GM going under

[RLLD 3,505]

As jerry alluded to, the time of the unions has passed, they are the new buggy-whips.....they were once integral to our society and provided many important advances, but now they must either evolve or die. They have become parasites to the companies and they are killing their hosts, eventually they will destroy these companies and be forced into ever more menial roles, and their standard of living will crash.......

[Blitzen 0]

As jerry alluded to, the time of the unions has passed, they are the new buggy-whips.....they were once integral to our society and provided many important advances, but now they must either evolve or die. They have become parasites to the companies and they are killing their hosts, eventually they will destroy these companies and be forced into ever more menial roles, and their standard of living will crash.......

 

I never once said I was pro-unions. I just don't see the unions as being the fundamental stumbling block. I think minimum wage is. Even if unions didn't exist, companies would still be hightailing it to Asia.

[Blitzen 0]

Sure it is. And if somehow you WERE successful, the effect would be a higher price of those goods for us.

 

Maybe. Free markets have a way of fixing these sorta things.

 

If you are thinking, say, communist USSR, I agree. Example of a capitalist society failing as such?

 

We have laws, OSHA, etc. protecting workers from unreasonable conditions. Unions made sense 75 years ago, they are unnecessary and detrimental now.

 

They shouldn't. Yes. It isn't.

 

HTH

 

All those laws protecting workers by forcing companies to give them decent working conditions are also raising the price of your goods. Do you want them gone too to be able to lower the cost of your big screen TV? If it is acceptable to have laws here to protect workers that result in the price of goods going up then why is it unreasonable to demand higher wages in Asia that would make the workers' lives better and also increase the price of goods?

 

You guys tried to install capitalist governments in South America to replace socialist governments there - you know those damn pinko governments that were looking to nationalize banks and companies. Those governments typically featured few people making a ton of money hell-bent on helping companies and a large plebe. How did those work out stability wise?

 

And again, I never said I was pro-unions.

[jerryskids 5,295]

ill take a wild guess and say Spartan Electronics.

Nope. Never heard of them. Must be a different industry.

[KSB2424 3,086]

What bothers me about the financial bailouts and the possible auto makers bail outs is just how un-capitalistic it is to their smaller competition. Let's take a smaller regional bank that did not make risky loans, that managed their business portfolio the right way, that did not pay their CEO's multi million dollar bonuses. In a free market these banks should prosper now as the huge ones that did it the "wrong way" falter. Now these smaller banks are not able reap the benefits of running their business sucessfully and will remain bottom feeders because the gov't will bail out the big ones.

 

Same with autos. Those businesses that were able to ajust to the changing market and ran their companies well will not jump ahead of the GM's and Fords of the world because the gov't will bail them out.

 

It is wrong on so many levels.

[vuduchile 1,941]

It's a terrible idea, but as others have said, they WILL be bailed out. When that happens, Ford will come running with their hand out too. Make no mistake. The unions have had a hand in killing this industry. However, this whole thing was fairly predictable. The automakers share as much blame for moving too slowly to modernize, and for not taking a harder stance with the unions long ago.

 

Let's take stock of what we've done as a country recently.

 

Bailed out Fannie and Freddie, and allowed the govt. to take control of them.

 

We're bailing out the banks, and will own stock in them. If those investements ever turn profitable, what do you think will happen with those profits? Will it be used to pay down the national debt? How about tax cuts for every American? Dream on.

 

We're bailing out AIG. Throwing more money down the drain IMO.

 

Next up: Bail out all the dooshbags and dooshbaguettes who took out 5 yr. Interest Only or ARM mortgages on homes they couldn't afford. I can't even begin to describe how focked up this is.

 

We continue to spend billions and spill needless blood supporting a war that never should've happened.

 

Every single one of these initiatives started as a well-intentioned response to a real or a perceived looming crisis. I used to think I wouldn't live to see the U.S. ruined. Now, I'm not so sure.

 

Congratulations. This is the society we created, and the govt. we put in place to run it.

 

Democrats = FAIL

 

Republicans = FAIL

 

Capatalism = FAIL

 

United States = FAIL

[Strike 4,050]

Note to those who keep bringing up China - The last time I checked it was the Japs that were putting a lot of pressure on our domestic automakers. Who here has bought a Chinese manufactured car recently?

[jerryskids 5,295]

Capatalism = FAIL

 

United States = FAIL

Capitalism didn't fail. Or perhaps more accurately, we as a country had implemented non-capitalistic policies which gave the artificial impression that businesses were doing fine.

[Dr.Grimm 0]

What bothers me about the financial bailouts and the possible auto makers bail outs is just how un-capitalistic it is to their smaller competition. Let's take a smaller regional bank that did not make risky loans, that managed their business portfolio the right way, that did not pay their CEO's multi million dollar bonuses. In a free market these banks should prosper now as the huge ones that did it the "wrong way" falter. Now these smaller banks are not able reap the benefits of running their business sucessfully and will remain bottom feeders because the gov't will bail out the big ones.

 

Same with autos. Those businesses that were able to ajust to the changing market and ran their companies well will not jump ahead of the GM's and Fords of the world because the gov't will bail them out.

 

It is wrong on so many levels.

POW!!!

[vuduchile 1,941]

Capitalism didn't fail. Or perhaps more accurately, we as a country had implemented non-capitalistic policies which gave the artificial impression that businesses were doing fine.

 

Dress it up however you want, but the United States' bastardized version of capitalism is a failure.

 

Can't get a job and support your family? That's ok. Taxpayers will help you with welfare and food stamps.

 

Didn't save for retirement? That's ok. We'll raise your social security payout. Your kids and grandkids will foot the bill. leaving them with nothing.

 

Can't afford that McMansion now? That's ok. Your taxpaying neighbors will bail you out. You can get that low, low interest rate you need, and we might even restructure the terms of your loan if you're paying more than 38% of your income toward your mortgage.

 

Bankers, Insurance Companies, Airlines, and Automakers can't manage your business, come up with an effective pricing strategy, take care of your employees so that unions don't run rampant? That's ok. Those same taxpayers you've been ripping off by selling them crapass products and services at outrageous prices will bail you out of the mess you created.

 

Does all this sound like a free market economy to you?

 

This country sucks. Sadly, there's no other place on earth I'd rather live.

[IGotWorms 3,383]

 

I love how the right-wing asshats in this thread try to blame GM's failure on union workers. You could say that GM's financial woes are the result of its complete and total lack of vision AT THE TOP. That's right, from executive officers who are pulling in tens of millions of dollars per year. THEY are the ones who continued to insist on pumping out gas guzzling SUVs and trucks, when it was obvious that the future requires lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles. Rather than do anything innovative (like invest heavily in alternative energy and fuel efficiency), GM just kept beligerently pumping out the same vehicles that everybody wanted during the mid-90s when gas was less than a buck a gallon.

 

But go ahead and blame it on the little guys. They shouldn't be getting so uppity anyway. Who do they think they are, asking for better wages while the guys at the top get paid millions to drive the company into the ground?

[vuduchile 1,941]

In the spirit of a free market economy, we geeks should determine the best ways to profit from this mess. There are investment plays to make here somewhere.

 

The obvious would be to buy stock in GM. I think someone suggested throwing a grand at this in another thread. I think that has some merit if you can afford it.

 

With the stock at $3.08, does this represent one of the biggest investment opportunities of our lifetimes, or is this company destined to fail?

 

My bet is that the stock will flirt with $1.00 in the next 6 months, but will be back over $20 within 2-3 years. I'm not ready to load up on this, but I would buy this stock in the $3-$4 range. (If I don't get laid off).

 

What are you doing now? Buying stocks on the cheap and holding? Keeping money in cash? Commodites? What's the smart play here?

[Strike 4,050]

 

I love how the right-wing asshats in this thread try to blame GM's failure on union workers. You could say that GM's financial woes are the result of its complete and total lack of vision AT THE TOP. That's right, from executive officers who are pulling in tens of millions of dollars per year. THEY are the ones who continued to insist on pumping out gas guzzling SUVs and trucks, when it was obvious that the future requires lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles. Rather than do anything innovative (like invest heavily in alternative energy and fuel efficiency), GM just kept beligerently pumping out the same vehicles that everybody wanted during the mid-90s when gas was less than a buck a gallon.

 

But go ahead and blame it on the little guys. They shouldn't be getting so uppity anyway. Who do they think they are, asking for better wages while the guys at the top get paid millions to drive the company into the ground?

 

Actually the unions had a lot to do with it. The average wage for a Toyota employee is something like $42/hour, for a GM employee it's in the range of $72-74. Therefore, the money for GM is in higher profit vehicles such as larger cars, SUV's, and full size trucks. Certainly there are a lot of other problems as well, not the least of which is that they should have done something about the unions a long time ago. But an almost double wage compared to it's competitors certainly has something to do with the issue.

[lagarzlebrew 0]

In the spirit of a free market economy, we geeks should determine the best ways to profit from this mess. There are investment plays to make here somewhere.

 

The obvious would be to buy stock in GM. I think someone suggested throwing a grand at this in another thread. I think that has some merit if you can afford it.

 

With the stock at $3.08, does this represent one of the biggest investment opportunities of our lifetimes, or is this company destined to fail?

 

My bet is that the stock will flirt with $1.00 in the next 6 months, but will be back over $20 within 2-3 years. I'm not ready to load up on this, but I would buy this stock in the $3-$4 range. (If I don't get laid off).

 

What are you doing now? Buying stocks on the cheap and holding? Keeping money in cash? Commodites? What's the smart play here?

 

That was me. I bought 365 shares today for a tad over 1K. I will hold it for a couple of years and see how I do, unless there is a sharp spike, in which case I will cash out. If I lose I lose, but my 401K is doing horrible, and this seems like a high reward, low risk move.

[jerryskids 5,295]

Dress it up however you want, but the United States' bastardized version of capitalism is a failure.

 

Can't get a job and support your family? That's ok. Taxpayers will help you with welfare and food stamps.

 

Didn't save for retirement? That's ok. We'll raise your social security payout. Your kids and grandkids will foot the bill. leaving them with nothing.

 

Can't afford that McMansion now? That's ok. Your taxpaying neighbors will bail you out. You can get that low, low interest rate you need, and we might even restructure the terms of your loan if you're paying more than 38% of your income toward your mortgage.

 

Bankers, Insurance Companies, Airlines, and Automakers can't manage your business, come up with an effective pricing strategy, take care of your employees so that unions don't run rampant? That's ok. Those same taxpayers you've been ripping off by selling them crapass products and services at outrageous prices will bail you out of the mess you created.

 

Does all this sound like a free market economy to you?

 

This country sucks. Sadly, there's no other place on earth I'd rather live.

I'm pretty sure that nothing in this post disagrees with a single thing I've ever posted here, so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me.

[Voltaire 4,573]

Actually the unions had a lot to do with it. The average wage for a Toyota employee is something like $42/hour, for a GM employee it's in the range of $72-74. Therefore, the money for GM is in higher profit vehicles such as larger cars, SUV's, and full size trucks. Certainly there are a lot of other problems as well, not the least of which is that they should have done something about the unions a long time ago. But an almost double wage compared to it's competitors certainly has something to do with the issue.

 

Toyota's plants are newe and has younger, current workers; GM OTOH has a whole fleet of retirees.

[itsbigmoni 1]

Theres one major thing i don't get about bailing out these companies. We keep hearing how these companies are too big to fail. Thats been repeated over and over. Why the fock is that happening. Something needs to change with companies that are too big to fail. Either we nationalize them as a matter of national security, or we let them fail. It makes no sense we're keeping companies around that are "too big to fail." First, when they keep hearing that, wont that lead to more irresponsible business management on their part? Knowing that they'll get bailed out, they can take more risks. And second, a lot of this seems like propaganda coming from the top. It seems like they wanna keep the status quo. They frame it in a way that makes it seem like they are looking out for us, but then this just keeps it at more of the same. Why not let them fail and let a company like Tesla expand? Why hasn't GM done anything like tesla? Its fast as fock so you wont have muscle heads complaining and its green.

 

But then again, we're just little minions living in fantasy land spouting off from the mouth without any knowledge about anything. Its kind of hard for me to form a strong opinion (prior paragraph not withstanding) because we know so little about how things work. From all the threads i'd say the only people who have decent experience with all of this kind of stuff are RLLD and to a lesser extent jerryskids. Other than that, it seems like we're all nobodies working regular desk jobs.

 

I dunno, something just seems off about this. If we were in their position, with their knowledge, would we feel differently? Are these execs economically smarter than us? Are they just protecting their own asses? I just dont like the notion of these companies being too big to failed, and on top of that, these companies merging and getting even bigger. I agree with what someone alluded to earlier. Businesses that made smart decisions are getting focked. Fremont Bank is an example of that. They didn't jump on the housing boom wagon and start shelling out cash left and right. Economic downturn is the time to make money. They were in prime position to increase their market share, yet big banks got bailed out and they couldn't take advantage.

[GettnHuge 1]

1st visit here

 

it's the unions fault

 

remember when the NHL finally hit rock bottom and the players realized how seriously bad the situation was and how

guaranteed contracts were killing it? The agreed to a 25% pay cut for every player. If the unions want this industry

to survive, they'll have to recognize how well they've had it and that it's their turn to act the same.

 

I remember about a decade ago when the gov't allowed drug makers to finally advertise on television. The automakers of

course had a greta prescrip drug plan. Well every employee rushed to their Dr to ask for all these new greta drugs they

see on tv. alluvasudden the automakers get shocked by billions in prescrip drug coverage bills every year. Do the unions

try to resolve it? course not

 

hth

 

also they might wanna reconsider who they support for president in the future as Osama's raising their taxes and closing

alleged loopholes for writing off debt will throttle the industry under whereas lower taxes and more drilling for cheaper fuel

will help it.

[supermike80 1,317]

k. #1, to the dunder heads on the bored, the autoworker does NOT make $70/hr. That's an all in wage rate including benefits etc.

The rate is closer to $26/hr. Still high, but they are NOT making 140K a year b4 OT.

 

I live in Michigan so the auto industry is the principal focus here. And while I want to see some help for them, I just question whether it will do any good. The industry is failing because their fundamentals are flawed. The gubbermint loans them money, doesn;t mean they will fix what put them in this spot in the first place. It's only a matter of time before it happens again.

 

A bankruptcy would allow the auto companies (I hope/think) to bust the unions. Get out of the thumb of the UAW, this is a great thing.

 

So I am torn.

 

Oh and, GM banking their entire future on the Volt electric car is a mistake that will seal the deal on their elimination. It's a massive mistake IMO.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

What bothers me about the financial bailouts and the possible auto makers bail outs is just how un-capitalistic it is to their smaller competition. Let's take a smaller regional bank that did not make risky loans, that managed their business portfolio the right way, that did not pay their CEO's multi million dollar bonuses. In a free market these banks should prosper now as the huge ones that did it the "wrong way" falter. Now these smaller banks are not able reap the benefits of running their business sucessfully and will remain bottom feeders because the gov't will bail out the big ones.

 

Same with autos. Those businesses that were able to ajust to the changing market and ran their companies well will not jump ahead of the GM's and Fords of the world because the gov't will bail them out.

 

It is wrong on so many levels.

 

Yeah. Aren't we the country that always bitches about how the Europeans subsidize their companies, like Airbus for example, and "make it impossible for American companies like Boeing compete?" Then we pull this sh!t?

 

I say let em fail. It will get ugly for a while, then somebody will buy the companies and its assets, and actually run it properly. Of course, it will be an asian, but oh well.

[Fighting 4 a Championship 0]

Oh and, GM banking their entire future on the Volt electric car is a mistake that will seal the deal on their elimination. It's a massive mistake IMO.

 

 

This is so true. My wife and I were shopping for cars in the last couple of weeks (she has a 40+ minute commute each way) and we were looking at the hybrid cars. Having the salesmen explain the system and how it works was funny. Toyota seems to have the best hybrid system, the GM system is stupid. It kicks in when the car is stopped and idling. Then when you start moving again it shuts off. The guy tried to explain how this system was superior to any other out there. I looked at the sticker on the window and said, but this one gets 5-10 mpg less than a similar Toyota model and he just went like he had no idea what the marketplace had out there.

 

GM is out of touch with reality, as are several other industries. If they can recover, it will take awhile, more time than I think they can survive, even with a gov't bailout.

[supermike80 1,317]

What bothers me about the financial bailouts and the possible auto makers bail outs is just how un-capitalistic it is to their smaller competition. Let's take a smaller regional bank that did not make risky loans, that managed their business portfolio the right way, that did not pay their CEO's multi million dollar bonuses. In a free market these banks should prosper now as the huge ones that did it the "wrong way" falter. Now these smaller banks are not able reap the benefits of running their business sucessfully and will remain bottom feeders because the gov't will bail out the big ones.

 

Same with autos. Those businesses that were able to ajust to the changing market and ran their companies well will not jump ahead of the GM's and Fords of the world because the gov't will bail them out.

 

It is wrong on so many levels.

 

Well, that logic is slightly flawed. You're right in one sense, the smaller competitive local credit union that manages its assets properly and "does the right things" doesn't get the gifts the big boys do. However the bogger boys employ a lot more people, pay a lot more in taxes, support a larger part of the community and have a much more severe impact on the economy if they fail. And don't say "well they should fail so the little guy can get bigger" That's nto gonna work. Point is the damage is done...now we have thousands of peoples lives at stake....we need to correct the stupidity going forward, but we also have some responsibility to protect our citizens. How far we go is the real question. I personally believe doing nothing isn't the right answer.

[pimptastic69 0]

How much of GM's problem is due to their finance division? Couldn't the gov't just bail that section out?

[Strike 4,050]

Well, that logic is slightly flawed. You're right in one sense, the smaller competitive local credit union that manages its assets properly and "does the right things" doesn't get the gifts the big boys do. However the bogger boys employ a lot more people, pay a lot more in taxes, support a larger part of the community and have a much more severe impact on the economy if they fail. And don't say "well they should fail so the little guy can get bigger" That's nto gonna work. Point is the damage is done...now we have thousands of peoples lives at stake....we need to correct the stupidity going forward, but we also have some responsibility to protect our citizens. How far we go is the real question. I personally believe doing nothing isn't the right answer.

 

There will be some short term pain. That's unfortunate. It will be more beneficial in the long run though. Companies need to learn that they need to be more responsible and not expect someone to come running every time they do stupid things. I also don't think it is the role of gov't to give my money to people who ran a company irresponsibly.

[supermike80 1,317]

There will be some short term pain. That's unfortunate. It will be more beneficial in the long run though. Companies need to learn that they need to be more responsible and not expect someone to come running every time they do stupid things. I also don't think it is the role of gov't to give my money to people who ran a company irresponsibly.

 

Yeah, easy to say it's unfortunate when you are not affected. It's also incredibly unrealistic.

I don't worry for the company, I worry for the father of three who got a job with said big company and will now lose his job, his home, his wife and children because of this so called "short term pain" (worst case scenario I realize)

 

We can do both..we can fix whats broken and still protect our fellow americans who through no fault of their own now are tied to an industry that is failing.

 

I can't sit there and watch my neighbor suffer and die because of this situation and then say to him..."well, it's unfortunate that you have some short term pain"

 

Whats the saying? When your neighbors house is on fire you don't haggle over the price of your hose.

 

Gonna sound like a bleeding heart liberal position here, and in some ways it is...and in most ways I am anything BUT...however we are in a different time....a unique time.

[Strike 4,050]

Yeah, easy to say it's unfortunate when you are not affected. It's also incredibly unrealistic.

I don't worry for the company, I worry for the father of three who got a job with said big company and will now lose his job, his home, his wife and children because of this so called "short term pain" (worst case scenario I realize)

 

We can do both..we can fix whats broken and still protect our fellow americans who through no fault of their own now are tied to an industry that is failing.

 

I can't sit there and watch my neighbor suffer and die because of this situation and then say to him..."well, it's unfortunate that you have some short term pain"

 

Whats the saying? When your neighbors house is on fire you don't haggle over the price of your hose.

 

Gonna sound like a bleeding heart liberal position here, and in some ways it is...and in most ways I am anything BUT...however we are in a different time....a unique time.

 

If you're so worried about your neighbor give him some of your money. But keep your hands out of my wallet, um kay?

[supermike80 1,317]

If you're so worried about your neighbor give him some of your money. But keep your hands out of my wallet, um kay?

 

Yeah well sorry but it doesn't work that way. This is a democracy and at times, things don't always go your way. Too bad so sad.

[Strike 4,050]

Yeah well sorry but it doesn't work that way. This is a democracy and at times, things don't always go your way. Too bad so sad.

 

Yeah, that bailout is really helping your neighbor right about now isn't it?

[supermike80 1,317]

Yeah, that bailout is really helping your neighbor right about now isn't it?

 

Hard to know. I don;t know where the economy would be if it didn't exist.

[RLLD 3,505]

There will be some short term pain. That's unfortunate. It will be more beneficial in the long run though. Companies need to learn that they need to be more responsible and not expect someone to come running every time they do stupid things. I also don't think it is the role of gov't to give my money to people who ran a company irresponsibly.

 

You make valid points.

 

Perhaps if GM was not paying what are oppressive labor costs they might be more competitive, labor costs are killing them as much as their shortsightedness.

 

If that father of three wants to make $72/hr to perform a menial repetitive task perhaps he is asking a bit much

 

I am sure the domestic textile industry would love to have a "do over" and rethink the value of a lesser paying job vs complete elimination of the position altogether.

[Dr.Grimm 0]

Don't forget about environmental regulations in this. It's like we are shooting ourseelves in the foot. We make ourselves follow these regulations, which increases cost, but none of the other countries have to follow the same rules, in any aspect of this be it regulations, safety, wages, etc....

[Captain Allen 0]

You make valid points.

 

Perhaps if GM was not paying what are oppressive labor costs they might be more competitive, labor costs are killing them as much as their shortsightedness.

 

If that father of three wants to make $72/hr to perform a menial repetitive task perhaps he is asking a bit much

 

I am sure the domestic textile industry would love to have a "do over" and rethink the value of a lesser paying job vs complete elimination of the position altogether.

 

 

Where the fock are you getting this $72/hr number from??? I guarantee you, there is no hourly operator in a manufacturing facility of the Big 3 in the US is making anywhere close to $72/hr. As a previous poster has said, this value is closer to an all-inclusive dollar amount including beneifits/pension funding/etc, not what these people are grossing per hour.

[jerryskids 5,295]

Where the fock are you getting this $72/hr number from??? I guarantee you, there is no hourly operator in a manufacturing facility of the Big 3 in the US is making anywhere close to $72/hr. As a previous poster has said, this value is closer to an all-inclusive dollar amount including beneifits/pension funding/etc, not what these people are grossing per hour.

It's still out of whack when compared to the fully loaded wage cost of, say, a Toyota plant.

[thetxstang 0]

An interesting perspective concerning the automotive bailout "crisis." It'll take just a minute to read.

 

GM Bailout

 

GM and Ford are once again begging at the doorstep of every honest, tax-paying American. Just two months ago, Congress gave the Detroit Three $25 billion dollars worth of bailout money, and now they want more. They say this time it’s different; this time, with only $50 billion, they can become profitable. The worst part is GM’s argument for the bailout: they say if the taxpayers don’t bail them out, it’ll spell horrible doom for the economy.

 

Now, I could go off on an economics lesson about how moving workers and resources from a less productive activity to various other more productive activities is a very good thing, and has great benefits for society. I could quote economists talking about how preserving jobs in unproductive business is actually a bad thing and hurts the economy. But people generally aren’t interested in stuff like that. So I’ll take it in another direction.

 

First off, GM’s trouble isn’t an industry-wide problem. Other auto makers are having difficulties, but they’re not asking for a handout of taxpayer’s money. For years, GM and Ford have been lagging behind their competitors. To put it in economist’s terms: they’ve been making cars that consumers don’t value as much as the cars made by their competitors. But instead of changing their cars or their way of doing business, they just spent their money on lobbyists. They tried to work the system to stay afloat. Companies like Honda and Toyota kept improving, making cars that consumers wanted, anticipating demand, while GM and Ford just… didn’t.

 

Secondly, 266,000 people is a lot of people. That’s a massive work force, but there are 9 other US companies that are have a bigger workforce than GM, and one of them is Wal-Mart. What if Wal-Mart asked for a handout from the US taxpayers? I doubt they would get the same amount of sympathy.

 

So what do we do? If I’m not part of the solution I’m part of the problem, right? Well, if we bailout Detroit again, $50 billion will only be the start. We’ll be locked-in to a partnership with a failing company, forced to “protect our investment” by giving more and more money to the sinking ship, but there will eventually come a point where it just won’t matter, and it’ll go under anyway.

 

So get it over with now. GM needs to file for bankruptcy, that’s all there is to it. Bankruptcy protection will get them out from under the thumb of the UAW, giving them a chance to really become competitive. GM could strip down and become a lean, mean, automaking machine, freed from all the red tape and bureaucratic nonsense that bogs it down now. But even if they don’t, even if GM fades into nothingness, that’s still a good thing. Those 266,000 GM workers and all the resources currently being used by GM in unproductive ways would be freed up. Those workers would be a valuable pool of employees for productive businesses, and the resources and buildings could be bought up and used by productive businesses. It would give a nice boost to our economy. But will it happen? Not bloody likely.

 

Linkaroo

[jerryskids 5,295]

An interesting perspective concerning the automotive bailout "crisis." It'll take just a minute to read.

Linkaroo

Amen brutha.

[thetxstang 0]

Something else that bothers me tremendously: There are other U.S. corporations far bigger than GM. One example would be Walmart. If Walmart, hypothetically, was on the brink of collapse, would the government proffer taxpayer money to bail them out as well? Somehow I don't think so.

 

And please don't tell me a Walmart collapse wouldn't have far-reaching implications. Can you fathom the workforce numbers that would be laid off and the resultant unemployment benefit submissions? Can you imagine the manufacturing contingent that would be affected?

 

The collective dynamics of this "crisis" can be argued, spun and dissected ad infinitum, but I simply don't buy some of the please-bail-us-out arguments GM is presenting. How about GM quit paying the top brass millions upon millions of $$$ each year. I shudder to think what their annual bonuses may be, or historically have been. How about they figure out how to modernize and become competitive again. How about they figure out how to manage their operations better, just as every other focking business entity has to.

[Strike 4,050]

Something else that bothers me tremendously: There are other U.S. corporations far bigger than GM. One example would be Walmart. If Walmart, hypothetically, was on the brink of collapse, would the government proffer taxpayer money to bail them out as well? Somehow I don't think so.

 

And please don't tell me a Walmart collapse wouldn't have far-reaching implications. Can you fathom the workforce numbers that would be laid off and the unemployment benefit submissions? Can you imagine that manufacturing contingent that would be affected?

 

The collective dynamics of this "crisis" can be argued, spun and dissected ad infinitum, but I simply don't buy some of the please-bail-us-out arguments GM is presenting. How about GM quit paying the top brass millions upon millions of $$$ each year. I shudder to think what their annual bonuses may be, or historically have been. How about they figure out how to modernize and become competitive again. How about they figure out how to manage their operations better, just as every other focking business entity has to.

 

WalMart is the ONLY US retailer that reported a profit last quarter. While I may not like some of Walmart's business practices and personally choose not to shop there, the bottom line is they are VERY efficient in both their purchasing process and in their HR process and it results in cheap merchandise to consumers. Consumers like cheap stuff. The big three auto manufacturers are woefully inefficient, resulting in bloated prices for inferior vehicles than their competitors. Giving them 50 billion dollars isn't going to change that.

[GeminiV 0]

But even if they don’t, even if GM fades into nothingness, that’s still a good thing. Those 266,000 GM workers and all the resources currently being used by GM in unproductive ways would be freed up. Those workers would be a valuable pool of employees for productive businesses, and the resources and buildings could be bought up and used by productive businesses. It would give a nice boost to our economy.

 

This is what I think a lot of people are missing. People with valuable skills will find new jobs where they can have a more positive impact. Those that can't... well... we have welfare for them. Let's call it what it is. At least we'll be helping them directly rather than paying for executive bonuses.

[thetxstang 0]

Amen brutha.

 

[thetxstang 0]

The bottom line, and what chaps my hide the most is...

 

"Little people" being disorganized, irresponsible and mismanaging their financial lives =

 

Big corporations being disorganized, irresponsible and mismanaging finances = + + taxpayer $$$