motorcycle plant back to Japan and scaling it back due to less demand.

They have never had a union and They take care of their people. They don't put up with any crap though. If you aren't committed to quality and the company........you go away real fast. They also have been criticised for using a Temp worker plan that allows them evaluate employees before hiring them full time.

They pay attendance bonus, sick time bonus, on time bonus etc every quarter. They put over 35 million a year into the Central Ohio economy and they buy lots of stuff from local suppliers.

[Capper Al]

If Honda builds a plant in the US don't they have to have Union workers? How do they get by so cheap compared to the Big 3 as the other posters said?

Better management than Detroit's. Both use US workers. If it was any other time, I would have voted no bailout. Things are just too bad with the economy right now to risk letting the auto companies go under.

[riskman]

This explains it in more detail :

"The bailout for GM is a bailout for the trade unions and management. US consumers are simply going to buy fewer cars in the future. That is a fact. Spending $50 billion does not address that reality. That $50 billion can be better spent by helping workers who lose their jobs. Without serious reforms, a bailout will simply postpone the problem, and there will be a need for more money in a few years. And do we think that the management which got GM into the current mess is the group to bring them out?

The argument that "we bailed out Wall Street, so why not GM" doesn't hold water. What we did and are doing is to try to keep the financial system functioning, so we don't see the world economy simply shut down. But don't tell the 125,000 people who have lost jobs on Wall Street that it was a bailout. That number is likely to go to 200,000. No one thinks that a restructured GM would see anywhere close to half that number of job losses.

Do we protect Circuit City (CC)? Sun Microsystems (JAVA) just announced plans to lay off 6,000 workers. Where is their bailout? Citigroup (C) announced 50,000 further job cuts today. This is a recession. And sadly that means a lot of jobs are going to be lost. GM workers should have no more right to their jobs than a Sun or Citibank or Circuit City worker.

Now, would I be opposed to a bridge loan to help in the transition? No, because a viable Detroit is good for the country and will cost the taxpayer less in the long run than if we have to pick up their pension benefits. But any money must come with realistic reforms that put in charge new management and a realistic cost structure so GM can compete."

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/airlines-delta-C-citigroup-DAL-UAUA/index/a/20020

[Valuist]

Unless Chrysler merges w/GM or Ford, there's no way they should ever be bailed out. They are owned by a hedge fund. THe big bank bailout was bad enough; no way would a bailout of a bad hedge fund investment get bailed out.

[highnote]

Contact John Mauldin
Print Version

Volume 5 - Special Edition
November 20, 2008



On G-20 and GM: Economics,
Politics and Social Stability
By George Friedman


Dear Friends:

The Big Three have a new customer, and it isn't you. As Detroit's former heavyweights fight for a slice of a $25 billion bailout package, more than humble pie is being eaten. If the automakers fail and take their companies into bankruptcy, Michigan as we know it ceases to exist economically. The trickle-down impact could rapidly become a waterfall: the seat supplier in Georgia loses three major customers. The factory worker who makes seats is out of a job. The bank who holds his mortgage takes another hickey. Commercial lending at that bank dries up. Ad nauseum. In the best of economic times, this would be a troublesome scenario. In today's economy, it's easy to see how policymakers are as worried about social stability as they are economics.

No astute person thinks that the Big Three will be able to return to the business practices of last year. And no intelligent investor should be trying to evaluate portfolio decisions the same way this year either. We have moved from the realm of finance to political economy, and for that you need a different set of tools and a different mindset.

I've enclosed an article by my friend George Friedman, the founder of global intelligence firm Stratfor. This is a fascinating, must-read piece that examines US policy options by looking at the Chinese as an example. The parallels are illuminating. I've stressed before the importance of reading Stratfor's intelligence in order to gain a clear understanding of the political and economic landscape you're investing in, but you need it now more than ever.

George has arranged a special offer just for my readers. And I'm excited to tell you that in addition to a Stratfor Membership, you'll also get a copy of his new book, The Next 100 Years.

Click here to take advantage of this special offer. You'll find George's new book as fascinating and insightful as Stratfor's daily work.

Yours,
John Mauldin

ADVERTISEMENT






On G-20 and GM: Economics, Politics and Social Stability
November 17, 2008 | 1840 GMT
By George Friedman


Related Special Topic Pages

Political Economy and the Financial Crisis
The G-20 met last Saturday. Afterward, the group issued a meaningless statement and decided to meet again in March 2009, or perhaps later. Clearly, the urgency of October is gone. First, the perception of imminent collapse is past. Politicians are superb seismographs for detecting impending disaster, and these politicians did not act as if they were running out of time. Second, the United States will have a new president in March, and nothing can be done until he defines his policy.

Given the sense in Europe that this financial crisis marked the end of U.S. economic supremacy, it is ironic that the Europeans are waiting on the Americans. One would think they would be using their newfound ascendancy to define the new international system. But the fact is that for all the shouting, little has changed in the international order. The crisis has receded sufficiently that nothing more needs to be done immediately beyond "cooperation," and nothing can be done until the United States defines what will be done. We feel that our view that the international system received fatal blows Aug. 8, when Russia and Georgia went to war, and Oct. 11, when the G-7 meeting ended without a single integrated solution, remains unchallenged. Now, it is every country for itself.

From Financial Crisis to Cyclical Recession
The financial crisis has been mitigated, if not solved. The problem now is that we are in a cyclical recession, and that every country is trying to figure out how to cope with the recession. Unlike the past two recessions, this one is more global than local. But unlike the 1970s, when recession was global, this one is not accompanied by soaring inflation and interest rates.

All recessions have different dynamics, but all have one thing in common: They impose punishment and discipline on economies run wild. This is happening around the world.

China, for example, faces a serious problem. China is an export-oriented economy whose primary market is the United States. As the United States goes into recession, demand for Chinese goods declines. Chinese businesses have always operated on very tight - sometimes invisible - profit margins designed to emphasize cash flow and to pay off debts to banks. As U.S. demand contracts, many Chinese firms find themselves in untenable positions, without room to decrease prices, lacking operating reserves and insufficiently capitalized. Recessions are designed to cull the weak from the herd, and a huge swath of the Chinese economy is ripe for the culling.

If the world were all about economics, culling is what the Chinese would do. But the world is more complex than that. A culling would lead to massive unemployment. Many Chinese employees live on Third World wages; indeed, the vast majority of Chinese have incomes of less than $1,000 a year. To them, unemployment doesn't mean problems with their 401k. It means malnutrition and desperation - neither of which is unknown in 20th century Chinese history, including the Communist period. The Chinese government is rightly worried about the social and political consequences of rational economic policies: They might work in the long run, but only if you live that long.

Economic Restructuring vs. Stability
The Chinese have therefore prepared a massive stimulus package that is more of a development program to make up for declining U.S. demand. It aims to keep businesses from failing and spilling millions of angry and hungry workers into the street. For the Chinese, the economic problem creates a much larger and more serious issue. It is also an issue that must be solved quickly, and the amount of time needed outstrips the amount of time available.

This is not only a Chinese problem. Wherever there is an economic downturn, politicians must decide whether society - and their own political futures - can withstand the rigors recessions impose. Recessions occur when, as is inevitable, inefficiencies and irrationalities build up in the financial and economic system. The resulting economic downturn imposes a harsh discipline that destroys the inefficient, encourages everyone to become more efficient, and opens the doors to new businesses using new technologies and business models. The year 2001 smashed the technology sector in the United States, opening the door for Google Inc.

The business cycle works well, but the human costs can be daunting. The collapse of inefficient businesses leaves workers without jobs, investors without money and society less stable than before. The pain needed to rectify China's economy would be enormous, with devastating consequences for hundreds of millions of Chinese, and probably would lead to social chaos. Beijing is prepared to accept a high degree of economic inefficiency to avoid, or at least postpone, the reckoning. The reckoning always comes, but for most of us, later is better than sooner. Economic rationality takes a back seat to social necessity and political common sense.

Every country in the world is looking inward at the impact of the recession on its economy and measuring its resources. Countries are deciding whether they have the ability to prop up business that should fail, what the social consequences of business failure would be, and whether they should try to use their resources to avoid the immediate pain of recession. This is why the G-20 ended in meaningless platitudes.

Each country is also trying to answer the question of how much pain it - and its regime - can endure. The more pain imposed, the healthier countries will emerge economically - unless of course the pain kills them. Ultimately, the rationality of economics and the reality of society frequently diverge.

Recession and the U.S. Auto Industry
For the United States, this choice has been posed in stark terms with regard to the dilemma of whether the U.S. government should use its resources to rescue the American auto industry. The American auto industry was once the centerpiece of the U.S. economy. That hasn't been true for a generation, as other industries and services have supplanted it and other countries' auto industries have surpassed it. Nevertheless, the U.S. auto industry remains important. It might drain the U.S. economy by losing vast amounts of money and destroying the equity held by its investors, but it employs large numbers of people. Perhaps more important, it purchases supplies from literally thousands of U.S. companies.

There can be endless discussions of why the U.S. auto industry is in such trouble. The answer lies not in one place but in many, from the decisions and makeup of management to the unions that control much of the workforce, and from the cost structure inherent in producing cars in the American economy to a simple systemic inability to produce outstanding vehicles. There might be varying degrees of truth to all or some of this, but the fact remains that each of the U.S. carmakers is on the verge of financial collapse.

This is what recessions are supposed to do. As in China and everywhere else, recessions reveal weak businesses and destroy them, freeing up resources for new enterprises. This recession has hit the auto industry hard, and it is unlikely that it is going to survive. The ultimate reason is the same one that destroyed the U.S. steel industry a generation ago: Given U.S. cost structures, producing commodity products is best left to countries with lower wage rates, while more expensive U.S. labor is deployed in more specialized products requiring greater expertise. Thus, there is still steel production in the United States, but it is specialty steel production, not commodity steel. Similarly, there will be specialty auto production in the United States, but commodity auto production will come from other countries.

That sounds easy, but the transition actually will be a bloodletting. Current employees of both the automakers and suppliers will be devastated. Institutions that have lent money to the automakers will suffer massive or total losses. Pensioners might lose pensions and health care benefits, and an entire region of the United States - the industrial Midwest - will be devastated. Something stronger will grow eventually, but not in time for many of the current employees, shareholders and creditors.

Here the economic answer, cull, meets the social answer, stabilize. Policymakers have a decision to make. If the automakers fail now, their drain on the economy will end; the pain will be shorter, if more intense; and new industries would emerge more quickly. But though their drain on the economy would end, the impact of the automakers' failure on the economy would be seismic. Unemployment would surge, as would bankruptcies of many auto suppliers. Defaults on loans would hit the credit markets. In the Midwest, home prices would plummet and foreclosures would skyrocket. And heaven only knows what the impact on equity markets would be.

In the U.S. case, the healthful purgative of a recession could potentially put the patient in a coma. Few if any believe the U.S. auto industry can survive in its current form. But there is an emerging consensus in Washington that the auto industry must not be allowed to fail now. The argument for spending money on the auto industry is not to save it, but to postpone its failure until a less devastating and inconvenient time. In other words, fearing the social and political consequences of a recession working itself through to its logical conclusion, Washington - like Beijing - wants to spend money it probably won't recover to postpone the failure. Indeed, governments around the world are considering what failures to tolerate, what failures to postpone, and how much to spend on the latter. General Motors is merely the American case in point.

The Recession in Context
The people arguing for postponement aren't foolish. The financial system is still working its way through a massive crisis that had little to do with the auto industry. Some traction appears to be occurring; certainly there was no crisis atmosphere at the G-20 meeting. The economy is in recession, but in spite of the inevitable claims that we have never seen anything like this one before, we have. There is always some variable that swings to an extreme - this time, it is consumer spending - but we are still well within the framework of recent recessions.

Consider the equity markets, which we regard as a long-term measure of the market's evaluation of the state of the economy. In March 2000, the S&P 500 peaked at 1530. This was the top of the market. In October 2002, 18 months later, the S&P bottomed out at 777. Over the next five years it rose to 1562 in October 2007, the height for this cycle. It fell from this point until Nov. 12, 2008, when it closed at 852.30. This past Friday, it was at 873.29.

We do not know what the market will do in the future. There are people much smarter than we are who claim to know that. What we do know is what it has done. And what it has done this time - so far - is almost exactly what it did last time, except that in 2000-2002 it took 18 months to do it, while this time it was done in about 16 and a half months (assuming it bottomed out Nov. 12). But even if the market didn't bottom out then, and it falls to 775, for example, it will have lost 50 percent of its value from the peak. This would be more than in 2000-2002, but not unprecedented.

The point we are making here is that if we regard the equity markets as a long-term seismograph of the economy, then so far, despite all the storm and stress, the markets - and therefore the economy - remain within the general pattern of the 2000-2002 market at the 2001 recession. That recession certainly was unpleasant, what with the devastation of the tech sector, but the economy survived. At the same time, however, it is clear that things are balanced on a knife's edge. Another hundred points' fall on the S&P, and the markets will be telling us that the world is in a very different place indeed.

A massive bankruptcy in the automotive sector could certainly set the stage for an economic renaissance in the next generation. But at this particular moment in time (it's no coincidence that the crisis in the U.S. automotive industry comes as we enter a recession), a wave of bankruptcies would dramatically deepen the recession. This probably would be reflected by the destruction of trillions more in net worth in the equity markets.

There is a powerful counterargument to bailing out the U.S. auto industry. This argument holds that the auto industry is a drain on the U.S. economy, that it will never be globally competitive, and that if it is dragged back from the edge, no one will then say it is time to push it to the edge and over. The next time it will be on the brink will be during the next recession, and the same argument to save it will be used. In due course, the United States, like China, will be so terrified of the social and political consequences of business failure that it will maintain Chinese-like state owned enterprises, full of employees and generation-old plants and business models. Clearly, short-run solutions can easily become long-term albatrosses.

The only possible solution would be a bailout followed by a Washington-administered restructuring of the auto industry. This causes us to imagine a collaboration between the auto industry's current management and Washington administrators that would finally put Detroit on a path to where it can compete with Toyota. Frankly, the mind boggles at this. But boggle though we might, hitting the economy with another massive financial default, a wave of bankruptcies, massive unemployment surges and another blow to housing prices boggles our mind even more.

The geopolitical problem confronting the world at the moment is that it has been forced to offer massive support to the global financial system with sovereign wealth - e.g., via taxes and currency printing presses. The world might just have squeaked through that crisis. Now, the world is in an inevitable recession and businesses are on the brink of failure. A wave of massive business failures on top of the financial crisis might well move the global system to a very different place. Therefore, each nation, by itself and indifferent to others, is in the process of figuring out how to postpone these failures to a more opportune time - or to never. This will build in long-term inefficiencies to the global economy, but right now everyone will be quite content with that.

Thus the financial crisis became a recession, and the recession triggered bankruptcies. And because no one wants bankruptcies right now, everyone who can is using taxpayer dollars to protect the taxpayer from the consequences of mismanagement. And the last thing any one cared about was the G-20 concept for the future of the economic system.







John F. Mauldin
johnmauldin@investorsinsight.com




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reproductions. If you would like to reproduce any of John Mauldin's E-Letters or commentary, you must include the source of your quote and the following email address: JohnMauldin@InvestorsInsight.com. Please write to Reproductions@InvestorsInsight.com and inform us of any reproductions including where and when the copy will be reproduced.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Mauldin is president of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC, a registered investment advisor. All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its accuracy. Investment recommendations may change and readers are urged to check with their investment counselors before making any investment decisions.

Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs at Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC and InvestorsInsight Publishing, Inc. ("InvestorsInsight") may or may not have investments in any funds cited above.

PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER.

Communications from InvestorsInsight are intended solely for informational purposes. Statements made by various authors, advertisers, sponsors and other contributors do not necessarily reflect the opinions of InvestorsInsight, and should not be construed as an endorsement by InvestorsInsight, either expressed or implied. InvestorsInsight is not responsible for typographic errors or other inaccuracies in the content. We believe the information contained herein to be accurate and reliable. However, errors may occasionally occur. Therefore, all information and materials are provided "AS IS" without any warranty of any kind. Past results are not indicative of future results.

We encourage readers to review our complete legal and privacy statements on our home page.

InvestorsInsight Publishing, Inc. -- 14900 Landmark Blvd #350, Dallas, Texas 75254

© InvestorsInsight Publishing, Inc. 2007 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[Lefty]

Mitt Romney, for one disagrees. a bailout would be aaid. We shouldn't bailout anybody. I blve in capitalism, not socialism. Mitt says if the car companies filed chapter 7 bankruptcy and restructured, they could save themselves.
Myself I find it horrendus that the Union would rather lose jobs than compromise. Unions and Govt intervention has been the problem all along.

[Lefty]

I meant to say, a bailout would be a bandaid. I corrupted the sentence, someway, editing.
Who was that guy, Geo Maudlin? I won't be seeking financial advice from him. I lean towards Neil Cavuto and Dave Ramsey.

[ElKabong]

I have seen several Toyota's and Honda's with 200k miles on them and some much more.

I can count on "one finger" how many I have seen made by GM

My 1998 Accord has 215k. Runs almost as well today as any new US made car I ever had. I've taken good care of it, see no reason to buy a new one.

[JustRalph]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4622287

Toyota plant story

[pktruckdriver]

Makes me sad.


The Japanese are doing what we should be doing, why does that not really surprise me, does it surprise you?

The workers are happy, their jobs are safe, their community is better, and their mortages are being paid, now why can't the big 3 do this, are they different?


Are their cars made of gold, or just priced as such??

We were taught as kids, buy american, but honestly can we do this anymore?

Maybe we need the Japanese to take over the Big 3 and show them how run them right, will that happen of course not, there is this thing called a UNI0N , in the way of that being allowed, the UAW, while at one time a very nice thing to have, but now I believe the 1 big reason for this trouble now, am I wrong, here.

I am not anti-union, but truth be told, sometimes unions do more harm than good, and this is one of those times, in my opinion, as well as that of some of the auto industry workers, the ones whose docks I pick up on, the same people that now have no 2nd or 3rd shifts, and are about to shut down for awhile.


Is not 21-25 an hour enough to live on this country??

I think so, what do you think?

Well that is my 2 cents, and the name of this thread is correct , right out of todays headlines, I just plagerized it, okay.


Patrick

[Tom]

Makes me sad.


The Japanese are doing what we should be doing, why does that not really surprise me, does it surprise you?

The workers are happy, their jobs are safe, their community is better, and their mortages are being paid, now why can't the big 3 do this, are they different?


Three words.....U A W
The unions have stifled our car industry and hurt the country as a whole.
When the average auto worker makes three times what the average worker makes, where are the cries about raising taxes on excessive profits?????
The US auto industry has no future as long they are shackled by the greed of unions.

[ElKabong]

I work with a guy that was an Engineer for Bell Helicopter. He said that union workers would take claw hammers to turbine blades in queue for QC. Reason >> The company could save money by letting go of some Inspectors b/c of the success of assy quality measures.

The union took it upon themselves to embezzle the company, the workers damage perfectly good blades. This keeps the QC dept busy and saved those 2-3 jobs that would have been eliminated.....BUT, the company is far less profitable b/c of this practice by union members. In the end they lost more jobs b/c of the union's mentality.

[Capper Al]

I work with a guy that was an Engineer for Bell Helicopter. He said that union workers would take claw hammers to turbine blades in queue for QC. Reason >> The company could save money by letting go of some Inspectors b/c of the success of assy quality measures.

The union took it upon themselves to embezzle the company, the workers damage perfectly good blades. This keeps the QC dept busy and saved those 2-3 jobs that would have been eliminated.....BUT, the company is far less profitable b/c of this practice by union members. In the end they lost more jobs b/c of the union's mentality.

This was wrong. But there are no easy solutions. Taking work to Asian labor camps and destroying the environment isn't better either. Everyone is out to beat the system with the little power they have. Unions have their good side also. Collectively, they can get more money for their members. Nowadays, they can't force higher wages because companies can just go overseas. This is a two edge sword. The consumer may benefit but workers lose purchasing power here at home.

[JustRalph]

My best friend in high school, his mom worked at GM in columbus ohio.

On thursday nights her friends from work would come over for a card game. Whenever they were pissed at the supervisors or the company, they would make sure to plan what was going to be wrong with the cars they made on Friday. They would agree to leave something done wrong on every car on Friday.............. I used to sit and listen to them talk about it while playing cards............. :bang:

[Capper Al]

My best friend in high school, his mom worked at GM in columbus ohio.

On thursday nights her friends from work would come over for a card game. Whenever they were pissed at the supervisors or the company, they would make sure to plan what was going to be wrong with the cars they made on Friday. They would agree to leave something done wrong on every car on Friday.............. I used to sit and listen to them talk about it while playing cards............. :bang:

People are people, and talk is talk. If they did this or not we don't know. A lot of people like to beat up on union workers. And God knows, this lot of people are no different then any other lot of people. There are good ones and bad ones of any type. The only problem now is that the economy is in a mess. It would be easier and more organized to save the auto companies than pick up the pieces should the companies go away.

[The Judge]

once a boxer gets to the top they don't seem to stay there to long. Sure its a tuff sport but in the old days they just seem to be hungrier. Now they make so much money in a few fights they become complacent.

It seems to me that the big 3 are just to complacent they thought that all they had to do was wake-up in the morning and make money. Just think of all the cars and trucks that Americans buy for just government work and most mandate that the cars be American, all the state cars, city cars in all the various department, police cars, fire, etc, federal government cars, this is a jump start.

If it weren't for unions their would be no middle class, were would the money to create it come from? The union workers have made huge concessions

"The deal concluded by the UAW is the largest concessions contract by the union since the severe recession of the 1980s and the near bankruptcy of Chrysler Corporation. Under the terms of the agreement, the Big Three and its two largest suppliers will shut down or sell as many as 20 plants and offices, employing 17,000 workers, and reduce increases in wages, health care benefits and pensions. Analysts say the latest pact will cost the automakers $12,000 less per worker than the last contract."

If you were a worker and you saw the top management in private jets and getting huge wages, bonuses, living in huge mansions, chuffer driven limos what would you think when it came time to negotiate a union contract?

Unions aren't stupid they want as much as they can get but they don't want to kill the off the industry , what sense would that make no work no dues.

Heres an article from 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10138507/

[pktruckdriver]

I think we should let the plant shut down for awhile, why not?


We have enough cars to sell for now, heck for probally a year, parts are already made for them, mechanic's will still need to fix them, I just do not see that big a impact to have them shut down and re-organize , then maybe we can bring them in line to where they should be, but the unions, will not allow it, will they?


Who knows, just my opinion, if they were better run then why would they be in this mess, something needs to be done, are people defaulting on all their new car loans, heck I could never get one, but did for my Semi though, funny how that works out.

If they wish to compete, can they change the way they do things, can they reallty change?

I think not, no way will the Big 3 change the way they do business, but they must, am I right here?

wow enough already must put in 575 miles today then come back to this.


But , really I do not think they can or want to change, do you?


Patrick

[Capper Al]

I think we should let the plant shut down for awhile, why not?


We have enough cars to sell for now, heck for probally a year, parts are already made for them, mechanic's will still need to fix them, I just do not see that big a impact to have them shut down and re-organize , then maybe we can bring them in line to where they should be, but the unions, will not allow it, will they?


Who knows, just my opinion, if they were better run then why would they be in this mess, something needs to be done, are people defaulting on all their new car loans, heck I could never get one, but did for my Semi though, funny how that works out.

If they wish to compete, can they change the way they do things, can they reallty change?

I think not, no way will the Big 3 change the way they do business, but they must, am I right here?

wow enough already must put in 575 miles today then come back to this.


But , really I do not think they can or want to change, do you?


Patrick

To be a great nation, the US needs a manufacturing base. It is unfortunate that our auto execs are bums. For now, the way the economy is, we need the auto companies alive. If they do this during good times; I wouldn't support them, and let them go belly up.

[boxcar]

To be a great nation, the US needs a manufacturing base. It is unfortunate that our auto execs are bums. For now, the way the economy is, we need the auto companies alive. If they do this during good times; I wouldn't support them, and let them go belly up.

So, let's see if I have this right: We should reward failure during bad times with bailouts; but during good times, we should let the free market take its course and allow failures to die their well deserved ignoble deaths?

And asking out of sheer curiosity -- during these bad times, we also penalize success by taxing the "rich" who provide jobs for the not-so-well heeled, and who have the most expendable income to pour back into the economy? Or with respect to second part of the above question: Do you buy into Obama's moronic idea that the economy can "bubble up from the bottom" -- from the low income class?

One other thing: What is the purpose of most bankruptcy laws? Or do bailouts render these laws obsolete?

Boxcar