Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
absolutely not.

he has some good points, but in general this would be too much of an economic shock, and bankruptcy would drive away many potential clients.

And how much would taxpayers get shafted with when they drop their huge pension obligations on the Federal Government?

Hard to say.

GM recently assumed around $5 billion of Delphi pensions. IIRC they have pumped as much as $60 bilion into their pension fund in the last 10 years and may well be $20-$30 billion underfunded.


The deflection by the 'tards over a $25 billion loan to the Big 3 is a joke after all we have been through with the Hank Paulson Ben Bernanke $1 Trillion Bank Bailout (with even more Taxpayer Cash) on top of Dubya's Federal Debt.

It's the reason the republicans are on the road to permanent minority status.

 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Sounds good to me. Would you like to lose ALL of your retirement benefits, or 20%? Would you like to lose your job or a 20% cut?
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think that the religious really screwed the pooch this election cycle more than any other. They had the perfect candidate right there talking sense about the land mine laden field that we were and still are treading through but they couldn't set their prejudices aside long enough to realize it.

If they would have nominated Romney instead of McCain, he would have crushed Obama in the debates on the economy and may have won among the moderates and independents when the shit hit the fan in the election. He has all of the business acumen to speak on the topic and the ability to say it in a way that most can understand and shows enough common sense to realize that you need to be able to compromise and work with the opposition to get things done.

McCain's thirst for power was his downfall. He chose Palin because he wanted to appeal to the base as the only way to get himself elected. Ironically, if he had chosen Romney, he could have hid in the background and sent Romney out to address the press and he just followed his talking points.

No reason for Romney to have taken the offer when he can easily be President in 2013.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I thought it was a good article.

I still want to know how $10-12B to GM (half of proposed bailout to them) is going to save a company hemorrhaging $5B/month.

Get them by until BHO takes office?
Or, just let them restructure through Chapter 11 and THEN BHO can help them.

 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Originally posted by: winnar111

No reason for Romney to have taken the offer when he can easily be President in 2013.

That'll probably be his last legit chance to run. 1, he'll be getting old. 2, losing twice usually kills any chance of further success.
 

razor2025

Diamond Member
May 24, 2002
3,010
0
71
The article does not mentioning anything about hundreds and thousands of businesses that completely relies upon the Big 3. We're not just talking about the 3 car makers going into Chp. 11. We're talking hundreds of small business going belly-up in an instant. With the weakened state of our economy, do you really think that such a shock won't start a cataclysm? Why does it have to be a nuclear option issue? Bailout without restructure vs. Chp 11? Why can't we craft the bailout in such a way that the Big 3 is guaranteed to make those structural changes? If all of the stakeholders comes together to sacrifice a little in all of their part, they can find a compromise solution. Isn't that what society is about?

Mitt Romney doesn't sound so special to me. He's simply restating the general popular view of the Big 3. I don't see anything that's different from any other politician. Now, if Mitt Romney can devise a working plan and have the initiative to get that plan implemented, THEN I would be impressed.

It's really depressing how much failure in leadership this current crisis has shown. Some of these issues aren't even THAT complex, and yet our "leaders" in both politics and businesses are dragging their feet and circling around the obvious solution, all in name of PERSONAL benefits.
 

mooseracing

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2006
1,711
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I thought it was a good article.

I still want to know how $10-12B to GM (half of proposed bailout to them) is going to save a company hemorrhaging $5B/month.

Get them by until BHO takes office?

Thats what I am thinking too, BHO has alredy said he would do anything to keep the big 3 alive , and also said we have to forget about the deficit for a couple years to do this.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I would think restructuring would help in the long run. Completely revamp the managerial structure, the corporate climate, and renegotiate new contracts and agreements across the board. A lean, mean, 21st century business may emerge. America loves a chastened and repentant sinner.

What the hell is the alternative... these companies have been near-death since the 80s and it only gets worse. Giving them billions of dollars.Will.Do.Absolutely.Nothing.
this.

We may as well burn the money.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
I don't know the details, but bailing them out would violate some international trade agreements and leave them open for increased tariffs abroad. GM is actually doing OK outside the US, so this could have some negative financial impacts.

Besides, it's a terrible idea to bail these guys out. Let them go bankrupt - someone will buy the assets, get rid of the management and run the company better.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: razor2025
The article does not mentioning anything about hundreds and thousands of businesses that completely relies upon the Big 3. We're not just talking about the 3 car makers going into Chp. 11. We're talking hundreds of small business going belly-up in an instant. With the weakened state of our economy, do you really think that such a shock won't start a cataclysm? Why does it have to be a nuclear option issue? Bailout without restructure vs. Chp 11? Why can't we craft the bailout in such a way that the Big 3 is guaranteed to make those structural changes? If all of the stakeholders comes together to sacrifice a little in all of their part, they can find a compromise solution. Isn't that what society is about?
The big 3 cannot make "guaranteed" structural changes that will be asked. How do you legally nix pension plans and current salary/benefits by breaking contractual agreements with the UAW and still have your workers put out a quality product? It's common sense, the only way they can do it is through bankruptcy. There is no way the Big 3 can profitably compete with imports until these changes occur.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: mooseracing
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I thought it was a good article.

I still want to know how $10-12B to GM (half of proposed bailout to them) is going to save a company hemorrhaging $5B/month.

Get them by until BHO takes office?

Thats what I am thinking too, BHO has alredy said he would do anything to keep the big 3 alive , and also said we have to forget about the deficit for a couple years to do this.
Math equation says If GM.Bankruptcy = December.End and BHO = January.End, Then GM.Bankruptcy =! BHO.

Unless GM was lying to us, time will tell. ;)

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I sincerely hope that some of the millions of autoworkers who may be affected are taking this time to sit down, do some soul-searching, and realize that maybe they just might need to move and/or find a new line of work.
 

microbial

Senior member
Oct 10, 2008
350
0
0
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11...rtner=digg&exprod=digg

Don't knock it until you read it.

I may not have voted for him, but his suggestions hit the nail on the head.

:beer:

Finally, The Boston Globe calls Romney what he really is: a scumbag.

http://www.boston.com/bostongl...o_industry_for_a_ride/
Romney takes auto industry for a ride
By Joan Vennochi
Globe Columnist / November 20, 2008


IF THE auto industry could reinvent itself as quickly as Mitt Romney, it wouldn't need a bailout.

Let Detroit go bankrupt, Romney opined in yesterday's New York Times; if automakers get the rescue package they want, they will stay "the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses."

Just last January, Romney won Michigan's Republican primary by telling autoworkers what they wanted to hear. Somewhere, John McCain must be choking on the latest opportunistic words from his ex-rival.

During their showdown last winter, Michigan's native son lambasted McCain for truthfully informing autoworkers their jobs aren't "coming back." The former Massachusetts governor pledged to fight for every job, promising primary voters, "If I am president of the United States, I will not rest until Michigan is back."

In speeches across the state, Romney also blamed Washington for Detroit's woes. "Look at Washington. What have they done to help the domestic auto industry? Look, you can't keep on throwing anvils at Michigan and the auto industry and then say, 'How come they are not swimming well?' " he declared.

McCain recovered from the Michigan loss and went on to win his party's nomination. But, now that McCain lost to Democrat Barack Obama, Romney and others are already jockeying for position in the 2012 GOP presidential contest.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is trying to capitalize on her celebrity as McCain's running mate. But first, she must overcome political damage from two sources: her own campaign performance; and anonymous quotes calling her a "whack job" and "diva." Romney loyalists denied reports they were behind the most unflattering Palin assessments.

Meanwhile, Romney has problems and rivals of his own.

In his new book, "Do The Right Thing," Mike Huckabee, who also ran for the Republican nomination in 2008, rips Romney as a flip-flopper who switched positions on abortion, gay rights, gun control, and campaign finance reform. The former Arkansas governor also writes that Romney's record was "anything but conservative until he changed all the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president."

Indeed, Romney was never able to grasp the differences between corporate and political turnarounds.

In the private sector, dramatic retooling is key to survival. As a businessman, Romney understood how to do that. His turnaround of the Salt Lake City Olympics is often cited as an example.

In the public sector, seismic shifts in position create suspicion and undercut credibility. As a politician, Romney continues to lose his.

If politicians never change their thinking, they risk turning into George W. Bush. Stubbornness will forever define his presidency. But if the changes of heart are too extreme and obviously calculated, they end up looking like Romney. As a candidate, he had no discernible political core. Over the course of the presidential campaign, McCain lost much of his own core, too.

Both Romney and McCain sold their souls to the political right. However, in Romney's case, his positioning on social issues began to feel less important against the backdrop of the current economic crisis. As the economic news worsened during the final weeks of the presidential campaign, Romney's expertise on fiscal matters was held out as a reason why he would have been the better choice for the Republican ticket.

Romney's op-ed column reaffirms McCain's decision to look elsewhere for a running mate. McCain knew Romney would always be a rival, never a teammate. His ambition is too naked. His finger is always in the air, not just testing the political winds but succumbing to them at first gust.

This is a presidential candidate who cast himself as the auto workers' champion. "I hear people say, 'It's gone, those jobs are gone, transportation's gone, it's not coming back.' I'm going to fight for every single job. I'm going to rebuild the industry. I'm going to take burdens off the back of the auto industry," Romney said in January.

Back then, he never mentioned bankruptcy as the way to do it.

Never underestimate Romney's willingness to shamelessly reverse direction, to get where he wants to go.

 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
Originally posted by: microbial
Finally, The Boston Globe calls Romney what he really is: a scumbag.

Swing and miss...

The lady wrote that Globe article seriously needs to consider switching to decaf.

In this scatterbrained rebuttal to Mitt Romney's article, her rambling smear attempt against the Republican party actually succeeds in not raising a single countering argument to any of the proposals made by Romney in the original article.

Joan Vennochi says it best in her own words earlier this week in the Dallas Morning News...

If Detroit isn't producing cars people want to buy, that's Detroit's problem ? not the taxpayers'.

:cookie:

 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Originally posted by: microbial
Finally, The Boston Globe calls Romney what he really is: a scumbag.

Swing and miss...

The lady wrote that Globe article seriously needs to consider switching to decaf.

In this scatterbrained rebuttal to Mitt Romney's article, her rambling smear attempt against the Republican party actually succeeds in not raising a single countering argument to any of the proposals made by Romney in the original article.

Joan Vennochi says it best in her own words earlier this week in the Dallas Morning News...

If Detroit isn't producing cars people want to buy, that's Detroit's problem ? not the taxpayers'.

:cookie:


Also, absolutely nothing has changed or been brought out into the sunlight that would validate Romney's change of opinion on the Big 3.

That being said, he was in a campaign and was trying to get elected. Would it surprise me if he had these same thoughts when he made the other comments? Not one bit. Does that invalidate his current assessment of the situation? Not one bit.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think that the religious really screwed the pooch this election cycle more than any other. They had the perfect candidate right there talking sense about the land mine laden field that we were and still are treading through but they couldn't set their prejudices aside long enough to realize it.

If they would have nominated Romney instead of McCain, he would have crushed Obama in the debates on the economy and may have won among the moderates and independents when the shit hit the fan in the election. He has all of the business acumen to speak on the topic and the ability to say it in a way that most can understand and shows enough common sense to realize that you need to be able to compromise and work with the opposition to get things done.

McCain's thirst for power was his downfall. He chose Palin because he wanted to appeal to the base as the only way to get himself elected. Ironically, if he had chosen Romney, he could have hid in the background and sent Romney out to address the press and he just followed his talking points.

Speaking as a member of that group. I did vote for Romney. He appeared ,to me anyway ,
To be the closest thing to a conservative in the race. Even though one could argue his conversion was in the 11th hour.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: daniel49

Speaking as a member of that group. I did vote for Romney. He appeared ,to me anyway ,
To be the closest thing to a conservative in the race. Even though one could argue his conversion was in the 11th hour.

He definitely wasn't a Conservative when he was Governor of MA.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: daniel49

Speaking as a member of that group. I did vote for Romney. He appeared ,to me anyway ,
To be the closest thing to a conservative in the race. Even though one could argue his conversion was in the 11th hour.

He definitely wasn't a Conservative when he was Governor of MA.

I said you could argue it. :D
But then you have to remember he was surviving in arguably the most liberal state in the union. One can never be 100% sure, but I think the 11th hour conversion was genuine?