I'll be happy to send this one back Tez....ok, actually, I like the Brits.....how's France this time of year?
Bail Out Automakers ... or let 'em fall?
- Thread starter MA-Caver
- Start date
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 ***.
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!
Last edited:
OP
OP
Please keep conversations respectful and within posting guidelines... the Mods are watching.
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
3rd Black Belt
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.
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.
I hope to help.
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.
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.
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.
Brandon,
All I can say is insider trader information prohibits me telling the timing of when they knew.
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.
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
Black Belt
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.
BrandonLucas
3rd Black Belt
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
3rd Black Belt
This is exactly what I'm afraid of happening...people left in charge of the situation that keep screwing it up.
dungeonworks
Black Belt
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
Grandmaster
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 — 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
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 — 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
Black Belt
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
Grandmaster
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
3rd Black Belt
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.
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.
