Bail Out the Auto Industry

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

I agree there will definately be a hit on the suppliers. But I dont think they would go away as the person I replied to said.

From the internal numbers I've seen, quite a few could just quit or move out of North America alltogether. The rest of the world is in pretty good shape and many suppliers are making money elsewhere. Here in North America, the supplier industry is in dire straights. My company has been ahead of the curve and isn't in nearly as bad a shape as many others are, but we are still struggling and it's getting worse, not better. Time will tell though.

If they can't compete - why prop up a failing business that uses uncompetitive suppliers?

Didn't argue one way or another on that one. Simply stating that every single US automaker stands to be idled if this is allowed to happen (failure). Too many cross suppliers in the market at risk of failure, but that's up to Congress and the market to decide.

Didn't say you were arguing it. However, I do think you are overstating the realistic outcome of a reorganization. Sure, some suppliers will be hurt but it's not like the car market can stand losing 3 large car manufacturers. Either the others will pick up the demand(and thus buying more from suppliers) or the 3 will continue operations during reorg - thus still buying from suppliers. IMO, people are buying into the doom and gloom chicken little BS. The market will take care of this on it's own - it has in the past and we should just leave it alone. If we keep messing with it - we're only delaying the mess and potentially making it worse down the road.

You're being way too Ideological about the issue. Sure, let the Big 3 fail and I'm sure the Demand will be met, but it will be by Foreign Automakers and with the amount of Demand out there they won't be adding 1 Job to meet that Demand.

:laugh: Yeah, I guess they won't add any jobs to pick up the demand slack... since they are running at 25% capacity now...right?
No rational person would believe that even if the big 3 ceased to exist that the other ones wouldn't add jobs to pick up the demand slack.

I swear some people just aren't thinking and have bought into yet another chicken little panic.

 

[Fern]

Let's just accept the $200 billion figure. So what, there's nothing I see that indicates a bailout as currently discussed will prevent he problem. I think the likely difference is a loss of $200B plus the taxpayers' bailout money, or just the$200B.

I've always been ambivalent about a bailout for auto makers, but am now leaning against it because of the following:

1. Current discussions seem to include a lot of government oversight of the auto makers. Are you freakin kidding me? Gov employees/Congress don't know squat about that industry (nor apparently any others).

2. Strikes me as going down the path of a government command -type economy, which to my knowledge has never worked. I also see the inclination for government activism - forcing the auto makers into producing *green cars* etc as a stipulation to get the bailout money; I don't care for that either.

3. I understand the theory that banks are like public utilities, and you can't have them fail or it screws everything else up, even if otherwise healthy. But I don't see the auto makers that way. So, I see no *theory* or reason why auto makers get bailed out (other than that they are big employers etc), therefore I see no reasonable limit to such bailouts. Who will get them and who won't? Might it be politically driven? I.e., auto makers get them because the unions are big Dem supporters/contributors. Either way, whether just abitrary or political driven I don't like it.

I'm now leaning more towards no bailout and just reorg. Perhaps whatever results will leaner-and-meaner and far better than what we have now.

Fern

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

I agree there will definately be a hit on the suppliers. But I dont think they would go away as the person I replied to said.

From the internal numbers I've seen, quite a few could just quit or move out of North America alltogether. The rest of the world is in pretty good shape and many suppliers are making money elsewhere. Here in North America, the supplier industry is in dire straights. My company has been ahead of the curve and isn't in nearly as bad a shape as many others are, but we are still struggling and it's getting worse, not better. Time will tell though.

If they can't compete - why prop up a failing business that uses uncompetitive suppliers?

Didn't argue one way or another on that one. Simply stating that every single US automaker stands to be idled if this is allowed to happen (failure). Too many cross suppliers in the market at risk of failure, but that's up to Congress and the market to decide.

Didn't say you were arguing it. However, I do think you are overstating the realistic outcome of a reorganization. Sure, some suppliers will be hurt but it's not like the car market can stand losing 3 large car manufacturers. Either the others will pick up the demand(and thus buying more from suppliers) or the 3 will continue operations during reorg - thus still buying from suppliers. IMO, people are buying into the doom and gloom chicken little BS. The market will take care of this on it's own - it has in the past and we should just leave it alone. If we keep messing with it - we're only delaying the mess and potentially making it worse down the road.

You're being way too Ideological about the issue. Sure, let the Big 3 fail and I'm sure the Demand will be met, but it will be by Foreign Automakers and with the amount of Demand out there they won't be adding 1 Job to meet that Demand.

:laugh: Yeah, I guess they won't add any jobs to pick up the demand slack... since they are running at 25% capacity now...right?
No rational person would believe that even if the big 3 ceased to exist that the other ones wouldn't add jobs to pick up the demand slack.

I swear some people just aren't thinking and have bought into yet another chicken little panic.

Everybody's sales are down. If the Big 3 go down, Auto Sales will fall further. Besides, do you think they'll Manufacture in the US when Demand does pick up? They will have little reason to, since there would be no US competition to worry about.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

How old are you?

From some of his other posts, I gathered he's a teenager living at home. Seriously.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
If GM put as much effort into their cars as they are putting into getting a bailout, we'd be driving flying cars by now.

LOL, or at least get 20 mpg.

-Robert

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
If GM put as much effort into their cars as they are putting into getting a bailout, we'd be driving flying cars by now.

LOL, or at least get 20 mpg.

-Robert

Strangely, GM leads the pack with the most 30 mpg cars.

Click me.

but..they probably also have the most under 20 too.

 

[dmcowen674]

I love the war excuse.

I'm sure if we needed them we would simply take over the Toyota and other foreign factories that are operating on U.S. soil should we need the manufacturing capacity for war machines.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

I agree there will definately be a hit on the suppliers. But I dont think they would go away as the person I replied to said.

From the internal numbers I've seen, quite a few could just quit or move out of North America alltogether. The rest of the world is in pretty good shape and many suppliers are making money elsewhere. Here in North America, the supplier industry is in dire straights. My company has been ahead of the curve and isn't in nearly as bad a shape as many others are, but we are still struggling and it's getting worse, not better. Time will tell though.

If they can't compete - why prop up a failing business that uses uncompetitive suppliers?

Didn't argue one way or another on that one. Simply stating that every single US automaker stands to be idled if this is allowed to happen (failure). Too many cross suppliers in the market at risk of failure, but that's up to Congress and the market to decide.

Didn't say you were arguing it. However, I do think you are overstating the realistic outcome of a reorganization. Sure, some suppliers will be hurt but it's not like the car market can stand losing 3 large car manufacturers. Either the others will pick up the demand(and thus buying more from suppliers) or the 3 will continue operations during reorg - thus still buying from suppliers. IMO, people are buying into the doom and gloom chicken little BS. The market will take care of this on it's own - it has in the past and we should just leave it alone. If we keep messing with it - we're only delaying the mess and potentially making it worse down the road.

You're being way too Ideological about the issue. Sure, let the Big 3 fail and I'm sure the Demand will be met, but it will be by Foreign Automakers and with the amount of Demand out there they won't be adding 1 Job to meet that Demand.

If you're right and the foreign makes can meet current demand, how exactly are we going to save the US manufacturers? Unless you plan on a sudden increase in car buying, something has to give.

And if the goal is to save jobs, lower demand for autos means jobs will be lost regardless. Does it really matter if those jobs are at Toyota or GM? Maybe Toyota needs a bailout to save jobs?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Right on the money

So true.

"If you love America, you'd throw money in its hole!"

LOL! classic...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
If GM put as much effort into their cars as they are putting into getting a bailout, we'd be driving flying cars by now.

LOL, or at least get 20 mpg.

-Robert

Strangely, GM leads the pack with the most 30 mpg cars.

Click me.

but..they probably also have the most under 20 too.

Not a single one of those gets greater than 32mpg though. In early 2005, I bought a Civic (non-hybrid) that does 33.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

I agree there will definately be a hit on the suppliers. But I dont think they would go away as the person I replied to said.

From the internal numbers I've seen, quite a few could just quit or move out of North America alltogether. The rest of the world is in pretty good shape and many suppliers are making money elsewhere. Here in North America, the supplier industry is in dire straights. My company has been ahead of the curve and isn't in nearly as bad a shape as many others are, but we are still struggling and it's getting worse, not better. Time will tell though.

If they can't compete - why prop up a failing business that uses uncompetitive suppliers?

Didn't argue one way or another on that one. Simply stating that every single US automaker stands to be idled if this is allowed to happen (failure). Too many cross suppliers in the market at risk of failure, but that's up to Congress and the market to decide.

Didn't say you were arguing it. However, I do think you are overstating the realistic outcome of a reorganization. Sure, some suppliers will be hurt but it's not like the car market can stand losing 3 large car manufacturers. Either the others will pick up the demand(and thus buying more from suppliers) or the 3 will continue operations during reorg - thus still buying from suppliers. IMO, people are buying into the doom and gloom chicken little BS. The market will take care of this on it's own - it has in the past and we should just leave it alone. If we keep messing with it - we're only delaying the mess and potentially making it worse down the road.

You're being way too Ideological about the issue. Sure, let the Big 3 fail and I'm sure the Demand will be met, but it will be by Foreign Automakers and with the amount of Demand out there they won't be adding 1 Job to meet that Demand.

:laugh: Yeah, I guess they won't add any jobs to pick up the demand slack... since they are running at 25% capacity now...right?
No rational person would believe that even if the big 3 ceased to exist that the other ones wouldn't add jobs to pick up the demand slack.

I swear some people just aren't thinking and have bought into yet another chicken little panic.

Everybody's sales are down. If the Big 3 go down, Auto Sales will fall further. Besides, do you think they'll Manufacture in the US when Demand does pick up? They will have little reason to, since there would be no US competition to worry about.

How many cars do we buy in the US each year. How many come from the "big 3"?

It's stupid to think that there would be no increase in the much smaller(in the US) "foreign" car manufacturing capacity.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Genx87
Right on the money

So true.

"If you love America, you'd throw money in its hole!"

LOL! classic...

:thumbsup:

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
If GM put as much effort into their cars as they are putting into getting a bailout, we'd be driving flying cars by now.

LOL, or at least get 20 mpg.

-Robert

Strangely, GM leads the pack with the most 30 mpg cars.

Click me.

but..they probably also have the most under 20 too.

Not a single one of those gets greater than 32mpg though. In early 2005, I bought a Civic (non-hybrid) that does 33.

Yes, and during the early 90's, you could buy cars from them all that did much better including nearly 60mpg on Geo brands of cars. However, some of the new GM's (Cobalt for example and I assume G5 since it's the same car) are now rated for 37 mpg on the highway.

2009, 18 GM Models That Achieve 30 mpg Plus
Written by News Team
Sep 06, 2008 at 02:34 PM
For 2009, General Motors offers 18 models in the U.S. that get 30 miles per gallon on the highway, more than is expected of any other automaker. They include cars, crossovers and SUVs from GM?s Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn brands.
Chevrolet, GM?s largest brand, leads with eight, along with five each from Pontiac and Saturn. Four-cylinder, six-speed models of the Chevrolet Malibu and Saturn Aura lead among midsize sedans with 33 mpg highway, along with the Pontiac G6. The Chevy Cobalt XFE and Pontiac G5 XFE win among, gasoline-fueled subcompacts at 37 mpg highway.

Here are the models, along with their EPA-estimated highway fuel economy:

Chevrolet: Aveo sedan, Aveo5 (34 mpg with automatic or manual); Cobalt coupe and sedan (30 mpg for SS Turbocharged; 33 mpg for 2.2L automatic); Cobalt XFE (37); Malibu 2.4L (30 mpg with four-speed automatic; 33 mpg with six-speed); Malibu Hybrid (34), HHR (30 mpg with 2.2L and automatic or manual) and HHR Panel (30 mpg with 2.2L and automatic or manual).

Pontiac: G5 (33 mpg automatic, 35 mpg manual); G5 GT (32 mpg automatic, 35 mpg manual), G5 XFE coupe (37); G6 2.4L sedan (30 mpg with four-speed automatic, 33 mpg with six-speed); Vibe (1.8L model, 31 with automatic, 32 mpg with manual).

Saturn: Astra 5-Door; Astra 3-Door (all 30 mpg with automatic, 32 with manual); Aura four-cylinder (33); Aura Hybrid (34); and Vue Hybrid (32).

Source GM

Note: Yes, some are hybrids which GM does a very bad job at getting much out of them.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
How many cars do we buy in the US each year. How many come from the "big 3"?

Last year, over 16 million units. I've seen numbers from automotive publications (and our own CEO calls) that the number could sink as low as below 12 million this year. Not sure of the Big 3 numbers though, sorry.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
If GM put as much effort into their cars as they are putting into getting a bailout, we'd be driving flying cars by now.

LOL, or at least get 20 mpg.

-Robert

Strangely, GM leads the pack with the most 30 mpg cars.

Click me.

but..they probably also have the most under 20 too.

Not a single one of those gets greater than 32mpg though. In early 2005, I bought a Civic (non-hybrid) that does 33.

Fuel economy ratings revised in 2008. Your car has the old rating. If you go to fueleconomy.gov and check your car now, you'll see the revised numbers much lower. Combined for your car drops 4 mpg when using the new standards.

 

[OutHouse]

http://edgehopper.com/what-toyota-knows-that-gm-doesnt/


Do you know how many hourly jobs GM has laid off from 2006 to July 2008? Take a guess. How about 34,000? And now, they?re talking about another 5,500 layoffs. And now they?re asking you and your government for a bailout to end their troubled, outdated, low quality, wasteful production system. But, let?s not focus on fixing GM?s problems with an infusion of cash. There?s something even deeper going on here that?s really wrong.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

I agree there will definately be a hit on the suppliers. But I dont think they would go away as the person I replied to said.

From the internal numbers I've seen, quite a few could just quit or move out of North America alltogether. The rest of the world is in pretty good shape and many suppliers are making money elsewhere. Here in North America, the supplier industry is in dire straights. My company has been ahead of the curve and isn't in nearly as bad a shape as many others are, but we are still struggling and it's getting worse, not better. Time will tell though.

If they can't compete - why prop up a failing business that uses uncompetitive suppliers?

Didn't argue one way or another on that one. Simply stating that every single US automaker stands to be idled if this is allowed to happen (failure). Too many cross suppliers in the market at risk of failure, but that's up to Congress and the market to decide.

Didn't say you were arguing it. However, I do think you are overstating the realistic outcome of a reorganization. Sure, some suppliers will be hurt but it's not like the car market can stand losing 3 large car manufacturers. Either the others will pick up the demand(and thus buying more from suppliers) or the 3 will continue operations during reorg - thus still buying from suppliers. IMO, people are buying into the doom and gloom chicken little BS. The market will take care of this on it's own - it has in the past and we should just leave it alone. If we keep messing with it - we're only delaying the mess and potentially making it worse down the road.

You're being way too Ideological about the issue. Sure, let the Big 3 fail and I'm sure the Demand will be met, but it will be by Foreign Automakers and with the amount of Demand out there they won't be adding 1 Job to meet that Demand.

If you're right and the foreign makes can meet current demand, how exactly are we going to save the US manufacturers? Unless you plan on a sudden increase in car buying, something has to give.

And if the goal is to save jobs, lower demand for autos means jobs will be lost regardless. Does it really matter if those jobs are at Toyota or GM? Maybe Toyota needs a bailout to save jobs?

Now is not the time to let the "Market" decide. There are too many other issues coming to a head that is making it unlikely that any of the Big 3 will survive no matter what they try on their own. A Bailout buys them some time to get their shit together so they can be successful when Good Times return. They still may not survive in the longrun, but if millions of Jobs are lost right now you'll regret not trying to prop them up for a short time.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Now is not the time to let the "Market" decide. There are too many other issues coming to a head that is making it unlikely that any of the Big 3 will survive no matter what they try on their own. A Bailout buys them some time to get their shit together so they can be successful when Good Times return. They still may not survive in the longrun, but if millions of Jobs are lost right now you'll regret not trying to prop them up for a short time.

GM has been in trouble for years. This isn't a sudden problem.

Also, the job numbers I've seen thrown around are highly unlikely and look like nothing more than a scare tactic to get people to buy into the bailout scam.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
Now is not the time to let the "Market" decide. There are too many other issues coming to a head that is making it unlikely that any of the Big 3 will survive no matter what they try on their own. A Bailout buys them some time to get their shit together so they can be successful when Good Times return. They still may not survive in the longrun, but if millions of Jobs are lost right now you'll regret not trying to prop them up for a short time.

GM has been in trouble for years. This isn't a sudden problem.

Also, the job numbers I've seen thrown around are highly unlikely and look like nothing more than a scare tactic to get people to buy into the bailout scam.

True, they have been, but they have also been making major changes to address their short-comings. You're not seeing the big picture though, you will be negatively affected if the Big 3 fail right now. In a few years when Good Times return, you won't be affected near as much.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
Now is not the time to let the "Market" decide. There are too many other issues coming to a head that is making it unlikely that any of the Big 3 will survive no matter what they try on their own. A Bailout buys them some time to get their shit together so they can be successful when Good Times return. They still may not survive in the longrun, but if millions of Jobs are lost right now you'll regret not trying to prop them up for a short time.

GM has been in trouble for years. This isn't a sudden problem.

Also, the job numbers I've seen thrown around are highly unlikely and look like nothing more than a scare tactic to get people to buy into the bailout scam.

Scare tactics? Noooooo, I don't believe it.

 

[winnar111]

All your bailouts are belong to Obama


Paulson Tells Congress Obama Will Control Half of Bailout Funds

WASHINGTON ? The outgoing Bush administration has told top lawmakers it does not plan to use at least half of the $700 billion bailout fund that Congress approved this fall to aid the financial industry, congressional officials said Monday.

The Treasury Department denied the claim, but stopped short of saying the funds would be tapped.

The congressional officials said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson passed the word over the weekend that he intends to leave $350 billion untouched when the administration leaves office on Jan. 20. That would mean the incoming Obama administration would decide whether and how the funds should be spent.




Great, now we can attribute half the expenses to the Messiah's presidency where they belong.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
Now is not the time to let the "Market" decide. There are too many other issues coming to a head that is making it unlikely that any of the Big 3 will survive no matter what they try on their own. A Bailout buys them some time to get their shit together so they can be successful when Good Times return. They still may not survive in the longrun, but if millions of Jobs are lost right now you'll regret not trying to prop them up for a short time.

GM has been in trouble for years. This isn't a sudden problem.

Also, the job numbers I've seen thrown around are highly unlikely and look like nothing more than a scare tactic to get people to buy into the bailout scam.

True, they have been, but they have also been making major changes to address their short-comings. You're not seeing the big picture though, you will be negatively affected if the Big 3 fail right now. In a few years when Good Times return, you won't be affected near as much.

How is letting them fail and come back as stronger more efficient companies not seeing the big picture? The big picture is - they are bloated legacy corporations that have failed to adapt. Bailing them out again( they already got $25 BILLION to retool earlier this year) is a solution supported by those who don't want to see the whole picture IMO.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Let 'em die...and let better ones take their place.

Demand is there. Supply will meet it somehow.

Shitty blue state union workers can wait for their blue state President. No thanks!

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: winnar111
All your bailouts are belong to Obama


Paulson Tells Congress Obama Will Control Half of Bailout Funds

WASHINGTON ? The outgoing Bush administration has told top lawmakers it does not plan to use at least half of the $700 billion bailout fund that Congress approved this fall to aid the financial industry, congressional officials said Monday.

The Treasury Department denied the claim, but stopped short of saying the funds would be tapped.

The congressional officials said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson passed the word over the weekend that he intends to leave $350 billion untouched when the administration leaves office on Jan. 20. That would mean the incoming Obama administration would decide whether and how the funds should be spent.




Great, now we can attribute half the expenses to the Messiah's presidency where they belong.

hehe, Barrack is going to take your money and give it to GM and their employees.

 

[TraumaRN]

I guess the thing that annoys the crap out of me is how it's OK to bailout the banks but not GM/Ford/Chrysler. And besides its a freakin loan. Last time an American auto company got bailed out, they paid the loan back PLUS interest.

They say roughly 1 in 10 people in America are employed directly or indirectly by the auto company and yet it'd be OK to let one or all of these companies fail?

I know people like to say it's scare tactics some of the things they say, such as Gettelfinger saying the US will enter a depression...but he's not far from the truth. It truly would devastate the US economy.

People like to forget about all the other companies that would go under if say GM did.

Frankly it annoys the crap out of me that congressman would bail out the banking industry, probably because they have dirty hands in it, but wont save the Detroit 3.