12 Dec 08
2 edits
I know I have already created a thread about the GM bail out, but I would not like to offer a little different perspective. It is SHOCKING to me that this particular bail out seems as though it is the ONLY one that has undergone such a high level of scrutiny and debate compared to the other bail outs. This is because the auto bail out is only estimated to be a little under $20 billion as where Citigroup and company have been bailed out for about $300 billion or more with not so much as a peep. In fact, I saw very little press coverage of that particular bail out and it was a bipartisan affair. However, the auto bail out seems to be opposed on a bipartisan front, specifically, the Republicans seem to be the only obstacle of the bail out currently. So why is this? It is because of the politically acitve unions of the auto makers. The UAW long ago decided to side with the Democrats in a partisan manner and this alone is the reason why the bail out is in jeopardy. It is kind of ironic that the decision to enter partisan politics to enhance their power and influence by siding with the Dems may now be the poison that kills them.
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by whodeyOne has to weigh the cost of bailing out a mismanaged company against the unemployment numbers it would create. I know it's popular to point the finger at the blue collar workers, and I agree that they need to give some ground here, but look at the billions being wasted on those models of cars that are unprofitable (and that management insists on producing anyway), not to mention the exec perks and overbloated pay. I'd say there is plenty of blame to go around here. 😏
I know I have already created a thread about the GM bail out, but I would not like to offer a little different perspective. It is SHOCKING to me that this particular bail out seems as though it is the ONLY one that has undergone such a high level of scrutiny and debate compared to the other bail outs. This is because the auto bail out is only estimated to b ...[text shortened]... enhance their power and influence by siding with the Dems may now be the poison that kills them.
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by whodeyGive me a break.
The UAW long ago decided to side with the Democrats in a partisan manner and this alone is the reason why the bail out is in jeopardy. It is kind of ironic that the decision to enter partisan politics to enhance their power and influence by siding with the Dems may now be the poison that kills them.
The Senate republicans just killed the Bill. They did so because the republicans in the senate are from southern states that have asian, non-unionized car manufacturing plants there. The Senate Democrats were from the northern states where the Big 3 had their plants.
This has very little to do with the UAW. It has everything to do with republicans voting for the interest of the asian car companies in their own state, rather than the american car companies in someone else's state.
READ.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheGlobeAndMail-Business/~3/HqsD6j56RR4/
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by uzlessStill, I wish someone would explain to me why we will spend hundreds of billions on banks but not a penny on cars. I didn't want to spend hundreds of billions on banks.
Give me a break.
The Senate republicans just killed the Bill. They did so because the republicans in the senate are from southern states that have asian, non-unionized car manufacturing plants there. The Senate Democrats were from the northern states where the Big 3 had their plants.
This has very little to do with the UAW. It has everything to do ...[text shortened]... se's state.
READ.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheGlobeAndMail-Business/~3/HqsD6j56RR4/
And in Europe, Germany is complaining that the rest of the EU wants to 'toss billions around' to indebt future generations. They aren't going for it either.
So who has an answer for this?
12 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358Maybe its because the bankers are all Asian and non-unionized and from the South. 😉
[b]Still, I wish someone would explain to me why we will spend hundreds of billions on banks but not a penny on cars. I didn't want to spend hundreds of billions on banks.
12 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718But corporations like Citigroup and AIG were also badly mismanaged yet they were bailed out with golden parachutes to boot. So what makes the auto industry any worse? In fact, they are a cheap date compared to the bankers/insurers. Of course, I have not bothered to calculate if more US jobs would be lost with companies such as Citigroup/AIG compared to the auto industry, so I suppose this is the ONLY valid argument against my thesis.
One has to weigh the cost of bailing out a mismanaged company against the unemployment numbers it would create. I know it's popular to point the finger at the blue collar workers, and I agree that they need to give some ground here, but look at the billions being wasted on those models of cars that are unprofitable (and that management insists on producing ...[text shortened]... on the exec perks and overbloated pay. I'd say there is plenty of blame to go around here. 😏
12 Dec 08
In 2007, GM recorded a loss of about 35 billion. In the same year, Toyota recorded a profit of almost 20 billion. Should the taxpayer really fund more than fifty billion dollars of mismanagement? GM is so terribly poorly run, the US economy is probably better off in the long term if it folds.
12 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis is not about right or wrong nor is it about what makes financial sense, rather, this is about politics. It's also why the US has over a $10 trillion debt. These clowns only care about themselves.
In 2007, GM recorded a loss of about 35 billion. In the same year, Toyota recorded a profit of almost 20 billion. Should the taxpayer really fund more than fifty billion dollars of mismanagement? GM is so terribly poorly run, the US economy is probably better off in the long term if it folds.
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by spruce112358My take on this is that if the auto bailout had happened before the Wall Street bailout things might have gone differently. Many conservatives were against the TARP bailout on principle but went along with it because they were told the sky was falling and that taxpayers would be buying assets that might eventually yield some value. But when Paulson didn't buy assets, but just started giving money away instead, it seemed like the biggest bait and switch ever, and those wary conservatives said we won't get fooled again.
Still, I wish someone would explain to me why we will spend hundreds of billions on banks but not a penny on cars. I didn't want to spend hundreds of billions on banks.
Not to worry though. I bet Bush/Paulson will bailout the auto industry using TARP funds by Monday, at least enough to see them through to a more labor friendly Senate.
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by SleepyguyThe biggest bait and switch ever? That is an understatement. It is absurd to trust those in Washington thinking they are on higher moral ground than Wall Street. Hopefully conservatives will turn on Wall Street and liberals turn on government but I think this is nothing more than wishfull thinking.
My take on this is that if the auto bailout had happened before the Wall Street bailout things might have gone differently. Many conservatives were against the TARP bailout on principle but went along with it because they were told the sky was falling and that taxpayers would be buying assets that might eventually yield some value. But when Paulson didn' ...[text shortened]... ing TARP funds by Monday, at least enough to see them through to a more labor friendly Senate.
12 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyDid you watch Bob Corker's press conference on this? I found it informative, and I thought he sounded pretty reasonable.
The biggest bait and switch ever? That is an understatement. It is absurd to trust those in Washington thinking they are on higher moral ground than Wall Street. Hopefully conservatives will turn on Wall Street and liberals turn on government but I think this is nothing more than wishfull thinking.
http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-13360
According to him, without more concessions from the UAW these companies were going to need a lot more than $20 billion. Corker was trying to get something concrete from the UAW to indicate that they were willing to become "competitive" with the labor of other car manufacturers (as determined by the Sec. of Labor). Corker wanted a date, any date in 2009, that the UAW would agree to do so but the UAW wouldn't budge on it, probably because they expect Bush/Paulson to come through with TARP funds and allow the UAW to step around ever making those concessions. We'll see what happens now. Paulson still has $15 billion to burn on his first installment of TARP funds, but I thought the TARP funds were specifically designated for "Financial Institutions" only. So, I'm not convinced those funds will be forthcoming. If not, then the UAW will have finally chewed off the hand that feeds it.
13 Dec 08
Originally posted by SleepyguyWhen is anyone going to get it that Corporations don't like like unions period. The whole history of organised labour in the US is one of rail bosses and mine bosses putting down any form of grass roots organisation with as much force as what was thought to be necessary. So much for the US constitution protecting the rights of anyone to affiliate and associate as they wish. But if business acts in an organised manner and constructs monopolies or acts in concert such that prices are fixed to construct a virtual monopoly, then why do we the people just wear it or let it take forever before we demand of our elected representatives to make a change.
According to him, without more concessions from the UAW these companies were going to need a lot more than $20 billion. Corker was trying to get something concrete from the UAW to indicate that they were willing to become "competitive" with the labor of other car manufacturers (as determined by the Sec. of Labor). Corker wanted a date, any date in 2009, ...[text shortened]... e forthcoming. If not, then the UAW will have finally chewed off the hand that feeds it.
Make no mistake the attack on unionism is nothing more than a continuation of the war that started between capital and the ideas of Marx and Engels which manifest itself as the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. Corporations absolutely love the Asian business model, where workers are accorded rights in much the same way that serfs had rights under feudalism. An attack on unionism is nothing more than a return to the past. A discredited, retrograde past where the rights of people are subsumed in favour of the greater corporate good.
Do you think Australians have a great way of life by accident? It was hard won and fought for by people who subscribed to a notion of fairness, that if business could be organised, then so could labour.
13 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat economic model are you basing this insane idea on?
In 2007, GM recorded a loss of about 35 billion. In the same year, Toyota recorded a profit of almost 20 billion. Should the taxpayer really fund more than fifty billion dollars of mismanagement? GM is so terribly poorly run, the US economy is probably better off in the long term if it folds.
How can you possibly say that removing several million high paying manufacturing jobs from a country is somehow good for the economy????
Please state what kind of job and in what industry several million people are going to migrate to that will pay them a comparable salary.
The only benefit to people losing their jobs is that the car company may become leaner and more profitable. I suppose if you are a bond or shareholder of these companies you might see a benefit in the long term but there is no way in hell the economy will benefit.
13 Dec 08
Originally posted by whodeyThe real debt is over 50 trillion.
It's also why the US has over a $10 trillion debt. These clowns only care about themselves.
The 10 trillion figure doesn't include the medicare deficit and other "off balance sheet" deficits.
Check out IOUSA for the true horror story.
http://www.iousathemovie.com/
13 Dec 08
3 edits
Originally posted by SleepyguyBlame the worker. I love it. You sound like DSR.
Did you watch Bob Corker's press conference on this? I found it informative, and I thought he sounded pretty reasonable.
http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-13360
According to him, without more concessions from the UAW these companies were going to need a lot more than $20 billion. Corker was trying to get something concrete from the forthcoming. If not, then the UAW will have finally chewed off the hand that feeds it.
Why don't you take a look at the DEALER NETWORKS in the US and see how much power they have over the Big 3. You have any idea how many more dealers/vehicle GM has versus the asian car makers in the US??
Ever wonder why Oldsmobile was chopped instead of say Buick/Pontiac etc??
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97750531&ft=1&f=1006
Has anyone thought about how much taxpayer money will be given to laid off workers should the bankruptcy happen when the workers go claim UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE from the government?? Let's do some math!
average claim (conservative estimate)
$30,000 a year
mulitplied by 2 million workers
We get 60 Billion Dollars spent next year on umemployment claims. Hmm, suddenly that 20 billion doesn't seem so bad doesn't it!! Plus people keep their jobs, homeowners might stave off their own bankruptcy, they might keep paying their mortgage which will help to slow down the housing market meltdown etc etc etc....
...just a thought.