Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

reply to post by nyk537


You know, I just heard at Rush Limbaugh's show, a caller said that there's a group of college students demanding that the govt. forgive their loans and bail them out (free ride college here we go! WHOOO!)

Obviously I'm sure that this group is doing it as both a joke and sending out a message. They figure "Hey, if the govt. can bail out these worthless losers in the bank industry who can't seem to be able to take a hit from the economy. Then why cant the govt. bail us out as well? Heck we're the future of this country after all! If the govt. cares so much for the future of this country, then maybe they should bail us out so we can focus more on what we do best"

If the govt. does end up falling for this (doubtful lol!) then I'm going back to school so the govt. can pay my education

reply to post by wazar

You say that as if I think Obama is going to save the big-3.

sorry about the misunderstanding. Actually, I applaud you for saying it. Many people wouldn't. I agree with you 100% that the UAW should be disbanded.

As far as Obama saving the Big 3, I think he will. Political payback. Whether it works or not is a different story.

Hi all, I was compelled to respond since I was born in Detroit and I lived there until I was 14. Since then I have lived just about everywhere in the state of MI.

I now live in Ann Arbor MI (50 miles west of Detroit)

I agree with Chris Dodd and Romney.

Don't bail them out.

I was not even for the bail out from the beginning and I would rather stick it to Wall Street and go down in flames. Why? It's inevitable that our financial system is headed for bad news.

I know a lot of Detroiter's that are sick of the same ole same ole gas guzzlers. The auto industry helped the oil industry piss on our environment for years. One of the EPA headquarters are just one mile from me and I know people that work there.

I know one guy that works there and says the his job is to work with the auto industry to change emission standards for less pollution etc. But they always schedule an appointment with the EPA, and the EPA comes back a week later for their appointment. Then they pretend that they never had anything scheduled and reschedule. Then the cycle continues and meetings are never held.

I would rather send a strong message that we want cars to run completely off of oil and it's ridiculous to think it's impossible. It's time to change the old patterns and save our environment.

Now having said that, this financial crises has also be speculated to be really about elimination of business competition. It will be interesting to watch which auto industry makes it out on top.

Detroit Auto Industry Must Die.

Having said that, I know there are going to be a lot of people who lose jobs I am sorry to say. But it's human instinct to just keep on ignoring problems until we get burned. (like global warming)

Not bailing them out will hurt everyone from around the country possibly including myself.

So I would also like to add that we need to change the financial system by becoming a "Resource Based Economy" instead of the current "Monetary Based Economy" With today's current technology, there is no value in money any longer with this global integration. Money creates war, competition, brutality, fear, and leaves thousands hopelessly enslaved to bankers. Our society is setup up to teach our kids and college students to a specialized skill for the work force that will over all make us less intelligent in the long run. We need to focus on ourselves and become "Integrated Humans" if we are to steer off the path of destruction.

It's time to wake up and take responsibility.

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted in a profoundly sick society. -J.Krishnamurti.








[edit on 19/11/2008 by TheInfamousOne]

I thought about the poster referring to an oversupply problem.
Ok, what is over supply ? Essentially what it is is that You're building products that people don't want to buy.

The Hybrid SUVs are sitting on the lots just like the regular gas guzzlers.
GM brought out what new car this model year.... a new supercharged Corvette, the Z51 and a new CAMARO !
That pretty much sums it up right there.
You would think that they'd do something new and innovative and maybe bring out a new fuel efficient car that families would be interested in buying instead of a Honda Accord/Toyota Camry. But nope, they have to revert back to the 60's heyday era of performance cars as gas was skyrocketing.

I love performance cars as much as anyone but if you're in the business to build cars. Then if you want to sell product then you have to build what the public wants !

Meanwhile Toyota can't keep up with the demand of their Prius Hybrids.
Same with Honda and their Hybrid and Natural Gas powered Civics...

So the management is the blame for all of of this and they really need to take the blinders off.

Toyota and Honda seem to manage to build cars that people want and need but GM ....building new Corvettes and Camaros. Why ? Because there is more profit on higher priced vehicles.

Just like the DoDo bird...let em go extinct and my heart goes out to all the people who were planning on building Camaro's into the next millenium.

reply to post by nh_ee


The corvette, camaro, and Z51 aren't whats killing the american auto industry.
Also if your going to discuss the Camaro you may as well bring up the Volt.
Granted they've been slow to adapt (as usual) but there is a whole slew of reasons for their colapse the least of which are performance vehicles.

Can't wait to get my hands on one of those Camaro's too. Will probably trade in my Solstice for it.

Jam321, no sorry necessary


[edit on 19-11-2008 by wazar]

Originally posted by Teeky
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

It's funny how people complain about how much auto workers make but would you rather all the profit go to the coporation? Really it's like saying athletes shouldn't make as much money as they do because they really don't do anything.

But the professional sports industry makes tons of money so it's only fair that that the athletes reap some of the benefits. In the hay day of GM it was very reasonable and fair to pay it's worker $30 an hour.
But now it's not such a good idea.

You're missing the point. The athletes themselves provide the value to the industry, not the other way around. That value can be measured by the output they command in productive possibilities, so it makes sense that they deserve an appropriately scaled salary. It's not about what you earn, it's about what you deserve. That's what Capitalism is all about. That's what being an American is all about. You receive more money as a reward for your contribution to society. An athlete is not some pawn that does their job because they're told and the companies profit from them; they provide entertainment, community engagement (city rivalries), marketing opportunities for unrelated firms. They accomplish more than make a buck by throwing a ball in a basket. And they do that because you and hundreds of thousands of other individuals are willing to pay for that entertainment. If you weren't willing, then they wouldn't deserve such a high pay.

It's sad. Everyone uses the manual labor mindset. If you ache and pain and struggle everyday for your country, your family, your honor... at the end of the day, you deserve more money than the guy that sat at a desk and signed documents, having never dropped a bead of sweat? Right? No, in fact, the manual laborer is expendable. He is the merely cheapest means of production.

Although that individual forms the basis for the operation of all society, if one individual were to quit on this principle, another would be gladly willing to fill that person's position. Those individuals don't command a lot of value. They don't bring any future production possibilities to their industries. They don't' grow extra limbs for having worked a certain amount of years. There will always be a limit to their use.

On the other hand. Entrepreneurs and businessmen provide so much more to society, despite many of the negative consequences of profit-seeking businesses. They risk their own personal wealth and finances to provide better technology, better entertainment, and an overall more progressive society, so it makes sense they deserve to reap a little more profit than the next guy. It makes sense that they get to take out their yacht and have a party on the Mediterranean, whereas the manual laborer, who didn't take those risks, should be satisfied living out his bleak existence.

I'm not belittling the value of hard work, or even manual laborers at all. You can be an entrepreneur and a plumber. Your value is that you bring a certain unique edge to your field, possibly providing lower prices in your neighborhood or city for your service. In the end, you make more money than the plumber that never took those risks his whole life, deciding to stay employed by the same company for his entire career. The end goal is that at some point in one's life, everyone should be an entrepreneur. You take jobs for the value of education. And when it's your time to hire, you hire young, budding technicians or whatever. And the cycle continues.

That's what being American is about. That's what free enterprise is about. Not sweating all day and demanding more pay. Before you get to make that claim, you have to risk your own finances and provide a little extra for your society.

Interesting how this post has greater Christian overtones than your own. Teach a man to fish... Build yourself up before you attempt to build up others around you. Charity can only go so far.


[edit on 19-11-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by cognoscente


Athletes are paid based on what the market will allow, not because they "deserve" that much. They demand that much because they can. If people suddenly stopped going to football games and buying season tickets, you would see a sharp decrease in player's salaries and ticket costs would drop in turn.

May I ask ? Is it not true that the original " bailout " proposal was to give the money to banks and financial institutions to ease the lending ristrictions , etc. so that people like myself could purchase a new vehicle ( I prefer GMC pick-ups ) without having to put 30% to 50% down and giving up my first born ? Also , buying LESS jap.,& korean etc. vehicles and MORE U. S. vehicles would have not let the big 3 get into so much trouble. ...................BUILD AMERICAN , BUY AMERICAN , for AMERICANS. What really happened ?

Getting REALLY into the game here...it's going
to be IRRELEVANT whether or not Camaros are being made
or Priuses are being made...because they WILL NOT BE
made by a WHOM but rather made by a WHAT !!!

It's an UTTER WASTE OF TIME to debate this
as YOU and your COMPATRIOTS are going to be
TOSSED OUT ON YOUR EARS by a bunch of very smart
people who are building some very SMART machines
which will then build or supply ALL THE NEEDED or WANTED
Goods & Services desired and destined for a global ELITE
and the REST OF YOU will be left to your own devices to
STARVE AND FIGHT IT OUT for the LEFTOVER SCRAPS.

DON'T YOU GET IT !!!!!

CAN'T YOU ALL SEE WHAT'S COMING ????

Can you not see that very soon NONE OF YOU
will have the physical power to resist the eventual
culling of the herd ???? NOW you can still do something
about but as soon as that autonomous, AI-based bot
that thinks at 10 Gigahertz is in the hands of the ELITE
YOU'RE ALL TOAST - GET IT !!!! FINI !!!!
AUF WEIDERSSEIN !!!! AU REVOIR !!! GONE !!!!!
RELEGATED TO THE DUSTBINS OF ANCIENT HISTORY !!!!!

And the ONLY way to STOP THIS is to first Educate
yourselves and then force your way in POLITICALLY
and if that fails it will require an absolutely FULL-BLOWN
ARMED REVOLUTION AND REVOLT to make the Elites
see that you won't be pushed around!!!!

Originally posted by secretstash
reply to post by cognoscente

 

Athletes are paid based on what the market will allow, not because they "deserve" that much. They demand that much because they can. If people suddenly stopped going to football games and buying season tickets, you would see a sharp decrease in player's salaries and ticket costs would drop in turn.

Semantics. I said they "deserve" a higher salary because of the fact the market will supply them that price. Their wage is an indication of their value to society, based on market prices. That's what I meant by "deserve".

Basically you just said exactly what I meant to say (I honestly thought I was more clear). I guess I was being too abstract.

It's a simple justification for the lower wage of manual laborers relative to entrepreneurs or exceptionally skilled individuals (athletes, rock stars, etc.).

The higher risk-takers tend to take on jobs that demand a higher wage. Also, the exceptionally talented will be payed more. It's not too confusing I hope. Something I didn't really need to take time explaining. It's just that people on this forum tend to think that manual laborers should get higher wages because they work long hours, are physically worn, being the foundation of society, etc. They're production resources, that's all. Their jobs will be relegated to automation in the near future. That's not to belittle the work that those people do.

America's national policy is failing its businesses. They're subject to unionization and manual laborers that demand high wages and social benefits... because they are unable to outsource their jobs to increase production to the degree they want to. Of course, if Americans don't have jobs, they don't have purchasing power, and then those industries that cater to those now jobless consumers will ultimately fail. So you need a balance. But part of that balance is knowing which industries to give up, and which to invest heavily in. Obviously, the auto industry has a lot of work to do in order to compete. But if all competition lies on grounds of national self interest, then competition at times becomes incessant. Sometimes it's best to just cut one's losses, and look forward. If people start shouting it's "un-American to give up on the auto industry" then we're taking it too far. Remember, Americans are innovators. If we don't keep innovating, then that job will be taken by some other country. At the moment, Japan is an excellent replicator or duplicator of existing technology. However, the Japanese tend to make the things we make better to a point where they're unrecognizable, and sometimes surpass even our own products. But other than that, they don't produce much interesting new technology that hasn't already been developed in the U.S. So our solution should be to produce something brand new, something revolutionary. And then the Japanese can copy that all they want. We've become complacent in our technological and scientific industries and that has to change.

The best students tend to outpace their teachers. We have to think of something new. Though many of our most high-tech products were popularized in Japan, they weren't invented, developed and researched there.

Anyway, at the end of the road it's national policy that's ruining the world, not the status of certain corporations' bailouts, or due to greedy executives or housing recessions. Those are all byproducts. We need to either a) globalize and submit to foreign corporate entities, or b) pick up the pace and compete.


[edit on 19-11-2008 by cognoscente]

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cognoscente]

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cognoscente]

Do you have any idea how unelectable the Democrats will be in Ohio and Michigan if they don't bail out the auto-industry? They'll never win again until the next 8 year Republican administration (God-forbid). It'll be the final nail in the coffin of the mid-west.

The Japanese and Germans have been building better cars for a long time and Detroit should just be let go. The dismantling of capitalism continues and I for one cheer like mad!

I agree that we should not have any more bailouts but the unemployed need to have an extension placed on their benefits.

What hasn't been mentioned much is the fact that the bank bailout can add any amount of money to it that Paulson deems necessary. And his replacement will be in the globalist pockets also.

The powers that be are attempting to siphon off as much for themselves, at our expense, for as long as it takes before the SHTF.

I'm cleaning out my barn to convert it into a bank.

Where's that bailout line?

Let them fail. Its high time these 3 restructure. If the UAW can't see the writing on the wall, that's their problem although I hear the UAW may assume the retirement costs to some degree....rumor though.

I work for a company that almost went bankrupt. We have a UAW union. They took concessions (along with the non-union employees) so the business could remain solvent. We have a new owner now, the Union has a competative wage for the area and we are back on top and growing.

Its time for GM, Ford and Chrysler to become smaller but stronger more focused businesses.

My 2 cents.

ok, heres the deal. i get tired of people bashing the american automakers. you blame them for not making fuel efficient vehicles. well, the fact is, until gas got super expensive, nobody cared for a fuel efficient vehicle. Everyone wanted trucks and suvs. if the demand for small cars with good gas mileage was high, then they would have been making those type of cars for years. these companies are here for a profit, they are not going to build products that are not in demand.

Now, the gas prices were rising for a while now and you might say that they should have done something about it. Well, it takes years to develop a car. we are finally starting to see these new models that the big 3 have been working on. ford has a new focus coming next model year, a new fiesta, new hybrids for the fusion and milan. ford is also improving gas mileage over its entire line. i get this feeling that lots of people think its so easy to just start making a new car. Its not like a clothing company that can just make a new shirt when fads change. Billions of dollars are required to retool manufacturing plants, and im sure millions are spent on engineering, design, etc and making sure that the vehicles meet all of the gov standards. its not something that can happen overnight.


also, foreign automakers dont have to deal with unions. Now i dont know much about this, but from what ive heard, it puts the big 3 at a huge disadvantage.

Governments in other countries help fund their auto industries. I read somewhere the the japanese govt provided most of the funding for the development of the prius. (if this is true or not im not sure)

People complain about the quality of the big 3. See the following link

www.cars.com...

As you can see gm and ford are above the industry average. mecury is right behind toyota and above honda. the top manufacturers are all very close and all of the domestics, besides chrysler products are in the top half. the quality is there (just stay away from chrysler lol)


As for sales, well its not just the big 3 struggling. Ive put two links here. one I believe is from july, the other is from october. As you can see toyota sales are down just about as much as ford and gm. honda is doing much better though.

articles.latimes.com...

www.time.com...


For those of you who say stop paying the CEOs of these companies, well guess what. Bill Ford was one step ahead of you and hadnt got a paycheck since 2005.

www.carseek.com...

You also have to look at the big picture here. I dont have a link for this but i read somewhere that most of the auto manufacturers share the same suppliers. so what do you think will happen when you take away 2 of the biggest automotive companies from the suppliers? They will no longer be able to run profitably and go out of business, thus effecting the other auto companies that use the supplier. (yes ford gm and toyota do use the same suppliers). Toyota for example will now need to find a new supplier for its parts. prices will be going up so these suppliers that didnt go out of business can stay profitable and now your foreign car is going to cost more.

now to the bailout. im against bailing out anybody but if we are going to bail someone out, i would have rather bailed the autos out instead of wallstreet. bailing out the autos would save millions of jobs. i still dont think the bailout of wallstreet has done anything. stocks still going down, nothing in my life has changed since the bailout, at least if we bailed out the autos we would be saving jobs instead of putting people on the street.

The UAW has made major concessions over the last decade. The final progress on these changes will be felt fully beginning in 2010. At that point they will shed the majority of their legacy cost and the carmakers will be able to operate at the same cost structure as Toyota and Honda. Innovation will become the standard and Toyota and Honda will find the going tough in America.

We need this bailout. How can people buy cars when they can't get loans?

I didnt write this. It's an excerpt from see the full article for explanations of the Japanese references

"Failing Like Japan"
By Bill Mann
November 11, 2008


...As I look at the pressure being placed on the U.S. government to bail
out or even nationalize American auto manufacturers, I see the same
faulty logic being used. So desperate is the government to protect
these jobs and these massive companies that it is willing to spend
taxpayer money to keep Detroit afloat. It might be a good use of
capital if the Big Three were thriving companies that had simply
suffered from exogenous events that they'd reacted to improperly. But
they aren't. These companies are sick and dying, and they have not
generated a positive capital return in decades.

It's not as if this were an unpredictable outcome, as I noted in 2003
when GM raised $13 billion in debt to shore up its pension system. To
what end would we bail out these companies? To keep them from
collapsing? Wake up -- they have already collapsed.

Pain delayed is not pain avoided

There are no good answers here -- none at all. Whichever way we go,

there is going to be substantial pain in the American auto industry.

But a government bailout of recidivist capital destroyers is a

particularly bad idea, as it perpetuates the destruction, and delays

capital formation for more productive uses. It is a bitter, bitter

pill. Better to let the Big Three take their medicine, attempt to

reorganize in bankruptcy and attempt to emerge anew as smaller, more

nimble competitors.


At a minimum, it helps keep the Japan scenario off the table. It's

been easy to see that the political decisions made in Japan to protect

companies and jobs have been destructive. I've often thought that one

of the reasons American capitalism is superior is our willingness to

allow companies to fail. Now I'm not so sure.



Take Care.
KD

Originally posted by nyk537


This is a great Op-Ed piece by the man who many think should have been the Republican candidate this year, Mitt Romney.

I have to say that I find a lot of what he says to be dead on. This is also how I felt about the bail out that went through already.

These types of things need to work themselves out naturally. Government intervention provides no incentive for these companies to alter they way they do business.

In the end it only leads back to more of the same problems. Bailing someone out is just a temporary fix, not a solution.

Right now, we need solutions.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

More of the same thinking...

Yeah a famous quote follows that line.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

-- Albert Einstein

No we don't need this bailout. We should let poorly run companies fail. I'm in agreement with Romney on this one. If we do bail them out there is close to no chance that the Big 3 will survive. They should be allowed to bankrupt so that they can re-organize under Chapter 11, shed onerous union obligations, and hopefully at some time in the future emerge as leaner and actually viable companies. If there are doubts about their abillity to survive Chapter 11, then they definately should not be another industry taking the money from the American taxpayer at gunpoint (via taxation).

That being said I do understand that the automotive industry is a vital component to our industrial base. I'd probably be more inclined to a Detroit bailout if we hadn't justed pissed away trillions to banks that aren't lending. Let them BK then, if needed step in with the socialist bailout citing national defense.

What a bunch of hypocrites on this thread.

Pointing fingers, don't bail them out, let them burn, let poorly run companies bail themselves out.

Wake the hell up!

Look at how poorly run the government is, they have the largest payroll in the world, they can raise your taxes when they need more money, ask for bailout money against the moral majority and do as they wish, but when you have the last remaining giants that actually produce something here in the USA, it's let them burn.

The Government produces nothing, it consumes. I agree that companies need to be profitable, but these days everything is upside down financially.

Why doesn't the government cut all pensions, health care, and it's entire staff by one half? Then we could lower all taxes across the board.

I say if corporations have to tighten their collective belt, so the government should as well, since it's tax base was based on a thriving economy.

You see this IMO is just another Red Herring, if the big 3 go under you can bet the rest of the country that far behind.


Hang on this is going to be the roughest ride you people have every been on.




[edit on 19-11-2008 by Realtruth]