# Bail Out Automakers ... or let 'em fall?



## MA-Caver (Nov 13, 2008)

Heard on NPR the other day about how they want to tap into (our) $700 Billion dollar package (which will swell to the Trillion dollar mark sometime soon) to help bail out the struggling Auto industry. Also found this 


> *Democrats at work to tap bailout for automakers*
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_on_go_co/auto_bailout
> By KEN THOMAS, Associated Press Writer        Ken Thomas, Associated Press Writer               Thu Nov 13, 3:11 am ET
> WASHINGTON  Congressional Democrats are marshaling support for a rescue package to pump $25 billion in emergency loans to U.S. automakers in exchange for a government ownership stake in Detroit's car companies.
> ...


Had some thoughts about this... Sure the loss of the "big 3" would cost over 3 million jobs and that would be a bad thing for a lot of people. 
But the money for the bank bail out is now in danger of being mismanaged by giving a portion to the auto industry which is not what we the tax payers have been promised. I mean, it's our money right? 
Wonders if the collapse of the big 3 wouldn't be such a bad thing in the long term. They've been cranking out millions of cars for decades and it's fair to say, I think, that they've helped contribute to the problems of pollution and our seemingly insatiable desire for oil. 
If the big 3 were to fail would another 3 or 5 rise up in their place? Maybe not quite as big but still creating jobs and making "greener" cars? 
If the auto industry is bailed out, then who else? And will the bailout really help make changes in the way they do things? 

Questions, questions, concerns and more questions.


----------



## MJS (Nov 13, 2008)

We help out so many people already, may as well do it again.  Personally, I'm not all that crazy about the 'greener' car idea, as they are not suitable for everyone, however, what I feel should be done is watching how the money is spent.  I mean, is it really that necessary for the 'big shots' to be giving themselves huge bonuses?  Are the lavish parties that we heard about with AIG necessary?  Those are the cuts that should be made.  Let the people have jobs.  I'm sure the heads of all these motor companies are doing just fine without that extra (insert large figure here) pay raise.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 13, 2008)

MJS said:


> We help out so many people already, may as well do it again.  Personally, I'm not all that crazy about the 'greener' car idea, as they are not suitable for everyone, however, what I feel should be done is watching how the money is spent.  I mean, is it really that necessary for the 'big shots' to be giving themselves huge bonuses?  Are the lavish parties that we heard about with AIG necessary?  Those are the cuts that should be made.  Let the people have jobs.  I'm sure the heads of all these motor companies are doing just fine without that extra (insert large figure here) pay raise.


Agreed that there is greed rampant in many a huge corporations. Funny how they feel that they deserve it for all their hard work... that may be but who works harder... the CEO behind the desk or the man on the factory floor?


----------



## zDom (Nov 13, 2008)

Let them fail.

Unless Congress wants to seize one of the shiny new cars and send it to me.

I'd really, REALLY like one of those new Dodge Challengers ... but I can't possibly afford one.

Maybe I should go finance one and then have the gov't bail ME out.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 13, 2008)

Here's a thought.
Give them the bail out, but cap management pay at $200,000 / yr as a condition.
They can vote on taking a pay cut, or going under.


----------



## Carol (Nov 13, 2008)

I think the idea of a company trying to vote themselves revenue instead of earning it is repulsive...especially when the Big 3 is not willing to change the situations that got them in to trouble to begin with.

No, I don't want to see the Big 3 fail.  But there is no guarantee that throwing billions of dollars at thtem will have the outcome everyone is expecting.  

There is no guarantee that Detroit will make cars that people want to buy.   Mandating more fuel-efficient cars will not cause that to happen, either.

Bank bailout money is being used for executive junkets and big banks eating up little banks.  There is no guarantee that tossing money to the automakers will create, or even save, American jobs.  There's nothing stopping them from beefing up production in their factories in China, India, or Mexico, or using the funds to buy a greater share in foreign auto groups.  

The idea of revenue stakes for repayment (repayment based only on profit0 would mean that the automakers aren't given any incentive to be profitable.  

The big 3 make automobiles, yes?  Doesn't the government use automobiles?  

I'd be willing to bail them out if the Big 3 stepped forward and made some radical changes to help themselves out of trouble.   And if repayment was not based on profitablity but rather based on autos the government is already buying anyway.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 13, 2008)

The CEO of GM makes $2+ million a year.
Limit him to $200,000, and do the same for anyone in the executive branch that makes more than $200k.

that aughta free up a billion or so in liquid operating funds.

Why should my tax dollard go to keep him in his million dollar home and 5k suit when I don't have either myself.  If they aren't willing to cut back to save the company, then, let 
them
burn.


----------



## crushing (Nov 13, 2008)

If it were only the major automakers that would fail, I would say let them fail, but because of the many parts suppliers and the corresponding millions of jobs that depend on the major automakers continued business, that has me leaning towards helping the "Big Three" stay in business.

Spend some money to keep people working and maybe stimulate the economy.  Neo-WPA?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 13, 2008)

Chrysler was bailed out before... look where they are now.

However I do believe that was one of the few times that the feds actually got their money back with interest. But then that was when Lee Iacocca was in charge.

The Big 3 need to reorganize, but this is nothing new. Over 20 years ago they were told that. They were also told if they didn't they would have big financial issues in the years to come. Neither the Big 3 nor the UAW wanted to change so basically all a bailout will do is give them an extension on their impending doom.

Who knows, could be long enough for the current CEOs to retire and move to their islands in the Caribbean they will likely use the bailout money to buy.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 13, 2008)

crushing said:


> If it were only the major automakers that would fail, I would say let them fail, but because of the many parts suppliers and the corresponding millions of jobs that depend on the major automakers continued business, that has me leaning towards helping the "Big Three" stay in business.
> 
> Spend some money to keep people working and maybe stimulate the economy. Neo-WPA?



What he said. Any "bail out" should be structured as a _loan_, and with Chrysler like conditions-pay cuts, streamlining, and tied to _*making products that the market wants, and the country needs*_, with Japanese maker quality, instead of cheaply constructed gas-hogs.


----------



## Carol (Nov 13, 2008)

crushing said:


> If it were only the major automakers that would fail, I would say let them fail, but because of the many parts suppliers and the corresponding millions of jobs that depend on the major automakers continued business, that has me leaning towards helping the "Big Three" stay in business.
> 
> Spend some money to keep people working and maybe stimulate the economy.  Neo-WPA?



But there is no guarantee that those jobs will be saved even with the bailout.   They could use that money to beef up their factories in Mexico and buy in to one of the Chinese car manufacturers thats trying to break in to the U.S. market (they're coming, folks, like it or not...), reap the profts, and the U.S. worker (and all the folks that depend on that production) would still be screwed.

When other business find a state to be inhospitable for continued business, they relocate to another state.   Perhaps the Big 3 should shake the hand of the UAW president and say "Congratulations, you won", liquidate what they have and own up on all those union bennies that they owe, let that mess be history.  America is full of entrepreneurs, that will leave a fresh landscape for someone to regroup manufacturing in right-to-work states and build financial plans that reflect a more realistic future.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 13, 2008)

Really love the feed back that's going on here... :uhyeah: 

As it stands right now one of the other repercussions if the big 3 fail, crash-n-burn or whatever your favorite metaphor is :lol: that foreign automakers come in and take over. In my town there's a huge buzz going on because Volkswagen is building a plant and while thousands of new jobs are being created ... well.. it's still not an American company. No offense to VW because they do have the capacity to make very good cars (loved their OLD beetles -- suckers went anywhere and everywhere), but all the profits go back overseas. There are several Japanese plants in my state as well.  Again, good vehicles but once again not American. 
Seems that the quality and the feeling of security for the American made isn't there anymore. It's there but... you just ... don't feel it. That could be in part influenced by the knowledge that the CEO's and boards of the big 3 are just raking it in hands over fist... that thought doesn't leave a good feeling. 
Here are more news stories about the topic...  



> *Auto Bailout Is a Lemon for Taxpayers                                  *
> 
> *Washington Post*                                  |                                  Oct 29, 08 11:35 AM CDT
> 
> ...






> *The Big Debate: Bailout or Bankruptcy?*
> 
> 4 hours, 20 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## zDom (Nov 13, 2008)

Hmm I think my boss should boost his reporters' salaries up to $200,000/year, boost his own salary up to $2 million, then have a bailout for newspapers.

(After which we can celebrate with a huge party! Bahamas sound nice...)

After all, we are the "Fourth Institution."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 13, 2008)

http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/content/db/b-db-autos.shtml

Well, buy Ford.

Oh wait.  They build in Canada and Mexico and import the finished product.

Buy GM?

Ooh....same problem.
2006 Chevrolet Build locations
Chevrolet 	Avalanche 	:Mexico
Chevrolet 	Aveo 	:South Korea
Chevrolet 	Equinox 	:Canada
Chevrolet 	HHR 	:Mexico
Chevrolet 	Impala 	:Canada
Chevrolet 	Monte Carlo 	:Canada
Chevrolet 	Suburban 	:Mexico, USA

Here's a novel idea.
Buy a car built in America, by American labor, preferably using primarily American made Parts.

http://newcarbuyingguide.com/index.php/news/main/event=viewCat/1127

But then again, I'm not going to pay good money for a gas guzzler that is low reliability and high maintenance just so GM can give it's incompetent execs a big bonus.

My family switched to Toyotas after decades of buying Ford. Why?
Reliability, Affordability, High Fuel Efficiency and Low Maintenance.

If GM or Ford could put out cars that met those requirements, we'll happily switch back.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 13, 2008)

I agree 100% with MA-Caver.  If the US automakers went under, of course other companies would fill the void: foreign automakers who take their profits home.

But if the taxpayer is going to do anything to shore up US automakers, then we should be able to dictate some terms. Plug-in electrics, plug-in hybrids and flex-fuel autos.  Executive salary should be capped.  And there should be limits on what they can use the funds for--forget about seminars in vacation resorts.

It's not simply a matter of being "green." Its a matter of national security and economics.  I don't care how much _Drill-Baby-Drilling_ you do in this country, we simply do not have enough domestic oil to meet our insatiable demand, which means we'll continue to rely on the middle east for our fix. That means palling around with terrorists like the Saudis, or "liberating" countries that don't want us there. This hurts our economy and our national security.  The sooner we get away from oil, the sooner we make the middle east irrelevent and the safer we are.

If I applied for a business loan, the bank would want to see my business plan to see if it made sense.  Do you think I'd get a $5 million loan if I was going to pay myself a salary of a million? Or if I sought funds from an investment firm, do you think they'd agree to it if I was building a gas guzzling product that no one wants?  

IF we offer funds to automakers, we need to demand that they do what's right for the nation.  Otherwise, go ahead and fail.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 13, 2008)

Apparently if you are talking cars these days to be considered made in America it no longer means 100% American. It now means 75% (¾) American 

Cars made in America. To be eligible at least 75% of the parts have to be domestic

2006

1. Ford F-Series
2. Chevrolet Silverado 
3. *Toyota* Camry**, Camry Solara 
4. Ford E-Series 
5. Chevrolet Cobalt 
6.  Ford Explorer,
7. Chevrolet Malibu, Malibu Maxx K 
8. Ford Escape**  
9. *Toyota *Sienna 
10. Chevrolet TrailBlazer 

2007

1. Ford F-150
2. *Toyota* Camry
3. Chevrolet Silverado 1500
4. Chevrolet Cobalt  
5. Ford Focus 
6. *Toyota* Sienna 
7. Chevrolet Malibu,
8. Pontiac G6 Orion 
9. Ford Escape
10. *Toyota* Tundra  

2008

4. *Toyota* Tundra
9. *Toyota* Sienna

Ford Focus carries a DPC rating now of 65%,
Dodge Ram was not eligible because its domestic parts content is less than 75%


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 13, 2008)

Shayna, they bought their ticket.  They knew the risk.  I say, let 'em crash. (rep to who ever can ID the movie that line is from)

The bail out for any organization here in America is a simple reward for failure.  American auto makers haven't made a car that could truly compete with the Japanese in years.  Instead of attempting to compete with the success of the Japanese automakers they've attempted to shove huge motors down the throats of Americans and played off of the "it's gotta be bigger", "it's gotta be beefier" attitude that too many of us have.  It's been a fundamental failure to see what the consumer was going to want in the future coupled with ridiculous agreements with labor unions that's driven them to this point.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 13, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Shayna, they bought their ticket. They knew the risk. I say, let 'em crash. (rep to who ever can ID the movie that line is from)
> 
> The bail out for any organization here in America is a simple reward for failure. American auto makers haven't made a car that could truly compete with the Japanese in years. Instead of attempting to compete with the success of the Japanese automakers they've attempted to shove huge motors down the throats of Americans and played off of the "it's gotta be bigger", "it's gotta be beefier" attitude that too many of us have. It's been a fundamental failure to see what the consumer was going to want in the future coupled with ridiculous agreements with labor unions that's driven them to this point.


 
Well you could always go buy a Ford Escape Hybrid...no.... wait...that's a Mazda :uhyeah:


----------



## elder999 (Nov 13, 2008)

Phoenix44 said:


> If I applied for a business loan, the bank would want to see my business plan to see if it made sense. Do you think I'd get a $5 million loan if I was going to pay myself a salary of a million? Or if I sought funds from an investment firm, do you think they'd agree to it if I was building a gas guzzling product that no one wants?
> 
> IF we offer funds to automakers, we need to demand that they do what's right for the nation. Otherwise, go ahead and fail.


 

This is precisely what was done for Chrysler, and the U.S. actually made a profit when it was all said and done.  If we're going to bail them out, it needs to be a structured _loan_, with goals and conditions like you layed out in the rest of your post: the kind of cars America needs, made in America with American labor.


Oh, yeah, and hang Bill Ford.Or stone him. Maybe a firing squad.  :lol:


----------



## crushing (Nov 13, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Shayna, they bought their ticket. They knew the risk. I say, let 'em crash. (rep to who ever can ID the movie that line is from)


 
It looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue!

Airplane!


----------



## zDom (Nov 13, 2008)

Phoenix44 said:


> I don't care how much _Drill-Baby-Drilling_ you do in this country, we simply do not have enough domestic oil to meet our insatiable demand, which means we'll continue to rely on the middle east for our fix.



Worse, oil is a FINITE resource.

It IS going to run out, and there are indications that we have used up more than half of earth's oil and are burning through this second half much faster than the first half.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 13, 2008)

oh, btw, I "accidentally" misspent next months server payment, so unless I'm "bailed out" the board will go boom.

Oh yeah, hostings kinda "skyrocketed" to 10 grand a month.....

anyone want to write their congressperson and get MT bailed out?





(I'm kidding.  The boards fine.)


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 13, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> oh, btw, I "accidentally" misspent next months server payment, so unless I'm "bailed out" the board will go boom.
> 
> Oh yeah, hostings kinda "skyrocketed" to 10 grand a month.....
> 
> anyone want to write their congressperson and get MT bailed out?



Oh, btw the sky is falling.  MT separates the Earth from the Heavens.  God Blesses this bailout for MT.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 13, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Oh, yeah, and hang Bill Ford.Or stone him. Maybe a firing squad. :lol:




And I just want to reiterate-it's all Ford's fault._Hangin's too good for him. Burnin's too good for him. He should be torn into itty bitty pieces and buried alive!_ :lol:
(Ditto theletch1's offer inre movie references!)


----------



## crushing (Nov 13, 2008)

elder999 said:


> What he said. Any "bail out" should be structured as a _loan_, and with Chrysler like conditions-pay cuts, streamlining, and tied to _*making products that the market wants, and the country needs*_, with Japanese maker quality, instead of cheaply constructed gas-hogs.


 
Yes, I agree the bailout being a conditional loan, and hopefully the industry doesn't lose the best qualified people to make the investment pay off because of some of the conditions.

As far as the highlighted portion:  It was the market that wanted big trucks and SUVs at a low cost point, those were the big sellers, the big money makers.  The fickle consumer. . .I mean market changed faster than the automakers can redesign and retool.  The automakers that didn't invest heavily and depend so much on the wants specific to the American consumer don't appear to be in the same position as the automakers that did.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 13, 2008)

crushing said:


> As far as the highlighted portion: It was the market that wanted big trucks and SUVs at a low cost point, those were the big sellers, the big money makers. The fickle consumer. . .I mean market changed faster than the automakers can redesign and retool. The automakers that didn't invest heavily and depend so much on the wants specific to the American consumer don't appear to be in the same position as the automakers that did.


 
All of that is Bill Ford's fault....:lfao: 

Seriously-the consumer wanted it because of marketing-ridiculous commercials, flashy gadgets, no concern about what (as I said) American consumers _needed_. This is, of course, a separate discussion-does demand drive  marketing, or does the marketing drive demand?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 13, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Seriously-the consumer wanted it because of marketing-ridiculous commercials, flashy gadgets, no concern about what (as I said) American consumers _needed_. This is, of course, a separate discussion-*does demand drive marketing, or does the marketing drive demand?*


 
That'll open up a can of worms.  Free will be damned!


----------



## jarrod (Nov 13, 2008)

if automakers built quality products they wouldn't be in this much trouble.  part of their problem is their refusal to offer quality hybrid & electric cars.  i say let them fall then offer loans to upstart "green" automakers; aptera, tesla motors, zap.  the technology for high performance electric cars exists, it just isn't utilized by the big 3.  if they won't change to suit our needs, let 'em die.  

as for domestically made "foreign" cars...i really don't care if an american or japanese CEO gets the profits.  i'm happy if american workers get to keep working.

jf


----------



## MJS (Nov 13, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The CEO of GM makes $2+ million a year.
> Limit him to $200,000, and do the same for anyone in the executive branch that makes more than $200k.
> 
> that aughta free up a billion or so in liquid operating funds.
> ...


 
My point exactly!  What the hell does the CEO of any company need that kind of money for?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 13, 2008)

More like, what the hell does the CEO of a struggling company that's about to fail need that kind of money for.

I've no problem with him making $200MA Year, IF! the company was financially sound.



Ok, different direction.

What happens IF GM goes under?


> In the short term, GM would continue to make cars, just as airlines continue to fly while under Chapter 11. Yes, GM would downsize, prompting painful layoffs. But such restructuring is inevitable. The world has changed, and GM hasn't kept up.
> 
> In other words, bankruptcy could actually help the Big 3, in terms of their core car businesses. However, the real conundrum is what to do about GM's pension plans, as well as those at Ford and Chrysler. Kedrosky says a shortfall on those pensions would mean the end for the already cash-strapped Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. And that&#8217;s where another bailout is likely.


http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticke...ens-if-GM-Goes-Bankrupt-Not-Much?tickers=gm,f


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> More like, what the hell does the CEO of a struggling company that's about to fail need that kind of money for.
> 
> I've no problem with him making $200MA Year, IF! the company was financially sound.


 
Good point.  On the flipside, that could be what leads to the companies downfall in the first place.  The CEO makes X amount.  His company has a good year and he's able to give himself a bonus.  He enjoys this extra income and starts to crave more.  More bonus, more cash....before you know it, the company is failing, and he's still sittin' high on the hog.  Heaven forbid he should toss some of that money back into the pot.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 14, 2008)

MJS said:


> Good point.  On the flipside, that could be what leads to the companies downfall in the first place.  The CEO makes X amount.  His company has a good year and he's able to give himself a bonus.  He enjoys this extra income and starts to crave more.  More bonus, more cash....before you know it, the company is failing, and he's still sittin' high on the hog.  Heaven forbid he should toss some of that money back into the pot.


That's the difference between a guy in it for the money and someone who cares about the company.  When times get tight for me, I sacrifice so the company survives. In 8 years, I haven't had any of my web sites, my servers or phones shut down for lack of payment, even when I've stared at thousands of bucks deadbeats owed me, and trying to make all my ends meet with $20.  I'd love to see these guys making millions try living on my income.
I've eaten ramen and budget mac to keep MT running. Lets see if GM's CEO can do without his lobstah and caviah and $500 / bottle wine for a while to turn his company around.   Bet none of em do!


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2008)

Who killed the electric car?  There's a long post buried in here, but here's the short of it.  GM needs to crash and burn.  They've colluded with the government and with other corporations in order to shape our society as it sees fit.  They've even felt so confident as to offer us two choices, bad and bad as of late.  

Look at how much technology they've buried?  Look at how much opportunity they have squashed?  Think about the gap that small businesses could fill if only this huge behemoth were allowed to choke itself to death?  They have done everything they could to crush competition and crush opportunity to have anything different and they have shaped government regulation around making that happen.  

Now, they can't "keep up with the consumer"...sorry, they shot themselves in the foot and put a bullet in America's gas tank.

Look, people, if GM goes, other companies will fill the gap.  America's automobile industry will finally diversify and the consumer will finally have real choices that allow them to express what they want...in many ways including environmental.  

Let them go.  Let America come back.  Let our ideas flourish and conquer the world.  If we bailout GM, we bailout the corrupt system that hands us the lower standard of living we are told we need to accept.

These corporate social managers are only seeking to protect their own behinds.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 14, 2008)

I think the biggest issue with letting the companies crash and burn is what's going to happen to the employees further down the ladder?  

I agree with letting them crash.  They spend their money unwisely, why should we, who pay our taxes whether we want to or not, have to help them out with the money that we earn, while we can barely make ends meet ourselves?

The problem, though, is that many of the people in the same boat we are all in work for the companies that we want to crash.  Not the execs, not the suits, but the guys that are doing the real work.  It sucks that in order for things to be right, they are going to be the ones to ultimately suffer the consequences.  

The CEO's of the companies already have their millions to fall back on.  What do the blue-collar guys have?  That's what I worry about.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2008)

Focus on building a strong social safety net where health care, education, and unemployment insurance help workers transition when companies fall.  Bailing out corporations that make bad decisions is throwing money at failure.


----------



## zDom (Nov 14, 2008)

I think there is a consensus that one of the biggest problems is the obscene executive salaries.

While I'm all for captitalism, maybe THIS is the problem Congress needs to REALLY address (since stockholders and their representatives seem unable or unwilling to address this issue). It seems to me that excessive salaries are more of a problem than, say, monopolies were.

Give them a cap at $300k a year. If they don't like it, they can retire. I'd be willing to give the job a try


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 14, 2008)

Top salaries in lots of fields have gotten insane of late...  Whether it's the big CEOs with salaries where they pay more in taxes (even after all of their deductions and dodges) than many of their employees make in a year, or pro athletes who are way too often thugs where most fans can't even afford to go to the ballpark (that the local government was extorted into paying for)...  Or the bankers who create policies and ignore common-sense concerns like whether someone can reasonably repay the loans so that they run the bank out of business while people are driven out of their homes... and the CEO collects a golden parachute worth more than combined salaries of several of their "victims"...

It's obscene.  Especially as so many of them are so well protected by their shareholder system that they never feel any repercussions.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 14, 2008)

First off I work for GM.

Second, I think they should fail. 

WHAT?!?!

Did he actually say fail? 

Yep! I did. 

1.1 million people will loose retirement checks over night. They will look all assistance for medical care that they still have and only have the Government.

I say they should fail, because, no matter how many times I try to use logic the general population is anti USA manufacturing. 

I would like to ask the following questions:

Who has more vehicles that get over 30 mpg than any other company?

Who was the only company to build an electric car when it was required by California by law? 

How many of those electric car were leased? Details are on this site. Also in a thread linked in this thread as well. 

What are the wages paid by US Auto companies here in the USA and what are the wages paid by foriegn companies here in the USA?


The USA people have outsoruced everything. We have sold ourselves out. 

There are a couple of steel mills left. 

What do we make here in the USA as an industry? 

Plastics?

Clothes?

Electronics? 

Nope, we make money off of selling stuff made elsewhere to each other. Or providing a service such as medical or consulting or food industry. 

I really would like to see the JD Power numbers for powertrains for all manufacturers. I wonder if people are only perceiving Quality.

I know everyone has a story of getting a piece of crap vehicle, and then their Japanese car has been great. But the same was true of the Japanese in the 60's and early 70's. They were worse than USA made, but they changed. 

Here is another example of the Anti USA.

JD Power had numbers on the Toyota Corolla that were great. But the Chevy Nova Sucked. They were both designed by Toyota and built in the joint Toyota GM plant NUMMI in California. The plant and line is run by Toyota. But the people buying the Chevrolet could say nothing good and only said bad things. The people buying the Toyota only had good things to say. The vehicles built there today are the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe. The numbers are not as bad but the trend is still there.

I have also talked to people who will say they would buy the Daewoo Kalos if it was imported here to the USA. I asked them if they would buy the Chevrolet Aveo? There answer was that they would not as it is a piece of crap and too small. But they are the same car made on the same line. 


As to the car companies working with the oil companies, I see no benefit in such an arrangement. If a car company had something that could beat everyone else they would parket it and get as much as they could. 

But it is much easier to believe that there is someone else to blame and that  we are not to blame. 

Our investments into 401K and IRA's with Mutual funds that guide companies to make more money. With the Federal Government, pushing through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac changes to the mortgage industry to get 0 down loans and other high risk financing, the Banks also were urged to compete to continue to make their profits. 

So, companies outsource to save money and invest in high or higher risk areas to make more money for their stock holders. We invest in a mutual fund that out performs others, and not in one that does not.

Years ago people complained about clothes and shoes being made over seas. But everyone bought them as they were cheaper. Then Electronics went over seas and people continues to buy them. The same is true for vehicles. 

I am not saying buy only American. I am saying of you are going to make claims about quality and value then please list your data, and not just comments like "Jap Crap". Which we all know is not valid. But the same also works for the USA manufacurers as well. 

I am not saying people should not buy foriegn. If you like the looks of it then buy it. If you like the cup holders better in a car than buy it. If you like the rims or a specific color then buy it. 

But say you bought it because you liked it for this reason, and not try to justify it with some made up warm fuzzy for yourself that it is better quality and better value. Sometimes it is true, but other times it is not. 

In short, they should fail and file for Bankruptcy. They could get rid of all retirees and cost associated with it. Lower wages for both hourly and salary, and drop almost all benefits. In the end they would be able to shutdown older plants that are more costly and build new ones in Russia or India or China or somewhere else. 

I wonder if the USA would also like to look at reciprical tariffs for all exports, food, or vehicles? I mean in Japan a person cannto own a car older than 5 years old. They export all their cars to other south east Asia countries. If you import a car then you pay such high tariffs it makes no sense to pay soo much, as 100% tariff that a person only buys it to show off that they can. 

But, in the end the cheaper price will win. History as proven this. 

In the end, They should go bankrupt and drop all the negatives and then keep going. Fail they should. It would be the best thing for them, and everyone involved. (* except a few employees and retirees *)


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2008)

So, would you agree with the statement that NAFTA and all of the other free trade agreements killed (or is killing) GM?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 14, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> So, would you agree with the statement that NAFTA and all of the other free trade agreements killed (or is killing) GM?


 
Not really. As NAFTA allows them (* the powers at GM *) to move jobs to Mexico. Even though the cost of the labor there is too expensive compared to other places on the globe. That is my opinion though. It allows them to move jobs from US to Canada to Mexico and back as volumes adjust. 

The problem I was tying to point out is that foriegn car companies pay $10 to $15 an hour plus some small benefits in an area that had no jobs. While even if the US auto makers move to a location where there are no jobs to try the same thing, the UAW moves in and they set up $20 to $28 an hour plus much better benefits. 

But you see here is the problem I have. I grew up in one of the UAW houses. Oh My Dad was not a Union man 100%. He voted how he thought would be best. He and my mother told and educated me to think for myself and then decided after I have reviewed data. 

So to continue with the UAW, these jobs are no longer the available and the volume gets smaller each year. The UAW was trying to argue that they deserved a share of the pie and also a "fair" wage. While early on the fair wage and working conditions were points that needed to be addressed. It turned into an issue of ask and if we get it then great. It became a business in its' own right. So while I see the beneits I also see the negatives of the Union. 

As to unfair tariffs with Japan and other countries that either subsidize an market or add tariffs to products to protect markets or even to ban the import of foriegn products so a market can be protected. 

When a company can pay people less in another country and also have protection from competition in their own country, it gives them a base to work and guarentee a certain volume of the market as there is no competition or limited competition. When a company has the protection or investment of a government to draw upon it makes them able to compete better. 

In China, all companies who operate locally must be owned 50% locally and not 51% or more foriegn owned. So the companies that go in many times provide the technology and the local provide the man power and the money. It also get complicated  or more complicated as they get banks that are both local and foriegn owned to invest. So it makes it hard to say that the locals or foriegn have the 50% or a little more. 


In Korea I am not sure of the laws, but given thei national pride, if it does not have a Korean Name it will not sell. So, no one would buy the Aveo, but they would buy the Daewoo version.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 14, 2008)

Under the Auto Pact, my country has a lot invested in the fortunes of GM, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler, so a collapse of the big three would certainly ricochet in Windsor and throughout the Province and country.

That said, how much money is going to keep this ship afloat? If they're in this much trouble, would we taxpayers be throwing good money after bad? If the feds, north or south of the fortieth, have the dollars to bail out the big three, maybe those resources should be invested in other players who can do the job better. My guess is that if a bunch of plants close in Windsor or Detroit, they'll probably be re-opened by Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, and all the rest.

If it comes down to keeping jobs, I'll bet the UAW would sit down with these other players and come up with something that keeps auto workers building cars.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2008)

Health care.  Michael Moore argued that health care was one of the major reasons american auto makers were not competitive any more.  With a universal single payer system the companies no longer have to shoulder such a heavy burden.  This makes sense when you consider that all of the other countries in which we compete in the auto market have universal single payer systems.  

Maybe the solution isn't a bailout.  Maybe its universal health care.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 14, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Under the Auto Pact, my country has a lot invested in the fortunes of GM, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler, so a collapse of the big three would certainly ricochet in Windsor and throughout the Province and country.
> 
> That said, how much money is going to keep this ship afloat? If they're in this much trouble, would we taxpayers be throwing good money after bad? If the feds, north or south of the fortieth, have the dollars to bail out the big three, maybe those resources should be invested in other players who can do the job better. My guess is that if a bunch of plants close in Windsor or Detroit, they'll probably be re-opened by Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, and all the rest.
> 
> If it comes down to keeping jobs, I'll bet the UAW would sit down with these other players and come up with something that keeps auto workers building cars.


 
Oshawa #1 #2 are always in the top for North America for Quality. Oshawa #1 just got a specific award from JD Power that they limit as it requires continued performance over time. This plant was in the top three for the last six or seven years. And number one for four or five of them. Not just Quality but for performance i.e. hours to build a vehicle - man hours. 


Toyota actually looked at a Plant in Flint. GM was going to lease them the land so they would not have to worry about any liability for previous issues with the land. The area was in a federal renaisance zone. GM had agreed to pay its taxes but was not required too as of this zone. But GM did anyways as their agreement had included a percentage reduction. But the City of Flint that was bankrupt insisted that GM not only pay what the agreement was, but that it would go back to 100%. Toyota, walked away. 

Toyota has a proving grounds going into the Michigan area, but that is because of the expertise in the area. I see no benefit of them to come to this area including Windsor to get trained hourly employees? The wages people would demand would get them to not consider it. 



As to money and how much, I cannot say as I do not know even what the company I work for requires. 

In January of 2010, all the agreements that the Union agreed to in the last contract negotiations goes 100% into place. This is the target point that the companies are targeting. If the volume goes back from 10.7 million anual units (* Octobers numbers lowest in over a decade *) to the 16 to 17 million of the last couple of years there is now problem, The issue is that at 11 to 12 million units a year, is enough to limp by on. 

As I can only guess, I would expect about 12 Billion +/- 3 Billion per company would be the worst case.

These are loans, not money that does not come back. Of course there is risk if they still go under. So your questions is good and imporatant. 

If they follow the 79/80 Chrysler plan of getting stock options at the low prices of today plus a percentage of interest, then the government could make money just like they did off of Chrysler in the 80's with the return.

The times that the government goes in and takes over, they have lost money as they seem to be worse that the people who got them into the trouble and also other companies bring suit that it is unfair to compete against the fed. So, if they take over one, it could be a problem for others, which could lead to a complete take over. But, I do not think it is a valid plan. I think that the loans with stock options or some other plan would be the best. As history has shown, past peformance does not guarentee success. But those invested into the company and the single largest provider for health care and pensions outside of state and federal government would be gone. 

As I said, I see all sides of this, but part of would like to see them all fail, and to see how the people complain, that people they know are hurt by this and loose their house and eat poorly and or have worse health care. My sens of humor is bad in this case, as I actually volunteered to be cut, but was told I was not old enough. Only early retirements were offered. But I was serious and went up a couple of levels to make the offer. The issue I do not like threats of loss of job to work more hours for less pay. So, I decided to risk finding a new job. But as a single male I can economize for myself and get by, while others with familes would be very difficult. So my comments of failure are real. But, if they do not I will continue to work until I find a better carear opportunity.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 14, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Health care. Michael Moore argued that health care was one of the major reasons american auto makers were not competitive any more. With a universal single payer system the companies no longer have to shoulder such a heavy burden. This makes sense when you consider that all of the other countries in which we compete in the auto market have universal single payer systems.
> 
> Maybe the solution isn't a bailout. Maybe its universal health care.


 

It is part of the problem, and not just the cost here for companies but for the country and those who do not have coverage. 

But the loans would be required to get through the period until the new agreements kick in and also until the new plan you and others propose would take effect.  

It is kind of like when as you graduate college and go out get a job and then get a car and an apartment and stuff for your apartment, and then all of sudden your studnet loans kick in and you need to borrow money to get through a short period. The problem is that the Banks have extended all they can to you, or worse yet like it is now the money is just not available, including from your family or parents. They want you to try it on your own. While a company that has been in business for a long period of time should know better, but they can only move as fast as the agreements with the union allow them. They have to wait a year or two when things start to get bad just to bargain. 

As we have seen the market was just short of 17 million last year for vehicles in USA. Now it is on a low 11 million units. It is also looking bad for credit as the banks are all doing bad and cannot afford what they would call a high risk.  Hence the idea of loans for the short term.


----------



## dungeonworks (Nov 15, 2008)

As a UAW line grunt for nearly 14 years (3rd generation in my family), I have never in my life seen so many experts on the auto industry come out of the woodwork over the last 4 years.  Too bad most of these arm-chair automotive guru's facts and rationality are really based on some media outlets propaganda or some talk radio host's barkings.

Labor is only 8-10% of the cost of a vehicle.  We have been giving back benefits and foregoing/delaying/restructuring raises through concessionary contracts for over 20 years now and the company has been cutting benefits of lower and middle management for years (Including the engineering which is an essential part of putting something new and innovative to market).  I won't bring up what the corp. is doing to retirees on both sides of the Union curtain.  What have the upper management given up???

Raw materials and fuel which will always fluctuate.  Even Toyota and Honda have lost on this front, even if better prepared to handle such a blow.  None of the big three or Japanese companies seen that coming on as it hit like a tornado....there it is, here it comes, there it goes, now look at the mess.  Steel and copper are through the roof too.  Anyone else have people digging through their trash come pickup day?  I have 3-5 regulars that comb my 'hood on trash day looking for metal.  Heck, they even took two old refrigerators for free, that I was going to take to the dump and PAY to get rid of!!!!  Anyone really know how much copper and steel it takes to build even a small car???

Then we have the health care quagmire.  Our biggest competitors come from companies where their government foots the bill for it's citizens.  In 14 years, I have seen mine go from "great" to "okay".  They are a shell of what they were, and the retiree health care is darn near gone.  Upper management prolly doesn't have a copay.  Heck, they get their gas paid for to get to the doctor and even have corp. subsidised cars/trucks/SUV's to get there...for their wives and kids too in some cases.

How about national security???  Without a big manufacturing base during WWII, there was a possibility we'd be speaking German and wearing swastikas.  Many of the auto plants were converted to weapon and military vehicle production to feed the American war machine.  The plant I hired into is one of them (they made machine guns), as is the one nearly in my backyard (they made tanks).  If we were ever in full scale war with China or India, do you think they'd still offer us bargain labor and battle field quality???

We cannot let them fail unless *you* want to fail.  3 million jobs would toast this country.  GM has 54,000 UAW employees alone and is one company.  To get to 3 million, that is a MEGATONZILLION of other companies falling with the mothership as well.  The government would lose BILLIONS of tax dollars right away....Read: Military, police, fire, social security and lots of other over looked government functions.  Do you think the governors, senators and congressmen are gonna take the hit???  Nope, it'll be you and I.  How about the whole cities (See Flint, MI for just a very small preview and watch what happens to Janesville, WI next year after closing that plant) and the family businesses that will dry up and the falling values of their homes?  Where are they gonna go to and where would they get a job or set up another business?  Lord knows how much us Americans cry about government aid or welfare....we'd need it on a scale not seen since the great depression, only worse.  Also, before you root for us to fail, please look at your pension's investments and/or your 401k to see where that money is coming from.

This problem carries much more weight than most can comprehend...especially outside the rust belt of our country.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 15, 2008)

dungeonworks said:


> As a UAW line grunt for nearly 14 years (3rd generation in my family), I have never in my life seen so many experts on the auto industry come out of the woodwork over the last 4 years. Too bad most of these arm-chair automotive guru's facts and rationality are really based on some media outlets propaganda or some talk radio host's barkings.
> 
> Labor is only 8-10% of the cost of a vehicle. We have been giving back benefits and foregoing/delaying/restructuring raises through concessionary contracts for over 20 years now and the company has been cutting benefits of lower and middle management for years (Including the engineering which is an essential part of putting something new and innovative to market). I won't bring up what the corp. is doing to retirees on both sides of the Union curtain. What have the upper management given up???
> 
> ...


 

Very Valid points. 

In my case, I know my parents might be able to survive of take enough of a  loss on their house to get out of it. I know I would have to have tehm move in with me or I move in with them to assist. 

As to the cascade effect, if GM falls then so does Delphi. The small businesses in the areas where offices and plants are will loss business and most likely have to shut down. This means they need buyers for their homes and their businesses. But, it might be a spiral that this country and most likely lots of areas will be minimum effected, might not get out of. 

But, as I said, I am feeling dark and the humor of all the people who want a buy out for their home becuase they spent too much, but with an industry that takes a fast to market of 3 years and they need to react within less than a month to changes such as cost or the lack of buyers or the lack of credit.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 15, 2008)

dungeonworks said:


> ...Labor is only 8-10% of the cost of a vehicle. We have been giving back benefits and foregoing/delaying/restructuring raises through concessionary contracts for over 20 years now and the company has been cutting benefits of lower and middle management for years (Including the engineering which is an essential part of putting something new and innovative to market). I won't bring up what the corp. is doing to retirees on both sides of the Union curtain. What have the upper management given up???...



dungeonworks,
Thank you for this and other insights provided in your post. I've always been suspicious of the notion that competitiveness depends upon a lowering of labour standards. You mentioned cuts to engineering, and thus innovation. My sense has been for many years, major US/Canadian car builders have done a better job at meeting the needs of large car buyers but have routinely given away the small car business to imports.

Am I wrong in that respect?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 15, 2008)

Manufacture in the US is a dying industry. While I'm against bailing out -any- industry due to incompetence at the top, if we are unable to make our own weapons, maintain our own infastructure, this nation will fail.

My first thought is to let GM and Ford burn.  But for our own national defense, they need to be rescued.  I say however, don't give them a blank check.  Put serious restrictions and conditions on it to force them to fix the problems, not just continue business as usual.  I say that for any industry or company being bailed out.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 15, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Manufacture in the US is a dying industry. While I'm against bailing out -any- industry due to incompetence at the top, if we are unable to make our own weapons, maintain our own infastructure, this nation will fail.
> 
> My first thought is to let GM and Ford burn.  But for our own national defense, they need to be rescued.  I say however, don't give them a blank check.  Put serious restrictions and conditions on it to force them to fix the problems, not just continue business as usual.  I say that for any industry or company being bailed out.


Agreed... bailing them out would be just like lottery winners... they go broke in an average of 5 years or at least back to where they were before their numbers came in... 

But having restrictions, conditions and all that is well and good... but how MANY politicians are in their back pockets? How many would actually follow through... if they don't... how do we punish them? Slap on the wrist with a ruler? Charge them high interests, by making the bail out money into loans? Take over the company? 
Money is power and the CEO's have money, lots of it and lots of power. 
What about if they do all of the above, prevent mistakes from happening... what about other industries?

IS it really the U.S. Government and taxpayers responsibility to bail these people out?? It's almost like a millionaire bailing their kid out of jail for reckless driving... whats to stop them from doing it again? Honestly? 
Agreed that we need their capability to produce but ... I dunno. 

How many other companies and industries will stick their hands out, or more actually, nudge their favorite (paid-for) senators/legislators/representatives in the ribs whispering ... hey... don't forget about us, we want some of that ... we put you behind that desk remember??


----------



## dungeonworks (Nov 15, 2008)

I agree with all of you in regards to changes are necessary in a bailout, especially at the top.  Maybe I am a bit blinded at a few things and I am admittedly infantile/ignorant when it comes to business on the scale of global manufacturing since I am a 3rd generation UAW line worker.  I, as were my parents, have been raised under the UAW benefit umbrella.  I have a grandfather that was part of the origin of the UAW during the Sit Down Strike.  I would also go as far as saying that not all of my UAW brothers and sisters have upheld and represented the initial goals and aims on our end and still to this day see some, although *FAR LESS* abuse of work/shop rules in the pursuit of laziness or getting away with the most possible loop holes some contractual issues afford us.  I think a lot of that was addressed and rectified in our last contract, which I supported as a member (I hold no more/less power than any status quo member and hold no position other than being an active member).  As Mr. Parsons mentioned, those changes will not affect the bottom line until later in 2009.  Why am I saying all this?  No more reason than to give everyone an idea of where I am, and maybe why I see things the way I do.

Over the last 13.6 years, I have had the honor or working with some industrial engineers on special projects such as the launch of the GMT 900 truck platform.  It was awesome not only because I got to be part of the process that governed how we were going to build the GMC Sierra's and Chevy Silverado's you now see on dealership lots.  I learned a lot working with the engineers in a limited capacity doing things such as trials of new tooling and signing off on tooling designed and produced at outside suppliers as well as casual conversations over lunch here and there.  It was an eye opener and really cool to catch a glimpse of how they aproach things.  If you ask me, we need more of them, not less if the auto industry is to regain lost footing in our industry through innovation and quality improvements.  I'd rather see the guys up top take the hit for ignoring the small car segments under the arrogant belief that people (consumers) would forever be able to drive gas guzzling SUV's and pickup's for everyday transportation.  While we slept, the foreign auto makers killed us both in quality and answering the call to what consumers want faster.  

That brings me to another thing the foreign companies beat us at...quality.  I can tell you first hand that our quality is very near or better than theirs in many cases.  When I first hired in, line supervisors were under soooo much crushing pressure to get hard numbers down the line, they would okay the shipment of issues needing repair, assuming an inspector would see it and send it to our repair techs.  Now, if a torque is off or missed, the line shuts down via computer and that starts a whole paper trail for accountability reasons.  I wanna say this all really kicked into gear around 1999/2000.  Operators are certified thoroughly on job assignments and accountability due to the compromise on work rules, sleeker job proccesses due to competent engineering of such jobs, make it easier and faster to produce such quality.  The cutting of experienced American engineers only to replace them with outside companies in places such as India is a step...make that a leap backwards.  Not to say India or China doesn't have good engineers, but as a worker that is  sole support of a family of 5, I would rather have these guys here in town at our tech centers, and on our shop floors making crucial calls to design and improvement...and I harbor the same feelings toward my fellow assemblers still lucky enough to be working in the shop.  The 3 million job loss cascade I mentioned was just in the USA alone.  There will be ramifications in Mexico, China, India, and maybe some in Pakistan too, not just here.

On a side note, I also understand why some far from the rust belt are anti union too and may see us as the reason for all the negative impact.  The news has for a long time focused on us as the root of the problem.  Some of it may be and I will openly admit that, but from what I can see, it is more the leaves at the very top of the tree and the decisions they did and did not make that contributed far more than we have to the collapse.  I feel the same thing for the financial and insurance industry too.  I could have gotten a $200k+ house but KNEW I could not afford such a thing, which explains my home I have, at about 2/3's the price....and today, 1/2 the value! :barf:


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 15, 2008)

dungeonworks said:


> That brings me to another thing the foreign companies beat us at...quality.  I can tell you first hand that our quality is very near or better than theirs in many cases.  When I first hired in, line supervisors were under soooo much crushing pressure to get hard numbers down the line, they would okay the shipment of issues needing repair, assuming an inspector would see it and send it to our repair techs.  Now, if a torque is off or missed, the line shuts down via computer and that starts a whole paper trail for accountability reasons.  I wanna say this all really kicked into gear around 1999/2000.  Operators are certified thoroughly on job assignments and accountability due to the compromise on work rules, sleeker job proccesses due to competent engineering of such jobs, make it easier and faster to produce such quality.  The cutting of experienced American engineers only to replace them with outside companies in places such as India is a step...make that a leap backwards.  Not to say India or China doesn't have good engineers, but as a worker that is  sole support of a family of 5, I would rather have these guys here in town at our tech centers, and on our shop floors making crucial calls to design and improvement...and I harbor the same feelings toward my fellow assemblers still lucky enough to be working in the shop.  The 3 million job loss cascade I mentioned was just in the USA alone.  There will be ramifications in Mexico, China, India, and maybe some in Pakistan too, not just here.


It is true that American car quality slacked off for a while (remember those stupid K cars??) and everyone was buying foreign because they had a solid reputation, (I know of several 400,000 mile --small -- toyota/datsun trucks owned by friends) but American quality has improved and that is a good thing... it makes Americans buy American and that helps the economy. 
True the loss of 3 million jobs would be quite an impact upon the nation, no question... but I believe that perhaps it's a cycle where one company peaks and then another one rises and takes the top spot and so on. Maybe that's too simplistic but it looks that way. 
What would be the effect if just ONE auto maker fails? Could the country take such a hit? I like to think so.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 15, 2008)




----------



## crushing (Nov 16, 2008)

In the global economy with the global recession, Euro automakers are asking for a $55 billion bailout from the European commission.

On Meet the Press this morning a source that I don't recall was cited saying that first year of a GM bankruptcy would cost taxpayers $175 billion and the whole bankruptcy process could take three years.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 16, 2008)

crushing said:


> In the global economy with the global recession, Euro automakers are asking for a $55 billion bailout from the European commission.
> 
> On Meet the Press this morning a source that I don't recall was cited saying that first year of a GM bankruptcy would cost taxpayers $175 billion and the whole bankruptcy process could take three years.


 

Pay now (* Yes changes *) or pay later. 

That is the question. Also why my wierd comments and perception on this.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 16, 2008)

Whell, if we're going to bail out the Automakers we might as well shell over some billions to THESE guys too! Or are they the ones to blame?? 


> *Experts: Supplier woes put auto industry in danger*
> 
> By BREE FOWLER, AP Auto Writer        Bree Fowler, Ap Auto Writer               Sun Nov 16, 4:21 pm ET
> NEW YORK  The financial woes of U.S. automakers have grabbed Washington's attention, but similar problems at auto suppliers have the potential to set off a cataclysmic chain of events in the industry if key parts makers run out of cash and fail.
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 16, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Whell, if we're going to bail out the Automakers we might as well shell over some billions to THESE guys too! Or are they the ones to blame??


 
In a society based on consumption, if the consumer can't consume, then you've got real trouble.  This problem is bigger then GM.  We can't keep asking the government to pick up the tab for consumers who aren't spending money.  That is what these bailouts are amounting to.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 17, 2008)

And just how much does the Dept. of Energy have to bail out the industry? 
At least the Bush administration knows where all the money might be laying about. Not touching the (our) 700 billion earmarked for the banks and instead drawing upon another source. 


> *White House refines position on auto industry help*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081117...ess_returns;_ylt=AtS66LuELhIh2DDis3Q3K0DGOrgF
> ...



I was beginning to wonder about this too... 
from same article


> On Sunday top Republican senators said using any of the Wall Street bailout money to help carmakers would be a mistake. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama called _the U.S. auto industry a "dinosaur" whose demise would simply be stalled by a bailout_.
> 
> "I don't believe the $25 billion they're talking about will make them survive," said Shelby, the senior Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "It's just postponing the inevitable."



Add on: 


> *Americans uneasy over bailout for automakers*
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081117/us_nm/us_autos_bailout_opinions
> By Matthew Bigg Matthew Bigg   &#8211; Mon Nov 17, 4:31 am ET
> ATLANTA (Reuters) &#8211; As Congress debates legislation to help struggling automakers on Monday, many Americans said they were uneasy with the plan, arguing that while it may save jobs, it would reward companies for pursuing bad business practices.
> ...



same article: 


> DOUBTS
> In Los Angeles, which hosts the Los Angeles Auto Show this week, many people said they doubted a bailout was the best course of action. Some said it might be better for the companies to go bankrupt. Others said the industry could not survive long-term and that the bailout would be throwing good money after bad.
> "I'm not sure they (the automakers) can be salvaged. Part of me says that if Honda and Toyota can make better cars in the U.S. with American workers, so be it," said Tom Reiter, who was interviewed in Los Angeles and drives a 2001 Jaguar XJ he said was a "big gas guzzler."


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 17, 2008)

Ok, so, this is how I see it, and correct me if I'm wrong, since my view on this is rather simplistic and I have no numbers to back anything up with:

It seems to me that since the initial bailout for 700 billion bucks was passed, that now other companies are gonig to start coming forward and asking for gov't assistance as well.  It's the Big 3 right now...who's next to ask for assistance?  Maybe some broadcasting network will come out and say that the sponsors aren't paying the bills anymore, and they need to have a multi-million dollar bailout to continue to broadcast...and that it's important to the economy because America needs to receive broadcasts from this company to keep up to date in the news....and bla bla bla.

Is our economy in *that* bad of shape that we can't afford to let companies that fail go bankrupt?  I guess I just don't understand the way these things work....

And why isn't filing chapter 11 an option for any of the 3 companies??  Don't get that either....


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 17, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> Ok, so, this is how I see it, and correct me if I'm wrong, since my view on this is rather simplistic and I have no numbers to back anything up with:
> 
> It seems to me that since the initial bailout for 700 billion bucks was passed, that now other companies are gonig to start coming forward and asking for gov't assistance as well.  It's the Big 3 right now...who's next to ask for assistance?  Maybe some broadcasting network will come out and say that the sponsors aren't paying the bills anymore, and they need to have a multi-million dollar bailout to continue to broadcast...and that it's important to the economy because America needs to receive broadcasts from this company to keep up to date in the news....and bla bla bla.
> 
> ...


During the great depression hundreds of companies went bankrupt, banks out of business or simply couldn't DO business because of no money.... America survived.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 17, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> During the great depression hundreds of companies went bankrupt, banks out of business or simply couldn't DO business because of no money.... America survived.


 
Well, I can understand trying to avoid the depression...but is the answer really in the government's pockets?  Our tax money can't bail out everyone...


----------



## dungeonworks (Nov 17, 2008)

For the record, the money requested by GM, Ford, and Chrysler is not a bailout technically.  They are requesting $25 billion in loan guarantees, secured and backed by the federal government.  This is not to be confused with the $25 billion loan availability that is earmarked from the Dept of Energy, and likely the first one that you heard of.  It is (by law) only for the development and production of fuel efficient cars...and it won't be accessible for a long while.   They need cash to cover operating costs now.  The media trys to lump this as a bailout....it is not.  Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Bros, and some banks.....they all got bailouts and are now throwing legendary bashes at 5 star resorts along with a really posh and exclusive bird hunting trip in the English countryside.  The banks that are getting this money already are using it to buy and hold, NOT free up the credit as it was intended to do.


Here's another article for ya'll.  (Copied Below)



> *MARK PHELAN*
> 
> *6 myths about the Detroit 3*
> 
> ...


----------



## dungeonworks (Nov 17, 2008)

General Wesley Clark on why we should help the auto industry for national security reasons: 
*Automakers' survival a matter of U.S. security: Clark*


----------



## Big Don (Nov 17, 2008)

How is giving the Big Three a pile of money going to make people want their cars?


----------



## dungeonworks (Nov 18, 2008)

Big Don said:


> How is giving the Big Three a pile of money going to make people want their cars?



*Myth No. 1*

_Nobody buys their vehicles._
*Reality*
General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far this year. Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota.
Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year.
Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year. 

It's to bridge the massive financial losses that hit us like a meteor after a few bad years in a row already from what I understand.  They are nearly out of liquid cash.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2008)

MJS said:


> My point exactly! What the hell does the CEO of any company need that kind of money for?


 
Didn't you know, MJS, they work hard for that money and deserve it.  If it wasn't for them, nothing would get done! 

*rolls eyes*


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 18, 2008)

I say help them out, under the condition that the UAW goes away and never comes back.


$70 an hour to work on an AUTOMATED assembly line? kiss my butt. no wonder the american made cars are more expensive than the foriegn ones.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2008)

Big Don said:


> How is giving the Big Three a pile of money going to make people want their cars?


 
Actually, I think we should do exactly as the Japanese have done. 

No vehicle over 5 years old. Export all vehicles older than 5 years. This guarentees sales. 

Also, put tariffs on imports that make it only a novelty item for the really rich to own an import. This will then show how many people really want the Japanese vehicle as there $20,000 vehicle will now cost $38,000. 


If you could site some sources other than your personal taste which is valid in your point, but only represents you and not the general population. 

I understand that world wode GM and Toyota are close with GM being number 1. Some discussions about Toyota being number a couple of years ago, on if they counted fleet sales and leases. I understand that in the US it is GM Toyota then Ford.


----------



## dungeonworks (Nov 18, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I say help them out, under the condition that the UAW goes away and never comes back.
> 
> 
> $70 an hour to work on an AUTOMATED assembly line? kiss my butt. no wonder the american made cars are more expensive than the foriegn ones.




Automated assembly line....Twin Fist, if your statement didn't already show your ignorance of the topic, I may have been offended.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 18, 2008)

Why the Bailout won't save Detroit.

This article makes some great points.  Maybe we just have way to many cars in the US?  If the market really is this saturated, then no amount of money is going to keep some car companies afloat.


----------



## zDom (Nov 19, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> Actually, I think we should do exactly as the Japanese have done.
> 
> No vehicle over 5 years old. Export all vehicles older than 5 years. This guarentees sales.




Guess I would end up walking then.

Not all of us can afford new cars, Rich ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2008)

zDom said:


> Guess I would end up walking then.
> 
> Not all of us can afford new cars, Rich ...


 
And does it create a sustainable market without such laws? No.

My point in my sarcasm is that it is not an even playing field between the Us Manufacturers and foriegn companies. 

Nothing looks good right. I cannot tell people there is a magic bullet. I can say that it is not equal. So when people talk about coming up with a plan like the Japanese, I wish they would understand what that really means.


----------



## zDom (Nov 19, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> And does it create a sustainable market without such laws? No.
> 
> My point in my sarcasm is that it is not an even playing field between the Us Manufacturers and foriegn companies. .



Sorry I missed that it was a sarcastic suggestion.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 19, 2008)

A little protectionism in the form of a stiff, temporary tariff against imported cars might help, ala Harley-Davidson, but the U.S. automakers still have to make cars that people want to buy, and the kind of cars that the country needs right now. Of course, with the other economic considerations, I don't know how likely it is that people will be buying many new cars for the next couple of years....

...not sure bankruptcy and restructuring isn't the way for them to go..


----------



## crushing (Nov 19, 2008)

Looking at the global economy there is a very good chance that your next new car purchase will likely be from a manufacturer that was bailed out (or greatly subsidized), independent if it is a Toyota, Saab, or GM.

Out of curiousity, any other major auto manufacturing countries seriously considering the alternatives to the bailout like the US is considering?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2008)

elder999 said:


> A little protectionism in the form of a stiff, temporary tariff against imported cars might help, ala Harley-Davidson, but the U.S. automakers still have to make cars that people want to buy, and the kind of cars that the country needs right now. Of course, with the other economic considerations, I don't know how likely it is that people will be buying many new cars for the next couple of years....
> 
> ...not sure bankruptcy and restructuring isn't the way for them to go..


 

Elder999,


Question?  Every small car that GM built before people say were bad. One was too small compared to the giants on the road and was proclaimed to be unsafe at any speed. Then a few years later it was the fault of the manufacturers because they did not have any unsafe small cars to sell. Oh wait those cars would be fuel efficient cars. Sorry. 

My question here is can you point to a recent vehicle and tell me where the JD Power numbers or way off? I know that GM has more awards in the small and mid size than Toyota in the last couple of years. Saturn Aura to Chevrolet Malibu and others. 

Also, if GM sells more than Toyota and Ford more than Honda, how is it that they need to make cars people want to buy. 

In a "free market" competition is good. As long as all are on the same playing field. So, I support people buying a Toyota if they like the lines, or the cup holder or the color. To me that is good. What I do not understand is the general "They have to do better" comments by you and others?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2008)

crushing said:


> Looking at the global economy there is a very good chance that your next new car purchase will likely be from a manufacturer that was bailed out (or greatly subsidized), independent if it is a Toyota, Saab, or GM.
> 
> Out of curiousity, any other major auto manufacturing countries seriously considering the alternatives to the bailout like the US is considering?


 

The European manufacturers are also looking into what they can get for loans as well. 

In China, it is still a growing market and then the government is kind of backing many new markets as they grow. 

In Japan they have a tariff closed market. Legal restictions on how old vehicles can be. They base it upon the fact that older vehicles will not have the latest emission standards. They do recognize the year the vehicle was built but what the current standards are. They also look at service costs and prefer not to have to have to carry parts for customers. 
Did you know that a manufacturer is required to have service parts for 10 years after the last one rolls of the line. This is a law. 

As stated by zDom, many people cannot afford new cars all the time. Many people drive older vehicles and repair them. But if it is law, then I guess we could find a way to improve mass transit as they did with teh rail system in Japan. 

In Korea, there is such a pride for products that it borders on the Zeno-phobic attitude in the US in the early 50's. 

India is trying to figure out what they going to do. They want to expand, but not sure where or how. 

Russia is looking to expand but only in Eastern Russia, where there is no industry right. So, the labor is cheap, and very enthusiastic to work and looking for any form of a job. 

Australia has Holdens and they are part of the GM global commonization, i.e. rear wheel vehicles are being designed and developed there. 


That is what I know.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 19, 2008)

Good question, actually.

For the record, I'm a frustrated automotive engineer, as well as not so frustrated (to Rita's-that's the wife, also known as _Mrs. Conscience_, also known as the parsimonious Quaker-chagrin) car collector. And I love a lot of GM products, quite a few Chrysler products, and and a few Fords-at least, those made from 1968 back, but that's Bill Ford's fault..:lol:

In any case, I can anwer the question a lot more simply-we've got a Totyota SR5 pickup with over 300,000 miles on it, and we've only done regular maintenance. The carpet is worn, the paint is faded, but  otherwise it's all good. I've also got a Dodge diesel pickup that I converted to bio-diesel that's got over 300,000 miles on it. While the drive train is good, the fit and finish on all the switches and door handles and such, was such that I've had to replace them several times-it has an odd electrical glitch, and I did have to replace the transmission. While it had a lot of miles on it when I got it (never experiment on anything under warantee!) _these problems are typical of the model, and occurred early in its life._
So, that's one-an almost endemically inconsistent quality control in American models across the spectrum. I can remember test driving a Trans-Am convertible back in '93 or so, and while it was pretty nifty in some ways, being really shocked at the fit of the doors, the looseness of the handles, the chintziness of the window switches. This is due, I'm afraid, to your wages and benefits-it costs nearly $2000 dolllars more for an American car to leave the factory than its Japanese equivalent.

Another thing, since you asked about smaller models, is that while they have those same problems (some only discernible to the fanatic, some only over time) they have also been unappealing to Americans, for the most part. Their higher sales occur overseas, though they do sell here, mostly due to brand loyalty (Dad only bought Chrysler products, and I'll _never_ buy a Ford, but that's Bill Ford's fault :lol and end of year sales. 

The other thing, of course, is lackluster marketing of those cars. Saturns are a really good product, and have done well enough, but otherwise the big three have really pushed SUVs, minivans, and trucks. And, in the last couple of years, produced some nostalgic, gas-guzzlin', rootin'-tootin', air pollutin', high falutin', good old fashioned muscle cars. 

(Really, really dig the new 'Cuda. Not gonna do it, though.)

I think the marketing will change-they've typically marketed those smaller cars, like the Chevy Aveo, to a niche market-entry level consumers, when they should have been more across the spectrum: sold the safety, reliability, cargo and passenger room and economy to housewives and commuters, instead of to kids.

Just my opinion, though, and what the hell do I know? Heck, you think I drive a Porsche 'cause it's _economical_? :lfao:

I drive it 'cause it's not a Ford, or, rather, a Jaguar-but that's Bill Ford's fault. :lfao:


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 20, 2008)

A lot of the problems are self inflicted, and go beyond the SUV vs small car issue.

Ford, for example, produces really good small cars in Europe. But they can't sell them here because the standards are different. It's more than time for North America to get in line with European and Asian safety standards in the automotive industry. That would allow to desing only once, and to be able to manufacture the one model anywhere. 

After seeing the news clips with the Big 3 CEOs in front of Congress yesterday, I'd say let them fail. It takes really big brass ones to collect your millions in compensation and use your private jet to come in front of the taxpayers and ask for a bailout. Why don't they start by following in Iacocca's foot step and reduce their salaries to $1.00??


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 20, 2008)

loans only, and only IF:
the UAW backs down and makes concessions
the big three start making X percentage of thier models hybrids or flex fuel


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 20, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> loans only, and only IF:
> the UAW backs down and makes concessions
> the big three start making X percentage of thier models hybrids or flex fuel


 

I believe all or most of the Full size Trucks made from 2004 to present are Flex Fuel. 

Hybrids are coming.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 20, 2008)

CanuckMA said:


> A lot of the problems are self inflicted, and go beyond the SUV vs small car issue.
> 
> Ford, for example, produces really good small cars in Europe. But they can't sell them here because the standards are different. It's more than time for North America to get in line with European and Asian safety standards in the automotive industry. That would allow to desing only once, and to be able to manufacture the one model anywhere.
> 
> After seeing the news clips with the Big 3 CEOs in front of Congress yesterday, I'd say let them fail. It takes really big brass ones to collect your millions in compensation and use your private jet to come in front of the taxpayers and ask for a bailout. Why don't they start by following in Iacocca's foot step and reduce their salaries to $1.00??


 

While I agree it would go far to if they did decrease their salary, as many get bonuses and stock optiosn as well  , here is what I have for some CEO's I found recently.

Position  Company and ammount
4 Country wide 102,000,000 
8 Goldman Sachs 73,000,000 
9 Capital One 73,000,000 
11 Lehman Bros 71,000,000 
53 Cinga 30,000,000 
58 American Ex 25,000,000 
70 TRW 22,000,000 
73 MBIA 22,000,000 
82 JP Morgan 20,000,000 
85 bank of America 20,000,000 
153 Ford 12,000,000 
374 Freddie Mac 3,400,000 
433 GM 2,200,000  

I listed many banks that got money or is scheduled to get money from the $700 Billion.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 20, 2008)

CanuckMA said:


> ...It takes really big brass ones to collect your millions in compensation and use your private jet to come in front of the taxpayers and ask for a bailout...



The Execs walked right into that. How could they not know that the media was gonna milk that? Let them eat cake.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 20, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Good question, actually.
> 
> For the record, I'm a frustrated automotive engineer, as well as not so frustrated (to Rita's-that's the wife, also known as _Mrs. Conscience_, also known as the parsimonious Quaker-chagrin) car collector. And I love a lot of GM products, quite a few Chrysler products, and and a few Fords-at least, those made from 1968 back, but that's Bill Ford's fault..:lol:
> 
> ...


 
Well I do not like Bill either so I understand.

I am an engineer but my Dad, Uncle and others retired UAW.

We grew up with a 1970 Chevrolet pickup. We bought it with 110,000 miles. We donated to the high school with 320,000 miles. 

As to Dodge and Transmissions this is a common issue from the past, but with recent changes (* read Diamler *) introduced new transmissions to their line up. It has addressed. 

I had a 1993 Grand Am, I gave to a friend who was going through a divorce. I gave it to him with 193,000 miles. I did simple maintenance. He has it today with 210,000 miles. But he only drives about 3 to 4,000 miles a year. 

As to marketing to kids, this plan is actually good. Honda and Toyota target college kids who will go buy a new one when they graduate.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 20, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> Well I do not like Bill either so I understand.


 
No, you don't, but that's okay. :lfao: 

I've got a couple of Dodge Powerwagons-I couldn't even say what the mileage on either of them really is. Of course, one's a '65 and the other's a '48, sooooo.

Not so sure I agree with you about the marketing-marketing to youth fed into the whole credit crisis. Additionally, youth weren't really that interested. Who wants an Aveo when you can have a Scion, in dayglo color of your choice, with a loud, beer-can exhaust and thumpin' stereo for the same price, or less? EVen if they aren't the same price, that's the perception-and, mind you, I think the Scion is butt-ugly. So do a lot of kids who own them-but they've been marketed so even their ugliness is attractive, ala AMC back in the 70's.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 21, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> While I agree it would go far to if they did decrease their salary, as many get bonuses and stock optiosn as well  , here is what I have for some CEO's I found recently.
> 
> Position Company and ammount
> 4 Country wide 102,000,000
> ...


 
TOTAL compasention should go down to a buck.

And those bank execs should be fired with no golden parachute.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 21, 2008)

elder999 said:


> No, you don't, but that's okay. :lfao:
> 
> I've got a couple of Dodge Powerwagons-I couldn't even say what the mileage on either of them really is. Of course, one's a '65 and the other's a '48, sooooo.
> 
> Not so sure I agree with you about the marketing-marketing to youth fed into the whole credit crisis. Additionally, youth weren't really that interested. Who wants an Aveo when you can have a Scion, in dayglo color of your choice, with a loud, beer-can exhaust and thumpin' stereo for the same price, or less? EVen if they aren't the same price, that's the perception-and, mind you, I think the Scion is butt-ugly. So do a lot of kids who own them-but they've been marketed so even their ugliness is attractive, ala AMC back in the 70's.


 

Tell me more about Bill - Send me a PM  

As to the Youth for today in the crisis of finance. I agree. But in the mid 90's to three years ago it was a plan that got people to buy a car and then buy a second car when they graduated college.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 21, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> Tell me more about Bill - Send me a PM
> 
> As to the Youth for today in the crisis of finance. I agree. But in the mid 90's to three years ago it was a plan that got people to buy a car and then buy a second car when they graduated college.


 

Do you _know_ Bill?

Tell him that he still owes me for his graduation party, the ****.

Actually, ya better not.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 22, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Do you _know_ Bill?
> 
> Tell him that he still owes me for his graduation party, the ****.
> 
> Actually, ya better not.


 
Elder999,

I understand an will respect your answer.

Now back to the subject of the thread.


I asked you and some others about perceptions and also data.

You provided your experiences which are good. 

Here are thing(s) I would like people to consider and think about and possible do some research on there own before they make blanket statements.

Consumer Reports had two articles on the same two pages. The one in the center with the darker background to look like a summary about fuel economy. The center article was all about buying vehicles with Fuel Economy Labels that showed the best. The outside article was how the North American Manufacturers were the closest to the labels with the Japanese being the worse offenders. 

Why would they run both articles if they did not have an agenda for the Japanese or against the US manufacturers?


Why did Toyota settle out of court with a Class Action law suit for Sludge with no admittence of guilt. But they paid for the engine replacements and all the costs. 

Why did Toyota in 2006 recall more vehicles then built that year? 

Why does CARB the California Air Resource Board base their inspections on national sales (* which favor US until recently with Toyota *) instead of Californai sales (* that favor the Japanese *)? 

Why does CARB do a 100% inspection of all vehicles for the Number one manufacturer, but only 80% for the number two? And it drops more drastic as the numbers fall? 

Why Did CARB not go after Toyota 100% when they claimed to sell the most in the world recently? 


My points are that while the above qustions are leading they make one wonder about a fair playing field. If the Japanese get a pass on inspections for issues and the North American comapnies get the recalls and negative press,, does this not spell an agenda? This is not to say that the US did nto need to fix what was recalled, but that the perception of only recalling them and not the ones they did not inspect skews the perception of the public.

The auto mags and news writers that will do anything for DOCH review but claim that push rod is 19th century technology, even if the push rod engine gets better fuel economy and more Horse Power and More usable Torque (* i.e. Torque that is not at or near peak RPM *). This gives a negative perception to the US manufacturers and even when the did roll out DOCH's the reviews were still not good.  But was it really quailty or was their perception. 

When Toyota and Honda and Nissan  have the largest delta's in Fuel Economy but people buy them for the fuel economy, does this not have a perception issue. I mean if the label is higher, people buy it for the reported numbers. But this is perception even with the deltas they end up being lower then the US. 

I know that is you drive the hybrids with fuel economy in mind and drive slow they give good Fuel Economy as well. But when I see them driving 75 to 80+ mph down the road, I know they are not getting even close to what a non hybrid would be getting. But the perception is that they are saving fuel and money. 


What I am trying to get people to do is post facts about their specific cars and experiences not broad and unconfirmed statements. Perceptions are how most people buy. 

I will give and exmaple of a Sport bike forum that reported a broken frame. For 8 months people were all worried about their frame and all claimed to ahve known someone to have a broken frame. In the end it was a single frame with the the driver being a professional stunt driver who put it through it paces and when he crashed it, the frame broke. DUH!

But the perception in the market and for the people was that the product was bad.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

Some more details I have been fowarded



> *ALL GM BRANDS ABOVE AVERAGE IN LATEST J.D. POWER REPORT * According to J.D. Power and Associates, the latest feedback from customers indicate GM and its dealers are top notch when it comes to customer satisfaction during the vehicle purchase experience.  All GM brands outperformed the industry average in the 2008 J.D. Power and Associates Sales Satisfaction Index (SSI) Study.
> SSI is an analysis of the new-vehicle purchase experience which measures five factors:  dealership facility, salesperson, paperwork/finance process, delivery process; and vehicle price.
> 
> *Industry Highlights*
> ...




 Link seems to be down from JDPower.   http://www.jdpower.com/autos


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

Some Talking points


All emphasis was in original document



> *Talking Points*​
> *Product*
> The domestic industry is oftentimes criticized for building vehicles out of step with todays need for fuel efficiency.  The facts are these:
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

I looked for the original on the web but was not able to find it.

Forwarded information 



> The boards of directors of many large corporations, including General Motors, mandate that key corporate officers travel by corporate aircraft for safety and security reasons.
> The company also uses corporate aircraft to enhance the productivity of our senior leadership as they travel to important and, oftentimes, hastily called meetings in this country and around the world. On corporate planes, the executives can work without distraction and speak to each other freely on sensitive and proprietary issues. (posted: 11/20/08)
> 
> Here is another perspective on company planes: November 19, 2008
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

Another Article



> fuel economy
> 
> *GM BOOSTS FUEL ECONOMY ACROSS ITS BRANDS FOR 2009, BEATS TOYOTA, HONDA IN MIDSIZE SEDAN SEGMENT . *At 33 miles per gallon highway, four-cylinder, non-hybrid versions of the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and Saturn Aura midsize sedans equipped with six-speed transmissions carry a higher EPA highway fuel economy label than comparably equipped Toyota Camry and Honda Accord models.
> 
> ...




For the link in the article: http://media.gm.com/servlet/Gateway...ws/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=49353


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

An article about Chrysler



> *Chrysler stunned the automotive industry by unveiling three production-intent electric vehicles (EVs) on cable news channel CNBC.*
> The first is a two-seat Dodge-brand sports car based on the Lotus Europa, which the company claims can go 0-60 mph in under 5 seconds, recharge in 4 hours on 220V current, and achieve a range of 150-200 miles. It features a 26-kWh lithium-ion battery and a 200W (268hp) electric motor in a lightweight platform.
> Also unveiled were extended-range electric vehicle (E-REV) versions of its Chrysler Town & Country minivan and Jeep Wrangler 4-Door, both of which will reportedly be able to drive 40 miles on pure electric power before an onboard internal combustion engine kicks in to extend its electric range to nearly 400 miles. The minivan also features a similar motor, but comes with a 22-kWh battery; it will reportedly run to 60 mph in 8.7 seconds and comes with a massive 468 lbs/ft of torque at zero RPM. The Jeep features a massive 27-kWh battery and a more reasonable 260 lbs/ft of torque from its identical electric motor, allowing it to do 0-60 in 9.0 seconds. The total range for the E-REV minivan and Wrangler should be nearly 400 miles, according to the company, which would equate to roughly 50 mpg after the initial 40 miles of electrical power runs out.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

An article about Russian Automotive as someone asked about foriegn companies and other countries



> *Russia**: AvtoVAZ Acquires Platform Licences from RenaultReport *
> Russia's largest carmaker AvtoVAZ has agreed a deal with Renault to acquire the French carmaker's platform technology for the Logan and Logan van, according to a company statement. AvtoVAZ said it had agreed to pay Renault 220 million euro (US$320.7 million) for the platforms which included the Logan's B0 platform and the Logan van's RF90 vehicle base. The licence also allows AvtoVAZ access to two unspecified Renault engines, although these are likely to be the 1.4- and 1.6-litre gasoline (petrol) units currently used in the Logan model range.*
> Significance:* It appears that Renault is endorsing a plan for AvtoVAZ's Lada brand to manufacture a new passenger car based heavily on the Logan platform. The "Lada Logan" is likely to be heavily restyled in order to distinguish it from the Renault-manufactured version of the budget passenger car, which is currently manufactured at the Avtoframos plant near Moscow. Renault has taken the 220 million euro payment, it would seem, partly as compensation for the potential negative impact on sales of the Renault Logan in Russia that the new Lada design will have. However, as a 25% shareholder in AvtoVAZ Renault also stands to benefit if the much-needed new models help rebuild AvtoVAZ's dwindling market share, although the group still remains Russia's largest passenger car manufacturer by sales volume. Global Insight forecast last week that a redesigned Lada version of the Logan would be the best way to revive the company's fortunes in Russia (see *Russia: 16 September 2008: **Renault Increases Influence at Russia's AvtoVAZ*).


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

This is information out of Germany about Diesels. Europe has been increasing their emission requirements over the past few years. The particulate filter is already in effect as a requirement for passenger vehicles in the US. 




> *GERMANY: Short journey diesel ruled 'not fit for purpose'*
> 
> 23 September 2008 | Source: just-auto.com editorial team
> A German court has ruled that a diesel car can be returned after its purchase if it is not deemed fit for purchase. In this case the car was deemed not suitable for short journeys.
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

An article about Toyota Plug-ins that mention GM and Chrysler as well.



> *Toyota Plug-In Strategy Favors Low Cost Over Long Range*
> By Eric Mayne
> WardsAuto.com, Sep 23, 2008 11:05 AM PORTLAND, OR  Toyota Motor Corp.s first plug-in hybrid vehicles will have a 10-mile (16-km) range under electric power, well short of the 40 miles (64 km) promised by General Motors Corp.s first offering, the Chevrolet Volt.
> But Toyota believes its strategy represents a better consumer-value proposition, because less range corresponds to a smaller, and, therefore, more-affordable version of the lithium-ion battery that serves as the core of PHEV technology. The revelation is made as Toyota prepares to outline its alternative-powertrain strategy at a sustainable mobility conference it will hold here tomorrow, against a backdrop of global concern about future energy needs. The auto maker has gathered leading analysts and academics for a serious discussion about energy-resource management.
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

As Dungeonworks referenced about cost of supplies going up here is proof that Toyota is looking into how to reduce the cost of use of Copper



> *NEXT TOYOTA YARIS TO GET ALUMINUM WIRING HARNESS*
> Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd. will begin mass production of its new aluminum-based wire harness in 2010, The Nikkei reports. It says the first application will be in Toyota Motor Corp.s 2011 Yaris subcompact. Although the aluminum harness is 20%-25% larger in diameter than a conventional copper system, it is as much as 40% lighter. Its also cheaper than copper.  Source:  AutoTech Daily 9-24-08


 
I am not allowed to comment on GM as I do not know if it has been released to the public. I am sorry. 

I will say this that Aluminum has to be much larger to handle the same load, but it may not be good enough in some cases for critical measurements.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

More about foriegn car companies this being India and TaTa



> *United Kingdom** - **India**: Jaguar Land Rover Losses May Affect Future Financial Performance, Says Tata Motors *
> Tata Motors has said that losses at its luxury brands Jaguar and Land Rover could hurt the future financial performance of its business, reports the Press Trust of India_._ The company said in a prospectus for a newly proposed rights issue that the pair could pressure its "profit margins and its operating ratios". The Indian company also revealed that the two brands made a loss of US$383 million during the first six months of 2008, although they did post earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of US$625 million over the same period.*
> Significance:* This type of warning is often issued by companies to potential investors as they highlight the possible pitfalls of their future plans. Tata also said that any disruption to component supplies from Ford or other manufacturers could have a material impact on its business, while an increase in pension contributions could also have an adverse effect. The company will make 41.5 billion rupees (US$907.6 million)-worth of ordinary and A shares available to investors on 29 September, with the closing date set at 20 October. The cash will be used to make early repayments on the US$2.3-billion acquisition of Jaguar and Land Rover that took place earlier this year, the bridging loan for which will expire in June 2009  Source:  Global Insight 9-24-08


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

Nope there is no favor here:



> *Plug-In Tax Credit Tweaked to Toyotas Benefit *
> By Eric Mayne
> WardsAuto.com, Sep 24, 2008 12:20 PM
> PORTLAND, OR  Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. is feeling vindicated today after the U.S. Senate approves an amended tax-credit plan that threatened to exclude the auto makers pending plug-in while favoring General Motors Corp.s Chevrolet Volt.
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

To show more major differences between North America and other markets:



> *Europe: EC Rules to Install Daytime Safety Lights on All Vehicles by 2011 *
> Vehicle manufacturers in Europe will be required to equip all of their new models which are sold in the European Union (EU) with daytime safety lights starting from 2011, the European Commission (EC) has said. "The introduction of daytime running lights for cars, trucks and buses makes them more visible, which will increase road safety," EC vice-president Günter Verheugen said in a statement. He went on to say that "this will make a positive contribution to our goal of reducing fatalities on European roads whilst being more fuel efficient then existing lights." The EC claims that the lights will substantially increase the visibility of motor vehicles to other road users, and said that they have a low energy consumption compared to existing dipped-beam head lamps. Under the plans, all new types of passenger cars and small delivery vans will have to be equipped with the daytime safety lights from 7 February 2011. The new rules will be introduced for trucks and buses in August 2012.*
> Significance:* The commission hopes this move will cut fatal road accidents in Europe by 35% and total collisions by 15%. These rules already apply in most Scandinavian countries, including Sweden, where the effects on road safety have been "very positive" according to the Commission. It is unclear at this point what the region's vehicle manufacturers make of the rules, although they may complain about added cost and a slight increase in fuel consumption at a time when they are being required to improve their vehicles' fuel consumption which will in itself lead to significant added costs.





Within the US we have had this on Motorcycles since the 70's and for years on vehicles. Also Canada had it as a law / requirement before US for passenger vehicles.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

BMW making changes to the market shifts:



> Germany: BMW cuts production of larger gasoline engines
> By Glenn Brooks
> 2 September, 2008
> Source: Automotive World
> ...





Second article



> Germany: All-turbo engine range for fifth generation BMW 7 Series
> By Glenn Brooks
> 7 July, 2008
> Source: Automotive World
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

To show the market in August:



> US AUTO SALES WILT IN AUGUST.
> U.S. sales of light vehicles fell 16% last month from a year earlier to 1.25 million units, their 10th consecutive monthly decline, according to Autodata Corp. Augusts annualized sales rate of 13.7 million compares to a rate of 16.3 million in August 2007. The good news: Last months sales pace was a big improvement over Julys 12.55 million rate, a 16-year low. Sales by Detroits automakers fell 25% in August. Chryslers volume plummeted 35%, with cars and trucks contributing equally. Sales fell 26% at Ford, where SUV sales were halved. General Motors says its employee-discountsfor- everyone promotion held its sales decline to 20%. Demand at Toyota and Honda fell 9% and 7%, respectively. Gainers included Nissan and Subaru (+14% each), Volkswagen (+3%) and BMW, up 1%, thanks to a 34%  jump in sales of its Mini brand. Hondas August volume pushed its sales total for the first eight months of this year to 1.083 million vehicles to pass Chrysler (1.076 million units) for fourth place in U.S. auto sales behind GM, Toyota and Ford. Demand for fullsize pickup trucks and SUVs fell 25% and 29%, respectively, last month, vs. declines of 33% and 47% in July. Automakers interpret the numbers as showing that moderating fuel prices and hefty incentives are bringing some consumers back to light trucks. Sales of subcompact cars grew just 4%, partly because inventories of popular models are depleted


 

October numbers were for low 11 million or high 10 million volume market.

No one was buying for either fear or lack of finance from the financial market.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

Britian is not immune to the market fall



> *UK: Car market down 19% in August*
> 
> 4 September 2008 | Source: just-auto.com editorial team
> New car sales in the UK in August plunged 18.6% over last year to 63,225 units, prompting the UK's automotive trade association to urge government action to boost the UK's fragile economy.
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

China the fastest growing market has slowed



> *CHINA: Market cools further in August*
> 
> 4 September 2008 | Source: just-auto.com editorial team
> China's car market is continuing to cool in response to higher gasoline prices and weakening consumer confidence, according to preliminary data obtained by Lehman Brothers.
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

More in reference to safety standards and differences



> NCAP REVISES PEDESTRIAN CRASH RATINGS
> Poor pedestrian impact performance on a number of new models has led EuroNCAP to revise its crash safety rating system. The revised standards are expected to be released next year. EuroNCAP notes that two-thirds of models tested last year received only two of five possible stars for pedestrian safety. The agency suggests the reason is that carmakers are concentrating on meeting other standards. When evaluated recently, for example, the Hyundai i30, Lancia Delta, Renault Koleos and Mercedes MLClass scored the maximum five stars in occupant protection tests, but none achieved more than two stars for pedestrian safety.
> Next years revisions will include the safety potential of driver assistance technologies such as electronic stability controls, and adult occupant protection will be expanded to include whiplash testing.




US exports must meet the requirements to be sold in Europe. 

The Ped Pro or Pedestrian Protection is to protect a person walking who gets hit by the car. 

Note that the European manufacturers are not able to meet all the standards imposed upon them in their own market.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

Chrysler looking to build in Russia as well.



> CHRYSLER IN TALKS TO BUILD CALIBER IN RUSSIA?
> OAO GAZ is talking to Chrysler LLC about building one of its vehiclespossibly the Dodge Caliber compact carat the Russian automakers underutilized assembly plant in Nizhny Novgorod, says Vedomosti. The Russian business daily cites unidentified sources who say Chrysler is one of several automakers in talks with GAZ. The Russian company is seeking advanced technology and engineering expertise, and Chrysler needs overseas partners.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

Data for sales out of Europe for the Month of August:



> Europe: Western European New Car Registrations Plunge by 16.4% in August&#8212;Forecast
> Registrations of new passenger cars plunged by 16.4% in August to just 714,029 units, which is equivalent to a drop of 140,000 units compared to the same month last year, according to Global Insight forecasts for the month. This projected August total is the lowest ever monthly total for the period of August 1978 to current day, which is as far back as Global Insight's monthly archives run. The second worst month in that timeframe was January 1980 when 738,031 new cars were registered.
> That takes year-to-date (YTD) volumes to 9,606,991 units, 4.4% or 446,235 lower than last year's level. This is the lowest eight-month total since 1997, in which year January&#8211;August volumes stood at 9,347,743 units. *Western European Passenger Car Sales*
> *Country*
> ...




Sorry table formats did not keep with copy and paste. I will see if I can clean up and post again.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 23, 2008)

Wow Rich these are some very interesting posts that you are making.  I am particularly interested in Chrysler's Jeep Wrangler with the 40 mile battery and then the fuel kicks in.  Definitely that is something I would buy as soon as it is available!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 23, 2008)

It is also interesting to note based off your last chart and the Indian auto maker's forecast how car sales are plummeting world wide. :erg:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> It is also interesting to note based off your last chart and the Indian auto maker's forecast how car sales are plummeting world wide. :erg:


 
Yes the world markets are all down. The world financial sitation is not well. The world has made it much harder to get loans for companies and the individual. 

I expect the world market sales to be real down this year and to follow up next year with being down as well. 

But the experts were all thinking things might get bad and made plans for 12 million units here in the North America Market. This is over 25% reduction in sales. But as pointed out for August it was at those numbers and October was worse. So, while I understand the frustration of people in the words of BAIL OUT.

This is not the Financial industry using high risk investment to back up mortgages that put everything at risk especially when they called that High Risk as low or moderate at best. This is an industry that is looking to Borrow money so they can continue to operate and then pay back that money. It is tough, but that is their plan. They are not asking for a gift in money. There would be an interest rate assigned to the loan, that would also be paid back. This is not free money.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 23, 2008)

Friday, November 21, 2008
Frank Beckmann: Commentary
Beckmann: Members of Congress, not auto execs, deserve grilling
Excerpted from the DETROIT NEWS:

There was one major problem with this week's congressional hearings about the bid by Detroit's automakers for a government loan to stay in business -- the wrong people were under the gun.

Representatives and senators should have been answering questions from the automakers about why they approved government policies that have played the biggest role in driving American carmakers toward extinction.

The automakers have done what all businesses do -- they have created products their customers wanted to buy, and they have paid wages and benefits that were negotiated and agreed upon by management and labor.

Have they made mistakes? Of course -- from the Edsel to the Pinto, from the Corvair to the Cimarrron, from the Imperial to the K car, from job banks to full health care coverage for retirees.

As with all companies, Detroit's carmakers have paid for their errors in the market. They have suffered losses. And they have adjusted their product and policies to stay in business. What has pushed them to the brink has been a mortgage crisis and credit crunch not of their making.

This week, auto execs Rick Wagoner of General Motors, Alan Mulally of Ford and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler, along with United Auto Workers boss Ron Gettelfinger, were grilled by the ultimate second guessers, the politicians, most of whom don't have education degrees in economic fields or experience in making decisions on private employment, inventory and global competition.

One wishes the four could have asked the questions instead this week.

Why did members of Congress -- such as House Banking Chairman Barney Frank, Senate Banking Chairman Christoper Dodd and others -- raise fuel economy standards, adding more than $85 billion in costs as the industry was restructuring itself?

If the reason was forcing automakers to deal with higher gasoline prices, perhaps the politicians could explain why they have made fuel more scarce by blocking domestic drilling for oil and preventing new refineries from being built during the past three decades.
END EXCERPT
Impose EIGHTY-FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in costs and take no responsibility for the consequences, yeah, that's Congress.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Impose EIGHTY-FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in costs and take no responsibility for the consequences, yeah, that's Congress.


 

This is common from California to the national Congress. If they write a law and pass it, then they are not the bad guys. The cost of said law is added into to cost of the product but the people pay it and are no mad at the manufacturer and not the people who put the requirement in place. 

In the late 90's the cost of cars remained pretty steady do to market influence, but from 96 on with the roll out of the new OBD II standards and the increased emission and safety standards since then. It all addes costs. The companies must pass this along or reduce profit and when things go bad then they do not have the cash reserves to get through. 


As to the Corvair being a bad car. It was Nader who stated it was safe at any speed. 

Well the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius and Smartcar are all unsafe at any speed by the same standards. If any of them were to get into a head on collision with a semi-truck even full size SUV there is nothing that can be done to make these vehicles safe. Does anyone comment about this? No back then BIGGER is better was the slogan. Now it is Green or Fuel Economy or Save the Planet, or pck your slogan that wants you to drive an unsafe car by the measure placed upon previous vehicles. But the media and those in power choose to over look it as it is not VOGUE.

While all the vehicle in this post I have mentioned have their merit and their market, making comparisons across time when the requirements and environment is not the same is not always going to give the logical answer. It can draw the emotional one though.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 23, 2008)

I found this blog post on another board. Don't know that I agree with all of it....

http://fastandloud.com/how-to-save-the-us-automotive-industry-in-10-not-so-simple-steps/


----------



## Big Don (Nov 23, 2008)

I saw a Corvair Pickup the other day. I had no idea any were still around.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 23, 2008)

Big Don said:


> I saw a Corvair Pickup the other day. I had no idea any were still around.



Didn't know such a thing ever existed. I don't believe I've ever seen a stock vehicle with a ramp like that -- wonderfully practical.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 23, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Didn't know such a thing ever existed. I don't believe I've ever seen a stock vehicle with a ramp like that -- wonderfully practical.


The one I saw was Fire Engine red and white and looked better than the one in the pic I posted. Yeah, the rampside was an awesome Idea that, because it debuted on a Corvair was sunk. Thanks Ralph!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> I found this blog post on another board. Don't know that I agree with all of it....
> 
> http://fastandloud.com/how-to-save-the-us-automotive-industry-in-10-not-so-simple-steps/


 

Gordon,

I do not agree with the site. I agree they have the right to express their opinion. But it shows they have no clue. 

Europe to North America. 

Drop Emissions standards to European Standards for Diesel. 

Design for both markets. 
Safety standards are not the same. But many do design for both markets, but this is why people ask "Why did they put this here and leave this wide open space over there?" Safety differences or protection for Right Hand drive. 

Why not standardize all emissions standards and safety standards and make all cars the same size and the same weight class and the same drive controls. If they are all the same requirements then it would be easier. 

Lots of other issues as well for some of the other points. 

But that is my opinion.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 24, 2008)

More information at the following site:



> http://gmfactsandfiction.com/


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 24, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> ...But that is my opinion.



...which I appreciate, Rich, because you obviously know the business.

Personally, I had a knee-jerk liberal reaction to the section in the blog about getting rid of unions. I'm a little fatigued about hearing unions are always THE problem.

What you say about building cars for foreign markets makes sense.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 24, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> ...which I appreciate, Rich, because you obviously know the business.
> 
> Personally, I had a knee-jerk liberal reaction to the section in the blog about getting rid of unions. I'm a little fatigued about hearing unions are always THE problem.
> 
> What you say about building cars for foreign markets makes sense.


 

The Union did push things. The Companies gave many things. (* The Unions were required for a safe working place in the beginning and other issues as well. *) It was what happened. It is not good to try to blame the past. It is better to find a solution for the future. 

Having markets and workers in those markets including the US it helps to benefit the balance of the Dollar versus other foriegn monies. It also helps with over all global markets. The problem is to take advantage of it, this means that capacity needs to be avialable in different markets. The problem is that this capacity costs money as well to have it "sitting" around.


----------



## dungeonworks (Nov 25, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> The Union did push things. The Companies gave many things. (* The Unions were required for a safe working place in the beginning and other issues as well. *) It was what happened. It is not good to try to blame the past. It is better to find a solution for the future.
> 
> Having markets and workers in those markets including the US it helps to benefit the balance of the Dollar versus other foriegn monies. It also helps with over all global markets. The problem is to take advantage of it, this means that capacity needs to be avialable in different markets. The problem is that this capacity costs money as well to have it "sitting" around.




We also gave things too Rich...and FYI, many of those issues are still around today, not just "...in the beggining".  If it costs less to perform an operation in an unsafe manor, GM will try it that way first. :whip1:   Besides that, auto jobs would've  been minimum wage jobs long ago without the union.

I've been to 4 plants, and 2 of the 4 twice.  Based solely on what these eyes have seen, it is the same at each.  I've seen fingers get cut off, a foot get crushed by a truck frame falling off of a carrier, and many near misses on forklifts.  I have also been near two really bad fork truck accidents.  My grandfather gave an eye to the company back in the 60's.  Both he and my other grandfather died from lung cancer suspected to be caused from the toxicity of their work environment at the foundry.  Ventilation is still really bad in both paint shops I have been in.  Carpel Tunnel is a right of passage (from all those automated jobs someone brought up earlier in this thread) I won't even bring up ergonomics, that is a topic unto itself.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 28, 2008)

Bob,

I really hate the auto log out. I just had a real long article typed in about Chapter 11 and an article published. 

Is there some way for us slow typers and also people who link in and check facts to not get logged off? 

I know type it in another program and then post it.


----------



## dungeonworks (Nov 28, 2008)

Hey Rich,

I always select the text, then "copy" it for my larger posts. Then I can just "paste" it if their is a problem after which I log back in.  I loathe when I lose long posts like that or from browser bugs on my kickstart magneto ignition computer! LOL


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 28, 2008)

what 'auto log out'???


----------



## Carol (Nov 30, 2008)

If a post of mine gets "lost" to the automatic log out, I just hit the back button on my browser.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 30, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> Bob,
> 
> I really hate the auto log out. I just had a real long article typed in about Chapter 11 and an article published.
> 
> ...


Use FireFox as your browser, and make sure you select "remember me" and "save this password".  Works for me in IE also.  I've already got the time out set for 40 minutes, but I'll push it out to 60.  I'm setup to automatically login, so I don't have the auto-logout problem that often.


btw, I haven't checked this thread in a while, so best bet for any support type questions is post em in the support forum or PM me. (Support forums faster)


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 30, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> If a post of mine gets "lost" to the automatic log out, I just hit the back button on my browser.


 
Thanks Carol, I tried this and it asked me to log back in anyways with the loose of the post.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 30, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Use FireFox as your browser, and make sure you select "remember me" and "save this password". Works for me in IE also. I've already got the time out set for 40 minutes, but I'll push it out to 60. I'm setup to automatically login, so I don't have the auto-logout problem that often.
> 
> 
> btw, I haven't checked this thread in a while, so best bet for any support type questions is post em in the support forum or PM me. (Support forums faster)


 
Bob, sorry I know you are busy and PM's are much faster. I was just frustrated. As my desk top is down and stuck using a laptop, that I cannot load Firefox onto.  

Thank you for checking into the settings.


----------



## GBlues (Dec 1, 2008)

Yeah this actually really pisses me off! Instead of throwing money away what they should do is give every American over the age of 21 that make less than a minimum of 250, 000 dollars, 250,000 dollars, hell even just 50,000 dollars. This would actually stimulate the economy. People would, actually be able to pay there mortgages, credit cards, student loans, but new houses, pay off cars, or even buy new cars. Only stipulation would be you can only buy American made goods. The auto makers win, the banks win, the government wins when they collect taxes through the the purchases that you make. They'd have to give this money tax free, and put a price freeze on everything or business owners would have a hayday, and raise pricese to an ungodly amount of money. 

Deal is it does no good to bail out the auto makers if people still can't buy there vehicles. This plan of action would creat jobs. Lots of them, and real quick, it get the economy rolling long enough that it could right itself. The banks they haven't even done what there supposed to be doing with the money. They were supposed to start loaning money, but now they're just hoarding it, and blowing it on parties. Give it to the poor and middle class, they'll put cash back into the economy, cause we actully need certain necessities in life.

Last but not least, one politician came on the news and said, ( and just paraphrasing here), " That it was the poor and middle classes fault that the economy is going like it is because they are greedy. They want microwaves, and dishwashers and you don't need those things to live." Yeah betcha he's got one though doesn't he. GREED, let's talk about the good old senator of arizona's 12 houses that he owns. How many houses do you need JOHN?

Bailing out people that don't need it. That haven't helped creat jobs, which gives people money to buy stuff, which still means what? That nothing has happened. Bush bails out the banks and America's new boy Barrack Obama comes right behind him, and wants to bail out the BIG 3 AUTO MAKERS. CHange we need. YEah right what's the difference. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Dec 1, 2008)

GBlues said:


> Yeah this actually really pisses me off! Instead of throwing money away what they should do is give every American over the age of 21 that make less than a minimum of 250, 000 dollars, 250,000 dollars, hell even just 50,000 dollars. This would actually stimulate the economy. People would, actually be able to pay there mortgages, credit cards, student loans, but new houses, pay off cars, or even buy new cars. Only stipulation would be you can only buy American made goods. The auto makers win, the banks win, the government wins when they collect taxes through the the purchases that you make. They'd have to give this money tax free, and put a price freeze on everything or business owners would have a hayday, and raise pricese to an ungodly amount of money.
> 
> Deal is it does no good to bail out the auto makers if people still can't buy there vehicles. This plan of action would creat jobs. Lots of them, and real quick, it get the economy rolling long enough that it could right itself. The banks they haven't even done what there supposed to be doing with the money. They were supposed to start loaning money, but now they're just hoarding it, and blowing it on parties. Give it to the poor and middle class, they'll put cash back into the economy, cause we actully need certain necessities in life.
> 
> ...


 
This could possibly derail the thread, so I only want to touch on these things...

First thing I want to touch on is what the politician said....he's right.  What he's referring to, though, is not that the poor and middle class shouldn't buy the things that they need...what he's saying is that the poor and middle class go in debt using credit to buy things that are trivial, and then when the time comes to purchase something they do need, they have to use credit for that as well.

The upper middle class and the rich don't have this problem because they have the money to purchase what they want *and* need outright, without using credit for the most part.

Secondly, giving Americans money to spend willy-nilly will get us further in the hole than we already are.  It's the same as giving a drunk bum a 50 dollar bill and telling him to straighten out his life...all he's going to do is go buy more alcohol.  And as far as putting restrictions on where to spend the money...you can't make people spend wisely.  You can't even make people spend money the way you think it should be spent...they spend it how they want to, because it's their money.

Take, for example, the stimulous checks the government sent out back during the summer.  That did absolutely nothing to stimulate anything.

I think, and this is just my .02, that as far as bailing out the automakers goes, that they should just leave it alone.  Citibank is getting a bailout from the 700 billion....how many other companies are going to step forward with their hands out?  

The way I see it, there really isn't a solution to any of this mess, except to try to ride it out and stop throwing money at everything as a fix.  I think of it like this:

I'm broke...I owe all kinds of money for medical bills and insurance bills, and my car has just broken down, and I need to get a new car.  I'm not wanting to settle for getting a small $500 car to get back and forth to work in, I'm wanting to buy a brand new car that I can be comfortable in, and I want to get a loan to get one.  The problem is that I can't get the loan unless my dad cosigns with me.

Well, I have a bad history of not paying my bills on time, and I've been sent to collections on several occasions and have even been to court once or twice to collect on a debt.  Now, I'm asking my dad to be responsible for paying what I owe "just in case" I'm not able to pay for it myself. 

My dad has the option of declining to cosign, and probably should.  Afterall, given my past history of late and null payments, why should he be expected to pay for my screwups if I'm not able to pay?  If he's paying for the car because he cosigns for it, then rightfully, he should be able to have the car, and that puts me right back in the situation I started from.

The whole situation could have been corrected if I had accepted the fact that I can afford to be uncomfortable for the amount of time it takes me to earn the money to pay for my other bills and put a good downpayment on a good car.  Sure, it could take a while, and no body likes to be uncomfortable, but it's better than not being able to afford the cost of living at all.

That was not a true story, by the way.  I hate asking my dad for stuff like that, because he says no regardless...lol.

The point is that if people and companies would priortize what they spend on, none of this would happen.  That's what the reporter was referring to...people who can't afford to buy expensive things are buying expensive things on credit to make it appear that they can, in fact, afford to buy the expensive things.  Instead, they should be spending that money on things they *need*, not things that they *want.*

Companies are the same way.  The execs from the Big 3 pull up to Washington in private jets asking for money...why not sell the jets and put that money toward the failing companies??  These are points that have been brought up many, many times by other posters with far more info than I have.  I think it's just worth mentioning again.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 1, 2008)

I would like someone, anyone, to point out where in the Constitution it says that the Federal goverment should bail out failing businesses.  Because I just can't find it.


Of course, I'd loan them the money, loan being the operative word, require that the executive & management core makes $1 per year while those loans are in effect.  Then again, maybe if they did that for a few years, they wouldn't need the money.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Dec 1, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I would like someone, anyone, to point out where in the Constitution it says that the Federal goverment should bail out failing businesses. Because I just can't find it.
> 
> 
> Of course, I'd loan them the money, loan being the operative word, require that the executive & management core makes $1 per year while those loans are in effect. Then again, maybe if they did that for a few years, they wouldn't need the money.


 
That's pretty much my take on it.  If I start losing money because I spent it on crap that I didn't need as opposed to what I do need, then who's going to bail me out?  Should the government help me get back on my feet when I've already proven that I can't stand on them on my own?  Even if I have spent my money wisely, and a crazy turn of events caused me to lose all the money that I just earned, is the government going to bail me out for that?  Or even understand why I can't pay my taxes at the end of the year that I'm expected to pay religiously?


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 1, 2008)

GBlues said:


> Yeah this actually really pisses me off! Instead of throwing money away what they should do is give every American over the age of 21 that make less than a minimum of 250, 000 dollars, 250,000 dollars, hell even just 50,000 dollars. This would actually stimulate the economy. People would, actually be able to pay there mortgages, credit cards, student loans, but new houses, pay off cars, or even buy new cars. Only stipulation would be you can only buy American made goods. The auto makers win, the banks win, the government wins when they collect taxes through the the purchases that you make. They'd have to give this money tax free, and put a price freeze on everything or business owners would have a hayday, and raise pricese to an ungodly amount of money.
> 
> Deal is it does no good to bail out the auto makers if people still can't buy there vehicles. This plan of action would creat jobs. Lots of them, and real quick, it get the economy rolling long enough that it could right itself. The banks they haven't even done what there supposed to be doing with the money. They were supposed to start loaning money, but now they're just hoarding it, and blowing it on parties. Give it to the poor and middle class, they'll put cash back into the economy, cause we actully need certain necessities in life.
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you said except using the term bailout for the big three.  It's a loan, plain and simple.  Chrysler got one in 1979 and the government *made money off of it.*  I'd say a loan is much better than the money Citigroup gets, no questions asked, and with no regulation or accountability.  

It's all a big joke.  I am now rooting for the "Economic Armageddon". LOL  When it happens, we will all be in the same boat with the same needs and can be a united country instead of one that just pretends to be.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 2, 2008)

> *Ford says CEO will work for $1 to get gov't loans*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_bi_ge/autos_congress
> ...


Awfully magnanimous of the bloke wouldn't you say? Willing to work for a buck a year. Gotta wonder what's in his bank account and how's his stock porfolio looks. Gee to take a hit like that just to bail out his own company, with free money from the government... oh wait, excuse me it's a _loan_...  
Ah well... it at least shows spirit. eh?


----------



## elder999 (Dec 2, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Awfully magnanimous of the bloke wouldn't you say? Willing to work for a buck a year.


 
It's what Lee Iacocca did, back in the 79.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 2, 2008)

Hey, I said I'd back a loan if they all worked for a buck. 
Now pass that on to the rest of their exec staffs and we have a negotiable position.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 2, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Awfully magnanimous of the bloke wouldn't you say? Willing to work for a buck a year. Gotta wonder what's in his bank account and how's his stock porfolio looks. Gee to take a hit like that just to bail out his own company, with free money from the government... oh wait, excuse me it's a _loan_...
> Ah well... it at least shows spirit. eh?


Hey, it's a step in the right direction.   At least he's accepting that his salary should somehow be linked -- other than getting bonuses! -- to the company performance.

I don't have a problem with a CEO walking away with a huge salary, IF the company is doing well.  But they should be taking the first hits if the company isn't, too.


----------



## Carol (Dec 5, 2008)

My employer (manufacturing) just announced their first ever two-week shutdown for the holidays.  Reason: financial.  

I don't suppose there's any extra bailout money going around, is there?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 8, 2008)

CNBC will be covering GM this evening:

FYI


> *A Fresh Look At Saving GM
> *CNBC will air an updated version of their special -- _Saving GM: Inside the Crisis_ -- this evening, December 8, at 10 pm EST. The special includes video and interviews shot over the past week pertaining to the current situation, the GM plan put forth to Congress and an extensive interview with Fritz Henderson regarding the development of the plan and its implications for GM and the industry. The program will also include a segment from Fairfax Assembly plant looking at what the plant is doing to save cost and improve quality.
> The hour-long program also will include video of Rick Wagoner and Bob Lutz from the earlier special which ran during the summer.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 8, 2008)

I want to bring this to people attention even though it is in my signature:

www.GMFactsAndFiction.com


This site has lots of information and is updated almost daily with links to new articles in the press and updates on the situation at hand. 

An example new article:

http://www.cnbc.com//id/27647852



> Cramer: Why GM Matters So Much
> ...http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837548/cid/97524
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837548/cid/97309
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 8, 2008)

By clicking on the media tab one can find some very important information, such as a recent ad that GM took out to explain their thanks and point of view.

The article is the third in the main section and is title, "*GM's Commitment to the American People: Dec. 8 Ad in Automotive News*"

Link Provided here to go directly:
http://gmfactsandfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/congress-an-final-120408.pdf


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 8, 2008)

To see the plan submitted by GM to Congress please look for the article titled, "*Long-Term Plan for Viability Submitted to Congress"*

*Link:*
http://gmfactsandfiction.com/wp-con...estructuring-plan-for-long-term-viability.pdf


The document is 37 pages long and is available for your reading.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 8, 2008)

No comments on the data provided?


----------



## Carol (Dec 10, 2008)

$14 Billion Bailout has been approved by the house.  237-170.  I don't see any clarification at the moment as to whether it is guaranteed loans or an out and out bailout.

The bill goes on to the senate where it is "likely to be met with some resistance".

In other words, prepare your wallet for another round of porkbarrell gimmees that are going to be tacked on to this bill.


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 11, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> $14 Billion Bailout has been approved by the house.  237-170.  I don't see any clarification at the moment as to whether it is guaranteed loans or an out and out bailout.
> 
> The bill goes on to the senate where it is "likely to be met with some resistance".
> 
> In other words, prepare your wallet for another round of porkbarrell gimmees that are going to be tacked on to this bill.



If you read more than you speculate, you'd see the *BRIDGE LOAN* has been shrunk and many more controls have been added via White House (Bush) and House Republicans.  Also, you'd see it is likely to fail due to heavy resistance by southern Republicans.

Sorry if that seems stiff, not my intentions.  There are real people and families that are gonna suffer if these companies fail....mine included.


----------



## Carol (Dec 11, 2008)

My employer is failing.  Don't think I don't feel it either.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 11, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> No comments on the data provided?


 for some folks, reading 37 pages takes a while Rich. :uhyeah:


----------



## KP. (Dec 11, 2008)

I'm of the opinion that the congress got this one exactly backwards.

There are plenty of financially healthy banks and financial brokers out there who would have gladly stepped  into the shoes of the failing companies. There would have been some short term pain, but the services provided would not have gone away.

The automakers are different. They are one of the few large scale American manufactures left. And represent a significant percentage of employment for lower and middle class Americans in the areas surrounding the Great Lakes. 

The economic impact of their failure would be, I think, more disastrous for our real economy due to the damage done to a huge percentage of consumers, than the failure of the financial institutions which would have been bought up by others after posting paper losses.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Dec 12, 2008)

Congress needs to stop trying to help. They never do, they only make things worse.

Guard your women and children well,
Send These Bastards Back to Hell
We'll teach them the ways of war,
They Won't Come Here Any More
Use your shield and use your head,
Fight till Every One is Dead
Raise the flag up to the sky,
How Many of Them Can We Make Die!


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 19, 2008)

Well it's done then... can only wait and see what happens. Hopefully it'll be for the best. 


> *Bailout approved: Automakers to get $17.4B
> *
> 
> By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer        Deb Riechmann, Associated Press Writer          &#8211;     3 mins ago
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 19, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Well it's done then... can only wait and see what happens. Hopefully it'll be for the best.


 
GM and Chrysler the two to get the loans, have to show viability by March 31st of 2009 or be responible to repay the loans immediately. 

I am sure that all the Committee requests would be required in any plan to be considered viable. So while this did not have all the Congressional oversight it still has watch dogs to make sure it was the best thing to do. 


Thank you to everyone involved.

*************************

On a side note here is an article about the top selling vehicles for 2008.
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/782/the-years-bestand-worst-selling-cars



> The F-150 attracted 473,933 buyers this year, making it the No. 1-selling vehicle for 2008--it's been the best-selling vehicle in America for 27 years running. Another 431,725 buyers drove off Chevrolet lots in a Silverado


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 19, 2008)

GM's statement on the Loan:

(from: http://gmfactsandfiction.com/ )



> *GM Statement on Administration Providing Bridge Loan to Domestic Auto Industry*
> We appreciate the President extending a financial bridge at this most critical time for the U.S. auto industry and our nation's economy. This action helps to preserve many jobs, and supports the continued operation of GM and the many suppliers, dealers and small businesses across the country that depend on us.
> This will allow us to accelerate the completion of our aggressive restructuring plan for long-term, sustainable success. It will lead to a leaner, stronger General Motors, a GM that is:
> 
> ...


----------



## BrandonLucas (Dec 19, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> GM and Chrysler the two to get the loans, have to show viability by March 31st of 2009 or be responible to repay the loans immediately.
> 
> I am sure that all the Committee requests would be required in any plan to be considered viable. So while this did not have all the Congressional oversight it still has watch dogs to make sure it was the best thing to do.
> 
> ...


 
This may be a dumb question, and it may not even be possible, but:

What happens if they default on the loan?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 19, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> This may be a dumb question, and it may not even be possible, but:
> 
> What happens if they default on the loan?


 

That was Not a dumb question.

If the smae thing as the Congress requested is implemented then the US Government Supercedes all other debt and they cannot be written off in a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.  So the worse case scenario is that they fail and the US Government steps in sells off the pieces for the money they loaned. Of course with the latest report from the Governors (9 in particular - article on Yahoo ) that 3 millions jobs would be lost for the auto industry it looks like another 3 million plus jobs would be at risk or lost in the immediate cascade. 

This is not to say do this or else that will happen as in black mail. The issue is that if GM alone goes into Chapter 11 they have to remain there for 3 years by law as part of the restructuring. The Cost to the Federal Government in the first year is estimated at $150 Billion to $250 Billion. 


So, if the short answer is if the US Government (* Read new administration - Legislative and Executive *) does not like the auto maker plans by 3/31/09 then they could make a call on the loans. They would be first in line to get teh value of the company in a sell off. i.e. Chapter 7.


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 19, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Well it's done then... can only wait and see what happens. Hopefully it'll be for the best.



I agree.  My family, myself, my neighbors, my community too.  Thing is, why didn't the senators pass this (virtually the same dang package!) rather than tossing Bush in front of the bus?  I am no Bush fan by any stretch, nor could I or would I pretend to be now....but man alive, the Republicans showed true colors putting it all on him.  Had the auto's failed, Bush would be the president that kicked off a depression.  If we emerge stronger and more viable, Obama is going to get the credit because we are still a couple years away from being "_out of the woods_" so to speak.

....but I will not be sad to see the Obama family unloading the U-Haul on the White House lawn come January 20, 2008!!! :ultracool


----------



## Carol (Dec 19, 2008)

dungeonworks said:


> I agree.  My family, myself, my neighbors, my community too.  Thing is, why didn't the senators pass this (virtually the same dang package!) rather than tossing Bush in front of the bus?



Because they were listening to their constituents? :idunno:

Fingers crossed for everyone though.   I hope this will result in a positive turnaround...especially in a domestic climate that is becoming more and more hostile to manufacturing in general.



> I am no Bush fan by any stretch, nor could I or would I pretend to be now....but man alive, the Republicans showed true colors putting it all on him.  Had the auto's failed, Bush would be the president that kicked off a depression.  If we emerge stronger and more viable, Obama is going to get the credit because we are still a couple years away from being "_out of the woods_" so to speak.
> 
> ....but I will not be sad to see the Obama family unloading the U-Haul on the White House lawn come January 20, 2008!!! :ultracool



Man oh man, I hope he does well.  Expectations on his presidency are insanely high, and he's being saddled with issues (economy, war, etc) that just aren't going to be fixed overnight.  I don't think we're out of the woods either but I hope the roads from here onwards are less bumpy...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 20, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> Because they were listening to their constituents? :idunno:


 

This is the part that confuses me. (* Not directed to Carol *)

No one wants the Finance heads to loose their jobs.

No one is calling their Senators or Representatives to tell them to not release the second half of the 700 BILLION. Yes, they still have not release the second 350 Billion US Dollars. They have no oversite in the finance community. 

The Finance community CEO's are in the top 50 for top 500 paid CEO's, while the Auto industry is told (* which I agree they should *) $1 for pay with no special golden parachute stock option plan. The CEO of GM is in the last 50 of the 500, with the FORD CEO that came from Boeing being the high paid of the three. GM being the lowest. Chrylser higher than GM but still much lower than Ford. 

So, why is no one creating special Committees for the finance industry?


If they fail, yes it hurts the economy, but how does the US Government get any of their money back as most likely they will be holding debt with no assets. 


Also no one really understands that Federal Reserve has has agree to buy  up $200 BILLION US Dollars of High Risk Debt from the Finance groups to reduce their risk level. They have agreed to buy up $100 BILLION US Dollars of BAD Debt, this is such high risk no on expects to see the complete return. The Federal Reserve also agreed to release another $500 BILLION into the economy, which raises inflation that the people pay over time. 


While I think the $1 Pay for CEO's and over sight to make sure no parties and golden parachutes are given is good, how come there is so much concern for $15 - $33 Billion US Dollars when $1.5 TRILLION pumped into the Finance "industry" with no real concern or over sight? 

I have made my opinion to my elected officials on this issue known but I have not been given updates on this like on the issue for the Auto Industry. 


Confusion on my part.  :idunno:


----------



## Carol (Dec 20, 2008)

Confusion on my part too, for that matter.  I was never a supporter of the finance bailout and have been absolutely livid as to some of the funds have been spent, and have been disgusted that this is being done without oversight.  They've been spent for big banks buying out mom-and-pop banks, for executive junkets, for other wasteful morass that has nothing to do with freeing up the credit market. 

But...what do I know?  I just work for a living...or at least I will until my company falls apart...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2008)

Because it's not Congress doing the bailing out, it's the Private Federal Reserve who is doing it, running their presses 24/7, and continuing to deviate from the plan finally agreed upon by the traitors and incompetents in Congress. Paulson's doing what he want's, the hell with us all.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 20, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Because it's not Congress doing the bailing out, it's the Private Federal Reserve who is doing it, running their presses 24/7, and continuing to deviate from the plan finally agreed upon by the traitors and incompetents in Congress. Paulson's doing what he want's, the hell with us all.


 

Bob,

I agree that $800 Billion is from the Federal Reserve, but the $17.4 Billion that the Auto Companies get as loans with stipulations comes from the TARP funds authorized by Congress. The TARP funds were the monies authorized for the Finance Companies with no stipulations. The Sitting President Bush, authorized the money to be loaned with the stipulations in place also placed there by the current POTUS. 

So, why did he or Congress not go back and place simular stipulations in the Finance Companies? 

Why are not people writting articles about it in the press? 

Why are not people on this board starting threads about the finance companies with their outrage? 

Why are not more people calling and writing their representatives to complain about the $350 ( - 17.4 for the Auto Companies with Stipulations ) given out without stipulations? Why are not people creating committees for the proposed release of the second half of the monies? 

This is my confusion.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 20, 2008)

Two articles about Automakers and or Detroit

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_re_us/motown_blues

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_go_pr_wh/meltdown_autos


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 20, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> Bob,
> 
> I agree that $800 Billion is from the Federal Reserve, but the $17.4 Billion that the Auto Companies get as loans with stipulations comes from the TARP funds authorized by Congress. The TARP funds were the monies authorized for the Finance Companies with no stipulations. The Sitting President Bush, authorized the money to be loaned with the stipulations in place also placed there by the current POTUS.
> 
> ...



:soapbox:
My paranoid schizophrenic guess would be because it is all a ruse to keep people from paying attention to the bank bail outs and the lack of stipulations.  It is no different than the Republicans using Anti Gay rights, Gun rights, Anti-Abortion, or the Democrats using Pro Gay rights, Anti Gun, Pro Abortion...ect as a means to divert attention from less popular stances and happenings in the congress/White House.  With the common mindset of Americans these days that it is much easier to bring someone down to their standards of living than it is to fight for better standards of living for themselves.  I have many "right leaning" friends that like to chest beat and soap box pound the American patriotic status quo while bashing French labeling them as "pu$$ys".  Well, why is it then that the French will *RIOT* and fight for eachothers rights when jobs are cut and economic injustices happen?  In America, we point at eachother, yell at the television, and rant on internet forums.  Heck, just look in the Anti-Union thread in this forum room and you may see what I mean.  Unions, as well as individual pay and benefits,  should be nobody's business aside the affected company's Union members, management, and owners/shareholders, yet we still have people parroting what they hear on talk radio or TV news from the likes of Sean Hannady or Rush Limbaugh or Fox News.  Not only that, the numbers and benefit descriptions of what I get paid are grossly exaggerated to fuel the fire.  GM's labor cost on their cars and trucks are a mere 8-10% of the cost.  You pay a higher percentage for labor on pizza delivery for crying out loud.  

*  Dungeonworks steps off his soap box, feeling much better now. :uhyeah:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 21, 2008)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_corporate_jets


The Finance Companies are still using corporate jets. But it was so horrible for the Auto Industry. 

Where is the out cry?


Their monies come from the same source that the Auto Industry got their loans of $17.4 Billion with all the requirements of $1 a year for the CEO's and no Corporate Planes and special plans that show recent improvements and plans for future improvement. If the President can place the stipulations on the TARP monies for the Auto Indsutry why can they not do it now? Why can they not do it for the second half of the monies?


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 21, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_corporate_jets
> 
> 
> The Finance Companies are still using corporate jets. But it was so horrible for the Auto Industry.
> ...


 
Rich you know how double standerds work in America come on Sir.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 21, 2008)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney

What is your thoughts on the Cheney comments in the above article?

Did Congress Fail and go home too early? Should they have worked overtime or was it ok for them to go home for the holidays and leave it to the President and the Next Government, both Legislature and Executive?


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 21, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney
> 
> What is your thoughts on the Cheney comments in the above article?
> 
> Did Congress Fail and go home too early? Should they have worked overtime or was it ok for them to go home for the holidays and leave it to the President and the Next Government, both Legislature and Executive?


 
Congress should have stayed and worked it out period, but this way they can say it was not them.


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 22, 2008)

Rich, I hear you loud and clear on this one.  It is *BEYOND* double standard.  I would call it slander.  They (the media) have villified our products, engineering, and our workforce in all media, be it radio, TV, news paper, or some know it all blogger.

As for the outcry, well, I think this people in this country are content with pointing fingers and yelling at televisions.  Heck, most don't even know who their congressman and senators are, let alone write or call them to voice their opinions on issues.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2008)

This debate isn't about the auto industry.  It's a direct attack on the Unions.  If you ignore all of the red herrings in the media, you can see that the end result of this is to force the Unions to accept massive concessions, whether its through bankruptcy or some form of psuedobankruptcy, the Unions will be forced to give.  

Why else would the government make 8.5 trillion in new money and give it to the Banks and quibble about a "paltry" 30 billion?  

This is about attacking the American worker and reducing them to third world standards.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 22, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> This debate isn't about the auto industry. It's a direct attack on the Unions. If you ignore all of the red herrings in the media, you can see that the end result of this is to force the Unions to accept massive concessions, whether its through bankruptcy or some form of psuedobankruptcy, the Unions will be forced to give.
> 
> Why else would the government make 8.5 trillion in new money and give it to the Banks and quibble about a "paltry" 30 billion?
> 
> This is about attacking the American worker and reducing them to third world standards.


 
I know of 1.5 Trillion USD. 

I did not know about the extra $7 Trillion USD. Can you post a link?

Thanks


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2008)

Here you go, Rich.  It's all new money.  We'll be paying this via the inflation tax.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 22, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Here you go, Rich. It's all new money. We'll be paying this via the inflation tax.


 
Thanks John.


Here is the table that spells it all out.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/MNVN14C8QR.DTL&o=0


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 22, 2008)

That's absolutely staggering when you see it altogether like that.  Thanks for the links Maunakumu and Rich.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2008)

Take these figures back to your Union stewards.  Make sure they know the real ball park numbers in which the government is playing.  The membership needs to see a couple of things...

1.  The numbers make it clear that this is a blatent attack on labor.

2.  The inflation caused by all of this money creation is going to impoverish the working man.  The value of the dollar is going to tank.

3.  The more I think about, and I realize this may be a stretch, but I think we need to have a generalized workers strike in this country.  We need to organize and force our government to adopt a sound money system that cannot be manipulated by these parasites who make money by printing money.  This collusion between financial and government interests needs to end if we are going to have any chance of maintaining our standard of living.


----------



## Ramirez (Dec 22, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Take these figures back to your Union stewards.  Make sure they know the real ball park numbers in which the government is playing.  The membership needs to see a couple of things...
> 
> 1.  The numbers make it clear that this is a blatent attack on labor.
> 
> ...



Its all about union busting, I don't see nearly this outrage against the investment banks/AIG/retail banks and they caused the financial crisis, likely wiped out most people's retirement savings all the while their executives earned billions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_bi_ge/executive_bailouts


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 22, 2008)

If the UAW is THAT greedy, let the big three go under.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 22, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> This debate isn't about the auto industry.  It's a direct attack on the Unions.



yes, because the UAW is the villian and the problem

they are selling enough cars

they cant sell enough cars to pay all the fat laden crap that the UAW has blackmailed them into agreeing to in thier contracts.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2008)

There are three ways of listening, TF.

1.  You agree.  In other words, you are right.
2.  You disagree.  In other words, you are right.
3.  Be with.  With hold judgement and just think about it.

My advice to you is that you stay with number three for a long time.  Don't agree or disagree with anything.  Just think about it and try to understand what is being said.

Number three is the ONLY way you can learn and grow.  You will never know anything then what you know now with one or two.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 22, 2008)

did i ask you for any advice?

didnt think so, but i wanted to check..........

nothing I said was factually wrong.

The reason the auto makers are in trouble is because they cant pay thier UAW contracts that include some TRUELY stupid and pork laden stuff.

declare bankruptcy, void the UAW contracts, and the big three will be fine.


----------



## AMP-RYU (Dec 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> yes, because the UAW is the villian and the problem
> 
> they are selling enough cars
> 
> they cant sell enough cars to pay all the fat laden crap that the UAW has blackmailed them into agreeing to in thier contracts.


 
If you look at what the union gets compared to 30 years ago, then look at what the car prices are today compared to 30 years ago, its not the unions its the amount of work our government is allowing to leave our country. We are still shutting down plants and moving work to canada and mexico, and people are losing their jobs. This means people no work, people no money, not selling cars! I am a car dealer who was forced to leave his job because his monthly sales went from 20 cars($7500) down to 3 cars($450) so dont tell me we are selling plenty of cars!!!!!!! I worked for one of the top selling dealers in the midwest!!!!!! People are losing their jobs and people cant afford to buy new cars! Im not necessarily talking about "YOU" not being able to afford cars, I'm talking about the 100,000 people for every "YOU" that can't afford cars! Listen if we would force our car companies to move their plants back to the state we would create millions of jobs! And then people could afford to buy cars! One auto plant = estimate 25,000 employees = 15,000 extra employees in the surrounding businesses then we start selling homes and cars again, people start buying things and spending money again! Our government should tax these companies who move work out of the states so bad they move the work back as simple as that! Until this country realizes this, we are crewed! This is the change President Obama will bring!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Nothing I said was factually wrong.


 
It's more complicated then this...and I think you should take my advice...because you don't understand what is really going on.

Stay in number three and reread this thread.


----------



## AMP-RYU (Dec 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> did i ask you for any advice?
> 
> didnt think so, but i wanted to check..........
> 
> ...


 They will not be fine because if you void their contracts they will be making less money and wont be able to survive!!!!!! If they would bring work back to this country and create some jobs our people could afford to buy their cars and we would sell cars and they would be able to survive and so will the workers plus many more workers created by spin-off companies from these plants reopening! It is as simple as that!


----------



## AMP-RYU (Dec 22, 2008)

Also the people who can afford cars and should be able to get a loan for cars are being turned down for loans for, if you ask me no reason! I had probably 30 contracts in two months go down hill because I couldnt get my customer bought! I mean people with like 690-750 credit score not being loaned money??? No reason for this! Their is another problem make the banks loan money! Period! Don't let them sit on the bail out money and collect interest, make them loan it!


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 23, 2008)

uh, NO





maunakumu said:


> It's more complicated then this...and I think you should take my advice...because you don't understand what is really going on.
> 
> Stay in number three and reread this thread.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 23, 2008)

bob0812 said:


> They will not be fine because if you void their contracts they will be making less money and wont be able to survive!!!!!! If they would bring work back to this country and create some jobs our people could afford to buy their cars and we would sell cars and they would be able to survive and so will the workers plus many more workers created by spin-off companies from these plants reopening! It is as simple as that!




BZZZZZZZZ wrong answer, thanks for playing.

a great number of those jobs left due to the influence, which is to say GREED of unions.

THAT is a historical fact

Why would any company come BACK to the states, and deal with unions blackmailing them?

I wouldnt. 

FACT:
A union worker for the big 3 costs $74 dollars an hour to employ

FACT:
That cost is passed on to the buyer

FACT: employees at non union auto plants only cost $43 dollars an hour.

FACT: that cost is passed to the buyer

FACT: unions have priced the big 3 american car makers out of the market

conclusion:

kill the unions.

That is all


----------



## AMP-RYU (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> BZZZZZZZZ wrong answer, thanks for playing.
> 
> a great number of those jobs left due to the influence, which is to say GREED of unions.
> 
> ...


 Its all greed! not the unions! The auto industry has survived fine for years with unions! But with bush in office he allows them to move jobs out of the country to save a buck and make them more profit! Now it is biting them in the ***! All the jobs are gone and no one has any money to buy cars! Its as simple as that! Your I assume a republican and you cant argue with that! Even if you know your wrong you will argue that your right until someone breaks their computer its not worth it! Im done!


----------



## AMP-RYU (Dec 23, 2008)

bob0812 said:


> Its all greed! not the unions! The auto industry has survived fine for years with unions! But with bush in office he allows them to move jobs out of the country to save a buck and make them more profit! Now it is biting them in the ***! All the jobs are gone and no one has any money to buy cars! Its as simple as that! Your I assume a republican and you cant argue with that! Even if you know your wrong you will argue that your right until someone breaks their computer its not worth it! Im done!


 Ill tell you what instead of cutting the wages of the hard working employees at these plants, make every politician in this country work for only $20 per hour and see if they like it! I guarantee that the work these factory workers do is ten times the work our government does!


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> uh, NO


 
:feedtroll


----------



## LawDog (Dec 23, 2008)

Let them fall.
Why is it always the little guy who has to give up the most, it was not he / she who has caused this problem. Let the Exe's who are directly responsable for this problem take the major hit instead of the little guy.
When they fall someone else will step in and take over. 
This happened within the airlines industry, smaller companies stepped in and changed everything, many major companies had to change their ways in order to compete.
The auto makers didn't learn their lesson when Japan almost took over during the late 70's early 80's.
This is just someone who is tired of our hard earned money being thrown away. 
:soapbox:


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> did i ask you for any advice?
> 
> didnt think so, but i wanted to check..........
> 
> ...



Nothing you've said was factually right.


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> BZZZZZZZZ wrong answer, thanks for playing.
> 
> a great number of those jobs left due to the influence, which is to say GREED of unions.
> 
> ...



Fact:  You are about $20+ dollars too high.  You are quoting hourly $$$ figures that are including retiree costs.  Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## crushing (Dec 23, 2008)

bob0812 said:


> Its all greed! not the unions! The auto industry has survived fine for years with unions! *But with bush in office he allows them to move jobs out of the country to save a buck and make them more profit! Now it is biting them in the ***!* All the jobs are gone and no one has any money to buy cars! Its as simple as that! Your I assume a republican and you cant argue with that! Even if you know your wrong you will argue that your right until someone breaks their computer its not worth it! Im done!


 
One doesn't need to be member of any specific political party to understand that it wasn't Bush that signed NAFTA into law and that the US has been transitioning from a manufacturing to a service economy for decades.

Would you please clarify as to how a company saving money through lower labor costs "bites the company in the ***"?  Cheaper manufacturing costs may actually be what saves some companies, including corresponding US based sales, support, and engineering jobs.


----------



## crushing (Dec 23, 2008)

dungeonworks said:


> Fact: You are about $20+ dollars too high. You are quoting hourly $$$ figures that are including retiree costs. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.


 
Why wouldn't you use Total Cost of Labor for the comparison?



> Factoring in retiree health care and legacy costs, GM's wage and benefit cost for a UAW worker is about $70 an hour, while Toyota's cost per hourly worker is about $48, said Erich Merkle, lead auto analyst with Crowe Horwath in Grand Rapids.
> 
> Zuckschwerdt (UAW Region 1-C director) said that number actually already is lower, closer to the low $60s per hour.


 
http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/index.ssf/2008/12/art_for_sunday_bass_gm_money_c.html


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 23, 2008)

> How much value do UAW members contribute to their employers?
> American autoworkers are among the most productive workers in the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical autoworker produces value added worth $206 per worker per hour.1 This is far more than he or she earns in wages, even when benefits, statutory contributions and other costs are included.





> Why is the figure cited as hourly labor costs by the companies so much higher than the wage rates?
> In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll.





> How much are current UAW auto industry wages?
> In 2006 a typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. Between 2003 and 2006, the wages of a typical UAW assembler have grown at about the same rate as wages in the private sector as a whole  roughly 9 percent. Part of that growth is due to cost-of-living adjustments that have helped prevent inflation from eroding the purchasing power of workers wages.


*  These are from 2007. We make about $1 more per hour with less medical benefits than the information in this article as a result of mid contract concessions and with the present labor agreement of 2007 and 2nd tier workers making less per hour and gutted benefits.  Read the whole article here:  http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 23, 2008)

If I could add some data to the discussion.

For over 28 years we have sold more cars then was sold in 2008. 

The estimates look to be high 11 Million to Low 12 Million for the year. 

We sold over 16.7 million last year and have been over 16 million units in the US for many years. 

The Finance "industry" has put a hurt on everyone getting loans from companies to indivuals. I know some people with "Citi" accounts that were denied because Citi had guarenteed too much that in purchases for their float of capital. So they denied people who were buying online and or paying over the phone first verus people in restaurants or gas stations. 


If 25% of all sales go away and there are no loans then it is rough to keep a float. Ford who did not ask for any immediate monies, had loans they could access for the short term and for the industry sake they allowed those in more cash starved position get it first. 

The Major Tier I suppliers are tied to multiple OEM's (* Original Equipment Manufacturers *), so if one OEM goes under it could take a major Tier I out. This would cause a major disruption to the Other OEM it does business with as well as all the Tier II and Tier III suppliers who would also go down. 

So while I could see some people looking to make this a Union busting issue, I also see people looking at Auto Companies and going, they build a product we can touch and we can measure and therefore there must be something we can do to improve it versus the second and third order derivatives used in the complex equations for predicting market trends and determining risk factors, that most people on the street could not understand those that could look at it and say but it is not a complete model why are thehy even trying this hard, when other simplier models work as well.


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 23, 2008)

crushing said:


> Why wouldn't you use Total Cost of Labor for the comparison?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/index.ssf/2008/12/art_for_sunday_bass_gm_money_c.html



Good question.  Because for one, they are not factoring this in with the Japanese figure in comparison since the bear's share of the Japanese legacy costs are government costs due to national health care and their social security equivalent.  It is comparing apples to oranges.  The workplace in the US auto manufacturers has changed so rapidly that modern technological advances have displaced the need for the amount of workers it once had.  At the time the Japanese came to the US manufacturing table, these advances in manufacturing technology were available to them from the onset.  GM is 100 yrs old in the US manufacturing game and by default, we have far more retirees/legacy costs that come with it.



> GM in its restructuring plan said that with changes to wages and benefits, turnover in workforce, plant consolidations, productivity improvements and changes to be negotiated, it will achieve full wage and benefit competitiveness with foreign automakers by 2012."I honestly think that retiree health care has to be on the table," Merkle said.


(From the same article)

The retiree healthcare issue would have been virtually disolved with the VEBA fund negotiated in the 2007 collective bargaining agreement.  It was hailed by analysts and critics alike at the time it was conceived.  The collapse of the financial industry coupled with the resulting US economic failure that results/resulted killed the immediate gains the VEBA was designed and would have provided the Big Three.

I find it so odd that nobody is holding the financial industry's feet to the fire as they are the Big Three's for their loan request when it is miniscule by comparison.  Less than 10% of the cost of a GM vehicle is labor costs....less than the percentage of labor costs for a pizza delivered to your door.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 23, 2008)

As crushing just PROVED, you are without a clue. I didnt say they were PAID in excess of $70, i said each union worker COSTS over $70 per hour

I was right, you are not.

Good day to you, Union Shill.



Bob0812,
just how is the president, ANY president supposed to STOP companies from moving thier jobs overseas?

thats right, he CANT

would you please learn a little something about how things actually work here before spouting your well menaing but very uninformed wish list of solutions?

the president cannot MAKE companies stay here is they choose to move jobs overseas.




dungeonworks said:


> Fact:  You are about $20+ dollars too high.  You are quoting hourly $$$ figures that are including retiree costs.  Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## AMP-RYU (Dec 23, 2008)

crushing said:


> One doesn't need to be member of any specific political party to understand that it wasn't Bush that signed NAFTA into law and that the US has been transitioning from a manufacturing to a service economy for decades.
> 
> Would you please clarify as to how a company saving money through lower labor costs "bites the company in the ***"? Cheaper manufacturing costs may actually be what saves some companies, including corresponding US based sales, support, and engineering jobs.


 
Listen these companies are sending the work out of the country that buys their product!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Most of their product. Without these jobs in this country, our workforce goes down, hence eliminating the extra money our workforce has to buy the product they sell! This is infact what is biting them in the ***. They move jobs out of the country to save money, short term save, now the folks who buys these cars cant afford to buy them long term problem! Its simple, when this country started sliding, President Bush, OUR PRESIDENT should have steped in and created some kind of tax that would bring importing the cars into this country more than just building them here in the first place so they keep these jobs here! Our car manufacturers were started here and should keep their work here! Just because their are cheaper manufacturing costs because you move these plants to canada, you will lose business because people lose their jobs!


----------



## AMP-RYU (Dec 23, 2008)

Nafta has nothing to do with what im talking about. You have USA car manufacturors importing their own product, so place a usa tax on the cars! Now I see your point  if it was a canadian company importing cars into usa, than the free trade thing comes into play. But realistically your not trading between the two countries, your just bringing your product into your country! TAX TAX TAX until they move the jobs back!!!!!!!


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> As crushing just PROVED, you are without a clue. I didnt say they were PAID in excess of $70, i said each union worker COSTS over $70 per hour
> 
> I was right, you are not.
> 
> ...




opinion aint truth, deal with it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> As crushing just PROVED, you are without a clue. I didnt say they were PAID in excess of $70, i said each union worker COSTS over $70 per hour
> 
> I was right, you are not.
> 
> Good day to you, Union Shill.


 


Twin Fist said:


> did i ask you for any advice?
> 
> didnt think so, but i wanted to check


 


Twin Fist said:


> BZZZZZZZZ wrong answer, thanks for playing.


 
Twin Fist...
I checked the link in your Siggy... I like this part of the site:



> We also concentrate on helping our students gain not only physical skills, but mental ones as well, focusing on the core values of the Martial Arts:
> Courtesy - to be polite, treat others as you wish to be treated
> Integrity - to exhibit good moral behavior


 
Well ya know, it seems to me to be, from reading your responses in this thread, a lesson you still need to learn.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 24, 2008)

if you achieve it, then it isnt a journey/goal anymore now is it?

in point of fact, last night in class i was talking about Kenpo history, about Mitose, and why he went to prison, in particular and how the study of the martial arts can make you a better person, we are still human and so apt to have failings.

BTW-Cryo, I am a simple man, i use simple words, and try to live a simple life.

A man calls me a liar, like Dungeon did, no, i am not gonna be nice to him.

A man talks down to me, like maunakumu did, no i am not gonna be nice to them

A man post errant nonsense, like Bob0812 did, i am not gonna treat it like it was  avalid, logical arguement.

And i might add,going out of ones way to make a simple ad hom insult? sort of beneth you. And it pretty much robs you of any right to say I am being rude.....

ya think?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2008)

*Moderator Warning
*
A number of people appear to be turning this discussion personal. I suggest that everyone review both this site's rules and this sections rules before people lose access to this part of the site. 

If you feel that someone is really annoying you, rather than get yourself booted, use the Ignore feature.  If someone is crossing the line, report the post and let our staff handle the matter. Don't get a last dig in, you'll only get caught in the crossfire.

Problems? Contact a Steering Board member.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> And i might add,going out of ones way to make a simple ad hom insult? sort of beneth you.


 
I apologise if you took it as an Insult, it was meant to be constructive criticism. 



Twin Fist said:


> And it pretty much robs you of any right to say I am being rude.....


 
I dunno, I only have the rights I take for myself, until someone more powerful than me takes them away. But, FWIW, I never claimed *not *to be rude, nor that _*I*_ was learning to be polite and moral, so... 




Twin Fist said:


> ya think?


 
Once in a while. Sometimes I just act, and worry about thinking later.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 24, 2008)

well said!!

LOL


----------



## Ramirez (Dec 24, 2008)

AMP-RYU said:


> Nafta has nothing to do with what im talking about. You have USA car manufacturors importing their own product, so place a usa tax on the cars! Now I see your point  if it was a canadian company importing cars into usa, than the free trade thing comes into play. But realistically your not trading between the two countries, your just bringing your product into your country! TAX TAX TAX until they move the jobs back!!!!!!!



The situation is more complex than that Amp, as with most free trade  agreements,  there is give and take.  The Canadian branches were more expensive to run for the US manufacturers until a few recent factors,  one being demographics,  the population hence the work force got older which lead to crushing health care costs for GM,  something they didn't face in Canada with universal health care.

  While free trade in the  auto sector may benefit Canada, free trade in energy exports benefits the US, a cheap and dependable supply of oil and gas means lower operating costs for US companies hence they are able to employ more people.  If you tax, tax, tax the importation of Canadian cars, Canada will retaliate by manipulating the price of resources.

In all free trade is a benefit to countries of similar affluency, it is only when they offshore to really cheap labour markets (Canada isn't one of them), that a problem occurs.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> A man talks down to me, like maunakumu did, no i am not gonna be nice to them


 
It's not talking down to someone to suggest that you take some time to stop and think about something. You CHOSE to take that as criticisim. You don't need to be so hard on yourself.

Merry Christmas, TF.  Have a happy holiday, recharge, refresh and be merry!


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 24, 2008)

Merry Christmas!


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> if you achieve it, then it isnt a journey/goal anymore now is it?
> 
> in point of fact, last night in class i was talking about Kenpo history, about Mitose, and why he went to prison, in particular and how the study of the martial arts can make you a better person, we are still human and so apt to have failings.
> 
> ...



Take a breath and focus on the holiday.


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> ...A man calls me a liar, like Dungeon did, no, i am not gonna be nice to him...




Firstly, I did not directly call you a liar so much as said your postings contained lies (innacurate information or no information at all).  Secondly, even if I did call you a liar, well guy, you have earned it in my eyes by directly calling me lazy or incompetent to hold a job or calling me a Shill...whatever a schill is, I am not familiar with that one.

In your own words below...


> And i might add,going out of ones way to make a simple ad hom insult? sort of beneth you. And it pretty much robs you of any right to say I am being rude.....



You may benefit taking your own advice.  Some may read it as being a bit hippocritical.


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 24, 2008)

dungeonworks said:


> Firstly, I did not directly call you a liar so much as said your postings contained lies (innacurate information or no information at all).  Secondly, even if I did call you a liar, well guy, you have earned it in my eyes by directly calling me lazy or incompetent to hold a job or calling me a Shill...whatever a schill is, I am not familiar with that one.
> 
> In your own words below...
> 
> ...



TF This is obviously a charged issue for you, but I've noticed how you react to most anything political especially when someone disagrees with you, and if I get another infraction for saying so be it...

You seem to have one mother of a persecution complex going.... I am saying that to troll you, simple observation. Stop blaming others and accusing others for doing nothing more than disagreeing with you, and take a deep breath and maybe look within.

That said, I repeat what I said before, focus on the holiday and Merry Xmas.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2008)

*Moderator Warning
*
A number of people appear to be turning this discussion personal. I suggest that everyone review both this site's rules and this sections rules before people lose access to this part of the site. 

If you feel that someone is really annoying you, rather than get yourself booted, use the Ignore feature. If someone is crossing the line, report the post and let our staff handle the matter. Don't get a last dig in, you'll only get caught in the crossfire.

Problems? Contact a Steering Board member.

Now please return to the subject of this discussion, which is _not _board policy, or who has what stuck up where.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 25, 2008)

I don't know what you lot are arguing about...at least your government is looking to bailout American companies, look what ours is thinking about!

http://news.theage.com.au/business/british-govt-in-car-talks-with-jaguar-20081219-71sc.html


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 25, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know what you lot are arguing about...at least your government is looking to bailout American companies, look what ours is thinking about!
> 
> http://news.theage.com.au/business/british-govt-in-car-talks-with-jaguar-20081219-71sc.html


I don't get it, Tez.  Jag/LR isn't a British company anymore.  This would be like the US government giving a hand to Honda (which is doing pretty well, all things considered).  Are you able to add any details that would help understand why the aid?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 25, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> I don't get it, Tez. Jag/LR isn't a British company anymore. This would be like the US government giving a hand to Honda (which is doing pretty well, all things considered). Are you able to add any details that would help understand why the aid?


 
The company still makes cars in the UK so it would be saving British workers jobs I guess. When the company was sold the government gave handouts to help.
Selling Jag/LR to a foreign company was so wrong inthe first place, not just because Jaguar is so English but because Landrover makes the vehicles for the forces and surely for security reasons we shouldn't have defence contracts given outside the country.


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 25, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> did i ask you for any advice?
> 
> didnt think so, but i wanted to check..........
> 
> ...



Ironically you're not wrong, but your assumption of a monopoly of truth doesnt help your argument. Again advice, nothing more.


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 25, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> BZZZZZZZZ wrong answer, thanks for playing.
> 
> a great number of those jobs left due to the influence, which is to say GREED of unions.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I'm the troll.....

Its better to burn out.........


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 25, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> :feedtroll



Are you accusing twin Fist of trolling or anyone who disagrees with him, as one who has been accused of troll, which is pure BS and bias, I am smelling a pattern of coddling fragile egoes at the expense of what could be a good discussion, Hubbard you heard me. Deal with it.


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 25, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> I apologise if you took it as an Insult, it was meant to be constructive criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> This to Hubbard, EVERYTHING that is constructive criticism is taken as an insult, bias dully noted.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 25, 2008)

Oh good grief. 

You fought a War of Independance from us....so you could call each other names on the internet?  :lol::lfao:

Nice one lads.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> Yeah, I'm the troll.....
> 
> Its better to burn out.........





zeeberex said:


> Are you accusing twin Fist of trolling or anyone who disagrees with him, as one who has been accused of troll, which is pure BS and bias, I am smelling a pattern of coddling fragile egoes at the expense of what could be a good discussion, Hubbard you heard me. Deal with it.





zeeberex said:


> This to Hubbard, EVERYTHING that is constructive criticism is taken as an insult, bias dully noted.



If you have a problem with the infractions you have been issued for your continued disregard of this sites posted rules (You know, the ones you agreed you had read and understood when you registered. Which makes you either a liar, or just stupid in my book) you are free to take them up with this sites Steering Board, as per our clearly posted Complaint Policy.  Your flagrant disrespect for those rules, this sites staff, and ignorance of clearly indicated moderator warnings however, and lack of any contributory content, clearly earmarks you as a troll in my book.

I sent you a link to the rules. I strongly suggest you read them this time.  Now either contribute to this topic, or shut up. Your ignorant rantings is little more than a continuation of your repeated thread disruption because you don't like something someone said.

Refute it with evidence, put him on Ignore, or shut up.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Oh good grief.
> 
> You fought a War of Independance from us....so you could call each other names on the internet?  :lol::lfao:
> 
> Nice one lads.


I'll be happy to send this one back Tez....ok, actually, I like the Brits.....how's France this time of year?


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 25, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If you have a problem with the infractions you have been issued for your continued disregard of this sites posted rules (You know, the ones you agreed you had read and understood when you registered. Which makes you either a liar, or just stupid in my book) you are free to take them up with this sites Steering Board, as per our clearly posted Complaint Policy.  Your flagrant disrespect for those rules, this sites staff, and ignorance of clearly indicated moderator warnings however, and lack of any contributory content, clearly earmarks you as a troll in my book.
> 
> I sent you a link to the rules. I strongly suggest you read them this time.  Now either contribute to this topic, or shut up. Your ignorant rantings is little more than a continuation of your repeated thread disruption because you don't like something someone said.
> 
> Refute it with evidence, put him on Ignore, or shut up.



Im not one to shut up, and I didnt do anyone else, you, are just a bit tyrannical and you are typical of how this place run, thats just sad. 

I have no biz with yer might steering board. Admit you did wrong or kiss my ***.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 25, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'll be happy to send this one back Tez....ok, actually, I like the Brits.....*how's France this time of year*?


 

French lol! 

Ah it's not bad here, as I posted up before just watched Dr. Who Christmas episode, on that thread I've posted up the link to the BBC iplayer which I hope works over there? It has that episode and other programmes on. 


yep total change of subject lol!

Ps the Cybermen are in it!


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 25, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> Im not one to shut up, and I didnt do anyone else, you, are just a bit tyrannical and you are typical of how this place run, thats just sad.
> 
> I have no biz with yer might steering board. Admit you did wrong or kiss my ***.


Please keep conversations respectful and within posting guidelines... the Mods are watching.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 25, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> I don't get it, Tez.  Jag/LR isn't a British company anymore.  This would be like the US government giving a hand to Honda (which is doing pretty well, all things considered).  Are you able to add any details that would help understand why the aid?




Actually Honda downgraded its profit prediction to none for the 4th quarter of 2008, and looking grime for 2009. When the Number one economy (US) is down and Europe is also Down even though most of their sales come from US and South East Asia, they are not doing as well as Toyota which seems to be the only vehicle manufacturer I can find that has not requested monies from a national government or has predicted major losses, and I would expect Toyota not to have as much profit as before even if they do show one.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Dec 26, 2008)

I don't fully understand what's going on with all of this, so maybe someone can help me clear this up.

Here's what I do understand:

The big question in this whole bailout mess is whether or not the economy is going to suffer a big enough blow by the Big 3 going under to tank itself...is the loss of jobs from the companies shutting down or losing money going to be bad enough to sink America?

So they've been offered a bailout with the rule that they must pay it back, and if improvement is not seen within a certain amount of time, then the money is ordered to be repaid immediately.

First off, I don't really care why or how these companies were failing...they've made it obvious that they haven't learned from previous failures.  If you do a bad job at work, what happens?  You start off by getting reprimanded, then, after several times of the same thing happening, you get fired.  So, if the CEO's and the presidents and vice presidents and assistant vice presidents and what-have-you can't do their job correctly, then why are they still employed?

Secondly, I find it mighty fishy that this bailout didn't seem to be threatening to the economy before they found out that the government was willing to help the banks from crashing.  All it sounds like to me is daddy handed big brother 2 bucks for icecream, and little brother saw it and came running with his hand out too.

Unions or no unions, somebody isn't running something right.  I can understand the need for unions, and I don't think that all of this is their fault...but I don't think that they're innocent, either.  Either way, somebody's doing a crappy job of running a company, and now I'm going to have to foot the bill for it.

Now, I'm not completely "in the know" with the whole situation, so my thoughts on this whole matter could be way off base.  I'm not one to get bogged down in the technicalities of the situaion, either...either they screwed up and need the money to stay afloat....and now we're handing money to the same people who lost it in the first place.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 26, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> I don't fully understand what's going on with all of this, so maybe someone can help me clear this up.


 
I hope to help.



BrandonLucas said:


> Here's what I do understand:
> 
> The big question in this whole bailout mess is whether or not the economy is going to suffer a big enough blow by the Big 3 going under to tank itself...is the loss of jobs from the companies shutting down or losing money going to be bad enough to sink America?


 
Yes.

If GM goes down then Delphi goes down. Delphi supplies to Ford and Chrysler just enough to bring down enough of their products that they could not sell enough to get by. 

If Ford goes down then, so does Visteon, and if Visteon goes down then Chrysler goes down and Magna Goes down. 

That is just some of the interdependancy of the Tier I and OEM companies. But the issue, is that the Tier II and Tier II would also be hurt. Siemens and Bosch both nice German Companies, but are majore Tier I / Tier II / Tier III supplies in teh automotive industry. This would destroy their US presence as well. 

If you follow the direct line of suppliers only, for GM it is over 3 million jobs lost. If you look at the whole industry then it is at least another 3 million jobs for the other parts of the industry. Now this 6 million jobs only effect the OEM, Tier I, Tier II and Tier III. It does not list the number of jobs for all the people who do work for them in their houses or for the food industry or for shopping. It does not only effect Michigan or a small area around a plant. 9 Governers got together and petitioned the President to make his decision as they saw the hit to the overall economy. 



BrandonLucas said:


> So they've been offered a bailout with the rule that they must pay it back, and if improvement is not seen within a certain amount of time, then the money is ordered to be repaid immediately.


 
The only time in history the government interaction has ever succeeded has been with the Auto industry and the Airline industry, and with the Writs being issued so that the Government had a vested interest, and when they returned the Government made money from the investment.  




BrandonLucas said:


> First off, I don't really care why or how these companies were failing...they've made it obvious that they haven't learned from previous failures. If you do a bad job at work, what happens? You start off by getting reprimanded, then, after several times of the same thing happening, you get fired. So, if the CEO's and the presidents and vice presidents and assistant vice presidents and what-have-you can't do their job correctly, then why are they still employed?


 
Brandon, the Auto industry is one of the most regulated. These regulations come from the US Government and the State of California, and also other Foriegn Governments. None of them match they are all different from emissions to safety. And no it is not an issue of making one to fit them all. The technology is not there. But let us talk technology as well, most of the major improvements have been driven from regulation though for safety and fuel economy and emissions. 

Brandon, should you loose your job if your credit company goes under and your bank goes under and they will not or cannot loan you money to get through a place that is tight for a few months to a year. You have plans they are long ranging plans it takes time to move and change you have them all in place and moving forward and then you loose it all for lack of cash flow. But then you can go to your parents or to a friend or to someone else to get the loan. But your parents come to you and tell you have to make changes that you already had in place. But no one believes you. 



BrandonLucas said:


> Secondly, I find it mighty fishy that this bailout didn't seem to be threatening to the economy before they found out that the government was willing to help the banks from crashing. All it sounds like to me is daddy handed big brother 2 bucks for icecream, and little brother saw it and came running with his hand out too.


 
Brandon,

All I can say is insider trader information prohibits me telling the timing of when they knew. 



BrandonLucas said:


> Unions or no unions, somebody isn't running something right. I can understand the need for unions, and I don't think that all of this is their fault...but I don't think that they're innocent, either. Either way, somebody's doing a crappy job of running a company, and now I'm going to have to foot the bill for it.


 
Europe and Japan have national health care and Japan gets National Retirement. They have no legacy costs.

Japan has 100% Tariff on foriegn cars and they cannot have a car over 5 years old. 

They all have received loans or guarentees from their respective countries.



BrandonLucas said:


> Now, I'm not completely "in the know" with the whole situation, so my thoughts on this whole matter could be way off base. I'm not one to get bogged down in the technicalities of the situaion, either...either they screwed up and need the money to stay afloat....and now we're handing money to the same people who lost it in the first place.


 
But it should be noted that the $33 Billion they asked for compared to $8.5 trillion for the Financial industry. 

33,000,000,000 / 8,500,000,000,000 = 33 / 8,500 = 0.388% 

So, the monies requested is such a small amount compared to what has been already given, I believe that Congress did not care as it was too small an amount for them to worry about.


----------



## Ramirez (Dec 26, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> So, if the CEO's and the presidents and vice presidents and assistant vice presidents and what-have-you can't do their job correctly, then why are they still employed?



HAHAHAHAHAHA!  Never spent time in the corporate world?  There are plenty of no-minds in management and in the executive offices...just take a look at AIG, Wall Street, Carly Fiorina etc.  There is a point where you are pretty much assured ...likely around the Assistant Vice-President level that no matter how badly you eff up , you are in the old boys (and girls) club and nothing will happen except your scheduled promotions.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 26, 2008)

auto industry-regulated, and failing
banking industry-regulated and failing
housing market-regulated and failing

government regulations hurt, they dont help.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Dec 26, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> I hope to help.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I somewhat understand what you're saying here......but the fact still remains that somebody or a group of somebodies screwed up somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't be in this situation.  So why loan money back to a company with the same people still in the same positions to make the same mistakes?

Even if they do say that they learned from what they did wrong and nobodies buying it, I still don't have sympathy for that.  It goes back to that old expression "Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me."  

The way I'm looking at it:

The presidents from all 3 companies went to D.C. in their private jets, and rightfully got popped on the wrist for being stupid.

They changed their gameplan, and drove to D.C. in fuel-effecient cars or whatever, supposedly because "they learned their lesson".

If they were too dumb to figure out you don't ask to borrow money by going to the meeting in your million-dollar jet, even if they did it a second time around and "tried harder", it still does little to give me faith that these people are going to get anything right.  

Sure, people make mistakes, but that was a pretty big one to make.  Why should they still be allowed to run the companies and be in charge of that money?  It's my opinion that they don't get to work for the company at all...they should be let go, and someone else needs to step in to control the situation that knows better than to ask for money from their own personal plane.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Dec 26, 2008)

Ramirez said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHA! Never spent time in the corporate world? There are plenty of no-minds in management and in the executive offices...just take a look at AIG, Wall Street, Carly Fiorina etc. There is a point where you are pretty much assured ...likely around the Assistant Vice-President level that no matter how badly you eff up , you are in the old boys (and girls) club and nothing will happen except your scheduled promotions.


 
This is exactly what I'm afraid of happening...people left in charge of the situation that keep screwing it up.


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> auto industry-regulated, and failing
> banking industry-regulated and failing
> housing market-regulated and failing
> 
> government regulations hurt, they dont help.




I will agree with you on this, on many levels.  With that said, I am removing myself from this discussion due to warnings about previous posts I have made and I no longer care to participate in.  Some of my earlier posts came out wrong (Read:  They were taken more inflammatory than I sincerely meant them too.).

Hope your Christmas was grand, along with everyone else.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 26, 2008)

And here is one more reasont he UAW needs to DIE:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472304,00.html

The United Auto Workers may be out of the hole now that President Bush has approved a $17 billion bailout of the U.S. auto industry, but the union isn't out of the bunker just yet. 

Even as the industry struggles with massive losses, the UAW brass continue to own and operate a $33 million lakeside retreat in Michigan, complete with a $6.4 million designer golf course. And it's costing them millions each year. 

But the Black Lake club and retreat, which are among the union's biggest fixed assets, have lost $23 million in the past five years alone, a heavy albatross around the union's neck as it tries to manage a multibillion-dollar pension plan crisis. 

"It's funny that they call it an education center &#8212; it's a resort," said Wilson. "If I was a union member, I would prefer that they rented out a room at the Ramada Inn." 

more at the link

Lemme get this right, the union is running a COUNTRY CLUB????

that loses $23 MILLION in just five years, and they wanted a bailout to handle thier pension problems?

death to the UAW


----------



## Ramirez (Dec 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> auto industry-regulated, and failing
> banking industry-regulated and failing
> housing market-regulated and failing
> 
> government regulations hurt, they dont help.



Twinfist, have you ever actually worked in any industry in a compliance department? I have and believe me without the regulations on insurance companies, banks etc. on required surplus (i.e. a minimum level of liquidity) your investments would be something akin to a roulette wheel.

 I can imagine without safety standards on the automobile industry that you would be taking your life in your hands every time you got into a car.

The problem isn't with regulation, in fact the last 30 years there has been a trend to less regulation in the financial sector...hence Enron, WorldCom and the current financial crisis, the head of the Federal Reserve ,Greenspan, was an acolyte of Ayn Rand, who was the biggest proponent of deregulation,

Your argument is simplistic to say the least, all the current problems were the result of less regulation, not more.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 26, 2008)

wrong answer.

perfect example; the auto industry

it is regulated to DEATH, yet they apparently cant turn a profit. In part at least BECAUSE of regulation,t he STUPID CAFE standards make it tweice as hard to turn a profit as it should be.

Better example: Fannie and Freddie

regulated beyond measure, both failed

regulation doesnt work, when it is GOVERNMENT regulation

government is by definition, inept.

Let the public regulate the business

good example, in the 70's, other than trucks, everyone KNEW not to buy a Ford.

Fix or Repair Daily
Found On Road Dying

sound familiar?

we didnt need the government to tell us that ford had quality control issues.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 26, 2008)

I think the problem isn't too much or a lack of regulation it's the wrong regulations.

Why does the average car today get less MPG that Henry Ford's did 100 years ago?  
Why are they still so unsafe?  With all the high tech stuff we have today, we should be tanking up with water and dropping in a gas-pill and getting 100MPG on that. I know.  Rich can post up some very valid stats on the MPG being what it is due to heavier cars, all the current "extras" the need, etc. But I've also heard rather reliable stories of carburetor cars back in the 80's getting 60-80MPG. Steel cars, not the aluminum and plastic ones we have now.

The manufacturers are hurting due to bad planning, bad management, greed and the market. 3 of the 4 are in their control.

For any bailout to work, they need to change what brought them to this point.  Lets hope that the auto industry bailout has the oversite and protections in it, that were "strangely" missing from the financial industry one...the one that took 3 tries to pass because they needed to put in protections.....that seemed to be missing in that passed draft.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 26, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> I somewhat understand what you're saying here......but the fact still remains that somebody or a group of somebodies screwed up somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't be in this situation. So why loan money back to a company with the same people still in the same positions to make the same mistakes?
> 
> Even if they do say that they learned from what they did wrong and nobodies buying it, I still don't have sympathy for that. It goes back to that old expression "Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me."
> 
> ...


 

Airplanes - Airplanes - Airplanes.

They are expensive to run. But when one looks at the number of people that go to support a trip of that importance it was not just one person on each plane. 

The issue is that is the CEO of a multinational needs to be in Europe and then needs to be in USA and then he might need to go to Asia, he now has to wait for a commercial plane that has enough seat available for him and his support staff to travel their.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 26, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I think the problem isn't too much or a lack of regulation it's the wrong regulations.
> 
> Why does the average car today get less MPG that Henry Ford's did 100 years ago?
> Why are they still so unsafe? With all the high tech stuff we have today, we should be tanking up with water and dropping in a gas-pill and getting 100MPG on that. I know. Rich can post up some very valid stats on the MPG being what it is due to heavier cars, all the current "extras" the need, etc. But I've also heard rather reliable stories of carburetor cars back in the 80's getting 60-80MPG. Steel cars, not the aluminum and plastic ones we have now.
> ...


 

Bob,

You have a bunch of BS in this post that needs to be corrected right away. 

If you want a top speed of 20 to 22 mph hour then we can make the vehicles much safer and get much better fuel economy. This is the car of Henry Ford that you speak of. You are not comparing Apples to Oranges here but your comparison is Apples to Bricks. Both might come in a shade of Red, but then again they might not. 


As to 60 to 80 MPG for a CARB, that is TOTAL BS. If the fuel economy of a 1974 V8 was 6 to 8 mpg. There is no way that any company would not release such a product. I will grant that in the late 70's with Fuel Injection on the way for Emission requirements, they made some improvements on CARB's that got a max of 40 to 60 *PERCENT* more. This means for simple numbers of 50% of 6 would be 3 or 50% or 8 would be 4. So the vehicles went from 6 to 9 mpg and 8 to 12 mpg. But there is no way they could even meet the emission standards then which also included open PCV with Oil being dumped out on to the road. So, Fuel Injection was the way to go. It got as good or better fuel economy and meet the emission requirements. 


As to Greed, I agree every business has greed and desire to make money, but if the number one vehicle was not Ford F-150 Pick up and the number two vehicle being the Chevrolet Silverado Pick-up for 2008, then I would say that the customers have spoken that they want Trucks, and we build trucks. 

We have good small cars. But no one likes them, right? WRONG, enough people like them to keep just short of 50% of our sales to be cars and those include lots of small cars. So if GM has 24% of the total US market and just under 50% of thei share is Cars, let us say 10% of the totel market is GM cars. That is almost as much as Chryslers whole Market share of 13%.  

We will no longer have the days of 60% market share for GM. And that is a good thing. It make competition a better place. The problem is that in some places we are not guarenteed a fair competition as it is here. 

In China, a car company can meet all the requirements, but if the Emisisons inspector does not get his "Gifts" per Chinese "Custom" then he will not accept their paperwork and not allow them to sell.

In Brazil, parts and product are held up at the borders with Customs, but if you hire a local "expiditer" then your parts will move right along and not be stuck for months in a warehouse. 

In Japan as mentioned, they price the vehicles out of reach of anyone but the very wealthy, with a 100% tariif. 

In Korea, their sense of national Pride almost stopped them, from allowing GM to buy the failing Daewoo, and turn it  around into a profit making center. 

In Europe, each country puts a different emission requirement and sticker requirement, which means that each vehicle has to have multiple options depending upon the country it is sold in. But this is done to all vehicles. They like Diesels for fuel economy, but as I have mentioned before they do not meet USA requirements for emissions. To do so add a minimum of $6,000 and more likely $10k to $12k per vehicle. This takes away the effective fuel economy of the vehicle. Also Europe taxes fuel differently and actually uses for their roads, from the data I have read and from the roads I have driven. 



Now, do you and everyone here have a right to be upset about your monies being used at the Federal Level for a corporation? Yes you do. 

Do you have the right to say what you feel, even if you accept everything I say as true, but choose to disagree just because you feel like? Yes you do. 

Do, you have the right to continue to present false data, and spread a bad image? Yes you do. But I would like to ask you to consider it before you do. 

So, your reliable sources, might not want to be named here. Could you give them my phone number or e-mail. Have them contact me. Or ask them if I could contact them at my cost. I will. I would be very interested, in hearing their reliable information.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 26, 2008)

I am confused though about this whole thing.


Where are the threads for the Finance Companies? 

Where is the complaints about them? 

The money for the Auto total was predicted to be $33 Billion or $33,000,000,000. 


The Money for the Finance Companies is now up to $8.5 Trillion Dollars or $8,500,000,000,000.


Let me put this side by side.

$33,000,000,000    ----   $8,500,000,000,000


Let me put this one over the other.

$0,033,000,000,000
$8,500,000,000,000


Where is the outrage over this?

Why is it directed at just the Auto Companies? 


Is it a lack of understanding of the Finances Companies?


Is it the lack of the truth or data from the Finance Companies? 




Or is it just some hatred at GM, Ford and Chrysler, for they have let everyone down. They no longer can provide the American Dream of a good paying non-degreed job? Is that why everyone is so upset, they cannot get a job with one of the Auto companies or the suppliers?


My confusion has no limit at the moment.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Dec 26, 2008)

I agree that there should be more outrage over the bailout issues overall rather than just directed at the Big 3.  

I'm sick of hearing about companies that fail and need money or we're all going to be in another depression...I'm sick of being told that my money that I'm earning and can barely use to live off of is being used to fund companies that can't stay afloat because they have morons behind the wheel, and if we let them fail, well, then the entire economy fails.

If these companies, any of them, were so damned important for our economy to run, then why wasn't anyone paying better attention to what was going on before we ended up in this mess?  And why do the same buffoons who screwed it all up to begin with still get to stay in charge?  

Sure, if the fate of the entire economy rests on bailing the companies out, then let's bail them out.  But we need to take out the trash while we're doing all this bailing.

At my job, working on an IT help desk, if I'm caught surfing, I get reprimanded.  If I appear to make it a habit, then I'll be fired.

At their job, these CEO's and what-have-you can virtually sink the entire economy, and all they get is a slap on the hand and a scolding.

Yeah, that sounds fair.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 26, 2008)

For those interested here is a link to the terms for the loans for each company. GM and Chrysler.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1333.htm


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 26, 2008)

Rich,
  When I was first looking for a car back in the 90's, I saw an ad for a car, a Sprint or Spirit or something that was listed as getting 60MPG. Where was this listed as the MPG? In a national publication used by car buyers and sellers everywhere. I believe it was an 86 or 87. Manufacturer was AMC. 
  I know someone who has worked in the auto industry a decade or 2 longer than you have, who told an interesting story of an experimental prototype that was accidental sold. It was sought out and bought back by the manufacturer for a rather nice profit.

"There is no way that any company would not release such a product."
Of course there is.  If there is more money to be made in products that need regular replacing, who would make one that doesn't?  I have first hand knowledge of one company who made a rock solid low maint product. They went under because their competition sold cheaper less reliable products.



*How to Get 70 MPG Out of a Honda Civic*


*How to Get 76 MPG*


*376.59 MPG Car Found In Museum (It Was Built In 1959)*


*Germans Release 117 MPG Diesel Sportscar: Biodiesel, Anyone?*


*Let&#8217;s Pay Detroit To Bring Their Gas Sipping Cars Home To The U.S.A.*


*&#8220;150 MPG&#8221; Hybrid SUV Company Claims it is Being &#8220;Muzzled&#8221;*


*Low Cost Gas Engine Innovation Doubles Fuel Economy*



*'60 Minutes' video: Governator's green challenge*



> *Inventing--and reinventing--the civilian Hummer*
> Not many people know that Schwarzenegger personally invented the civilian Hummer. The maker of the military version told him that it could never be made street-legal, so Schwarzenegger bought one and spent $100,000 of his money to show that it could be done.
> Schwarzenegger's action helped launch the brand that is the very symbol of greenhouse gas gluttony.
> That original Humvee, which Schwarzenegger still occasionally uses to ride around Los Angeles, has now been modified to run on cooking oil. "You can literally go up to a restaurant and get cooking oil," he told Pelley.
> Now he has reinvented the vehicle with green that's more than skin-deep. He has one variation that runs partly on hydrogen, and this one has an engine modified to run on biofuel. "I mean, it runs, basically, on anything. Anything natural," he said, as he took Pelley for a ride in it.




Bottom line Rich is, I think it's easier for them to sell the same old stuff, than to really innovate.  I don't consider a dvd player in the car an innovation. I don't consider making it so you need a hoist to lift your engine out to change your spark plugs, progress.  Home brewers have been doing what GM and Ford don't want to do. Eeking out those boosts to fuel efficicncy far beyond the miniscule "Federal Requirements".  If some backyard mechanic can do it, why can't the brain trusts at the experts do it?  I think you yourself answered that one.  Economics.  It's cheaper to continue to move forward by millimeters, than to leap ahead in a bound.  After all, who buy's $100,000 electric cars?  Not the average joe out there who's wondering how much profit is still on the able with Fords recent big price drops.  I've heard 40% is a fair commision at a dealership (again, same national car expert book).  

So, how much does it cost to make a car today in the US, really?


> it costs about $1,255 to manufacture an average family car, but when were talking a luxury vehicle or sports car it costs about $2745.


If that's true, there's still a nice profit margin built in there paying for those corporate jets, private flight crews, hanger storage, etc.

I'm in the wrong business.  My private plane sits in a display case and cost me $13.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 26, 2008)

> Where are the threads for the Finance Companies?
> 
> Where is the complaints about them?



They're here.  You might have missed my posts there where I told off both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Higgins.  

Honestly, for me, it's all a non issue. America has the government it deserves, because it's too stupid/lazy/blind/ignorant to get off it's and hold it accountable. 
I'm going to recluse myself from further commentary on the auto bailouts.
Just note, in a few months, when the beggers come back to the well again, and need more to continue as usual.
Or when your dollar's value drops below the Mark's was in 1938.
You got what you deserved because of your indifference, or acceptance, and failure to act when you could.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 26, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Rich,
> When I was first looking for a car back in the 90's, I saw an ad for a car, a Sprint or Spirit or something that was listed as getting 60MPG. Where was this listed as the MPG? In a national publication used by car buyers and sellers everywhere. I believe it was an 86 or 87. Manufacturer was AMC.
> I know someone who has worked in the auto industry a decade or 2 longer than you have, who told an interesting story of an experimental prototype that was accidental sold. It was sought out and bought back by the manufacturer for a rather nice profit.
> 
> ...


 
The 3 cylinder Sprint markets by GM as a GEO manufactured by Korea Daewoo. It got 60 MPG. If you drove it on a flat surfice at 45 mph and measured the fuel economy at speed or spent about 15 minutes getting to speed. I can get 22 mpg today on my Z71 2003 Extended CAB which is fully loaded and has the 4x4 equipment including the extra skid plates. If the engine is warm and I fuel up and then slowly climb up to speed, i.e. 45 to 50 mph, I can get 21 to 22 easy and get 22.4 many times. 

If you drive any car well and for fuel economy it does better. 


As to that proto-type - My Family and friends have been in the field for generations. I have talked to guys with 45 plus years of experience at GM and this is the one thing they all laugh at. Hence my request for a private talk with them. I am willing to learn, but a single source point not confirmed is to be questioned. I know you would. 


GM had the electric vehicle, and is discussed other places here on MT. It got 00 mpg. Why as it could not be rated. Now all the electric vehicle claim either 150 mpg or 200 mpg or 300 mpg. I find this hard to believe until it is broken down to energy unit to charge versus the battery efficiency versus energy output rates which includes temperature. Batteries have a very drastic change in performance based upon temperature. Take any one of those High Hybrids that the small companies claim and run it in Buffalo and find out how poor it would perform and how upset you would be. 

Small companies can build one or two, and claim to be able to do it. To make it safe and meet regulations for large number / volumes that the Fed and State inspectors go after. They ignore the small ones until there is a problem as they cannot check everything. (* Data from an insider of CARB *)

Also data from an insider from CARB, GM gets 100% inspection because it has the largest national numbers, not California numbers. Because They wanted to go after GM. With Toyota getting up to number two their number of recalls has exceeded the number of vehicles they build in 2006 and 2007. They started getting better inspection. Not that they were better in quality they were just not caught. 


Flex Fuel - all 2004 trucks/suv's support this fuel. It Took GM to go out and PAY and Lobby local stations to start to carry it. They did it to chains as well. 

Shesulsa posted a thread about a Dirty little Secret that Flex Fuel vehicles get Emission credits, which is true for all manufacturers. But where is the fuel. The Fuel industry say no one buys it as no one has a vehicle so we will not make it. The car companies say there is no fuel and no demand so why build it. In enters the government to offer incentive to get cars out there. This allows for a larger volume of vehicles in the future to run on this fuel (* read unleaded gas as an example *) that allows them to possible switch over in the future. 

Alcohol is 30% less efficent per volume than Gas. So for an optimized system the same volume would get less fuel economy. For a system that is not optimized then it will be less efficient. 

If you back off on high Emission requirements then one can take the existing technology to and get better performance, or better fuel economy. 

Yes, it is possible for GM and others to make a car with better fuel economy. Change the shift patterns and pedal progressions, combines with axle ratios and gear ratios and you get a very slow moving vehicle by design, but more fuel efficent. (* Read more similar to that vehicles of Henry Ford *) But no one wants them. Yes I can say, for it is as true as when you say no one wants to buy a truck even though it is the number one selling vehicle in the country.  

We offered version of this in Oldsmobile in the 80's and 90's. Heck they even had a commercial about it going slow and getting there while the fast car got pulled over by the police or had an accident. But no one bought the car. No wanted fuel efficeincy. They wanted to get mroe power or bigger vehicles or bigger engine. 


Look at the Honda Accord of the early 90's versus today and compare the size and weight. You will see a nice creep in size to Bigger, because this is what the market wanted. 



As to experimental products in the hands of the general market. That is a legal issue. I went through a course at GM about legal issues. One of teh cases discussed was the following:

A drunk driver crashed his car into a legally parked car, and then bounced off the car and into a bus load of kids. The Drunk Driver was on a suspended license and had no insurance. He had no money. The parents of the kids sued him and found nothing. So they argued that it was not that he was drunk that caused the problem, but the parked car. So they went after the owner of that car and his insurance. Well the car was totaled, and so they bought it from the insurance company. They found an experimental part. They won their case, for without this special experimental part the vehicle would not have been able to be driven to that spot. So, they sued GM and won. 

An experimental part is not a production released part by definition. It has not gone through all the rigorous testing and validation. Buying back the part was cheaper than a law suit. 

Could you explain the experimental part and was it a CARB? Did it effect the fuel economy? I think it has nothing to do with any at all.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 27, 2008)

Rich,  I just googled 60mpg, I get quite a few links. I posted some.

My understanding of the experimental was it was specifically the carb. That was the part that was bought back.  If I get a chance I'll get more detail, but I haven't spoken to that person in 2 years, so it's unlikely I'l get more than I offered.

I read that GM sells a minivan in China that gets 50-60MPG, and sells there for under $7k.  I read on another site that the -cost- of a car in the US is under $2k, yet sells for $15k. That's with all the us requirements.  If that's true, then why can't they sell that same car here?  You cite differences between nations requirements, but honestly, if a per unit production cost is $2k, once you tool up the factory (that's what/ $75 Mil?) at $15k per car, they only need to move 5,000 units to break even.  I think GM sells more than that each year.

Mind you, I'm not arguing on American's buying gas guzzlers and avoiding eco cars. People wanted 6MPG Hummers, they got em. At $4 a gallon, I don't know anyone who drove em much this past summer though.  I liked the early model Scion xB's.  31MPG. But they beefed em up, and theres not much difference between them and any other minivan anymore.  I liked Saturn, but now they make generic GM cars.  My family were Ford people, but when the Taurus gets 17MPG and costs $10k more than the Toyota Corolla with 35MPG.....well.  My uncle recommended Mazda for years. Yeah, I know, Ford/Mazda what's the difference?  Seemed the Mazda shops were just better at finding and fixing the problems than the Ford shops were (His Mazda truck btw, 400,000 miles on it I heard)


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 27, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Rich, I just googled 60mpg, I get quite a few links. I posted some.
> 
> My understanding of the experimental was it was specifically the carb. That was the part that was bought back. If I get a chance I'll get more detail, but I haven't spoken to that person in 2 years, so it's unlikely I'l get more than I offered.
> 
> ...


 

Dang it Bob

This is the third post I have spent hours working on to have it rejected for images or time.

Please check this site: 
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm


Look for Chevy Aveo/Cobalt/Malibu

Look for Pontiac G5/Vibe

Look for Saturn Aura Hybrid and Vue Hybrid

They all have near or better fuel economy. 



Also search the site for the New versus Old Fuel Economy, As GM was instramental in getting this change by providing test data to shwo real world data coudl be measured better than the old way. 

Also Note: Consumers Reports had an article that Labels were inflated and that the Japanese were the worse offenders. 


As to Saturn looking like others, when you commonize platforms they have similar looks. While I am not involved with styling I understand that if you start from a common spot and told to optimize coeffienceint of drag and profile you get very similar looking vehicles.

As to how vehicles look in general, I have never told you or anyone of my other friends or even my foes to only by US or to by GM only. If you like the looks of a vehicle then buy it. If another company does a better job on cup holders then buy them. If they have a unique color then buy it. Just admit it to yourself and others that is why you bought it and not some perceived quality issue that does not exist.  


I will look at the chinese van later. I am tired and frustrated with loosing my posts because of image restrictions when I linked in data.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 27, 2008)

Bob,

I goggled "Chinese Van 60 mpg" and I could not find anything liek you are talking about. 

I found a three wheeled vehicle that is smaller than small.

I found that the Chinese have beat us again with Plug-in technology to the market. I really wonder how they are doing it as the issue right now that I know the industry is working on is Battery Life and Battery Safety for the Lithium batteries. 

It is one thing to take a hot phone or laptop and throw it away from you, but to climb out of a vehicle in such a condition is what ever auto manufacturer designs and tests and tests and retests to avoid. 

I really wonder how they are doing this as I have friends working in that field, I even interviewed with one of the major players for software control of a Lithium Battery System. 

As I stated before, we are already on Gen 2.x and we have not gone to production and that is for safety and cost. 

Who would buy a car that could plug in if the battery cost is $10k more than a hybrid that is already more expensive than the base vehicle.


----------



## Ramirez (Dec 27, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> wrong answer.
> 
> perfect example; the auto industry
> 
> ...



Wrong answer, perfect example, the financial sector.

 Even the biggest zealot of an unregulated free market, Greenspan , admits now he was wrong.

http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=114844


----------



## <_> (Dec 27, 2008)

Ramirez said:


> Wrong answer, perfect example, the financial sector.
> 
> Even the biggest zealot of an unregulated free market, Greenspan , admits now he was wrong.
> 
> http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=114844



yes, yes he does. What we have been doing doesnt work, time for something new.


----------

