The only time i drive American cars is when I rent cars during traveling. My experience with mid-sized American cars at least is they have lots of plastic and cheap-looking instrumentation. They also have lots of blind spots and are not intelligently laid out in terms of reaching for a control and it being where you would expect it to be. They also rattle a lot and the road noise is a lot more than comparable European or Japanese cars. I am just calling it like it is, in my experience.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
The only time i drive American cars is when I rent cars during traveling. My experience with mid-sized American cars at least is they have lots of plastic and cheap-looking instrumentation. They also have lots of blind spots and are not intelligently laid out in terms of reaching for a control and it being where you would expect it to be. They also rattle a lot and the road noise is a lot more than comparable European or Japanese cars. I am just calling it like it is, in my experience.
Ergonomics, something the American car makers have no idea about.
The only time i drive American cars is when I rent cars during traveling. My experience with mid-sized American cars at least is they have lots of plastic and cheap-looking instrumentation. They also have lots of blind spots and are not intelligently laid out in terms of reaching for a control and it being where you would expect it to be. They also rattle a lot and the road noise is a lot more than comparable European or Japanese cars. I am just calling it like it is, in my experience.
Tell me about it, I just negociated northern Ohio in a gigantic land yacht of a rental Impala. I have no idea why they built that car in that manner. You can't see out of it, it has tiny mirrors, and it's just unwieldy. Why should my Toyota truck be a better driver than a rental car?
Maybe we should just all drive BMW's? They make them in South Carolina anyway, Kia just built a plant in Georgia. Hundaai (I have no idea) has a plant in Alabama. Mercedes has a plant in SC as well I believe. Nissan Titans are built in Mississippi and i think Toyota actually is assymbled in Detroit.
American car makers just desided to throw all thier weight behind SUV's. Ok. Live by it, die by it I guess.
I know that the german automakers may build a better driver, but as far as all around cars... there aren't many better in history than the Honda Accord.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
So should we bail out the big three U S auto makers? We've done it before, and yet they have never been run well. What will change if we bail them out this time?
The other side is losing that many more jobs during this economic crisis. Looks like another 240,000 lost in the last month.
Here's how I look at it. We bailed out the banks for the bad credit we might as well bail out the big 3 for they essentially became lending institutions themselves. Plus I have $1200 GM dollars built up on my credit card I don't want to lose:)
Tell me about it, I just negociated northern Ohio in a gigantic land yacht of a rental Impala. I have no idea why they built that car in that manner. You can't see out of it, it has tiny mirrors, and it's just unwieldy. Why should my Toyota truck be a better driver than a rental car?
Maybe we should just all drive BMW's? They make them in South Carolina anyway, Kia just built a plant in Georgia. Hundaai (I have no idea) has a plant in Alabama. Mercedes has a plant in SC as well I believe. Nissan Titans are built in Mississippi and i think Toyota actually is assymbled in Detroit.
American car makers just desided to throw all thier weight behind SUV's. Ok. Live by it, die by it I guess.
I know that the german automakers may build a better driver, but as far as all around cars... there aren't many better in history than the Honda Accord.
Land yacht. Love that term.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
And as to them throwing their money at SUV's, you are absolutely right. I don't know the numbers, but right before gas prices took off but when they were starting to crawl up, I remember reading an article about how US automakers were taking the gamble, and how their research showed that no matter what the gas prices were, "Americans want big, powerful cars!" So out they come with the bigger Yukons, the H3, etc.
Literally a year later, they were panicing and now the big advertising campaigns are "refuel America" etc. Cash back for gas. NOT buy better, more fuel efficient cars! But gimmicks.
As far as I am concerned, this was preventable by being innovative and forward thinking. Like so many other things, we dropped the ball.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
Tell me about it, I just negociated northern Ohio in a gigantic land yacht of a rental Impala. I have no idea why they built that car in that manner. You can't see out of it, it has tiny mirrors, and it's just unwieldy. Why should my Toyota truck be a better driver than a rental car?
Maybe we should just all drive BMW's? They make them in South Carolina anyway, Kia just built a plant in Georgia. Hundaai (I have no idea) has a plant in Alabama. Mercedes has a plant in SC as well I believe. Nissan Titans are built in Mississippi and i think Toyota actually is assymbled in Detroit.
American car makers just desided to throw all thier weight behind SUV's. Ok. Live by it, die by it I guess.
I know that the german automakers may build a better driver, but as far as all around cars... there aren't many better in history than the Honda Accord.
haha!...land yacht.
I tell you something about buying BMWs, the ones made in the US,Germany or South Africa. They all come with included service. for 4 or 5 years. Rotors, Oil,brakes, the works.
What a great incentive to buy from them, even forgetting the fact that they make nice cars. Audi also has that service plan.
I also agree, the Honda Accord is one the best cars ever built.
I tell you something about buying BMWs, the ones made in the US,Germany or South Africa. They all come with included service. for 4 or 5 years. Rotors, Oil,brakes, the works.
What a great incentive to buy from them, even forgetting the fact that they make nice cars. Audi also has that service plan.
I also agree, the Honda Accord is one the best cars ever built.
I've owned 3 BMWs and have always gotten terrific service and performance. You actually save money on oil services, etc., compared to comparably priced other cars.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
I've owned 3 BMWs and have always gotten terrific service and performance. You actually save money on oil services, etc., compared to comparably priced other cars.
Which Models?...
BMW cars also tend to also run about 10-15,000 miles between oil changes with the Synthetic oils. But that can infact go well past 20,000 miles without problems.
If something isn't done to bail out the Big 3, the government will end up paying out big dollars in the long-run anyway when all of those laid off employees start collecting unemployment and other social services.
I bought my very first brand new car in March of this year. I researched for months...I wanted a car that would get 30+ in the city, in the $15,000 range, with a 5 Speed and Cruise Control....
The Aveo was the only US maker fitting that criteria ...I didn't even bother to test drive that thing...I looked at the Dodge Caliber...the interior was cheap and crappy...
I'm VERY happy with my Honda Fit...
The funny thing is an aveo is just a rebranded suzuki. I test drove one before I bought my Fit (well the Pontiac Wave) and the Fit had way more options, and the Wave looked cheap outside and especially inside and didn't handle nearly as well and they were pretty much the exact same price.
General Motors (GM) said Friday that it had a $2.5 billion net loss in the third quarter, but burned through almost $5 billion in cash reserves, leaving it with $16.2 billion. The company, which on Oct. 24 said bankruptcy was out of the question, now says it could run out of cash by June. A GM bankruptcy, once it reverberates through suppliers, would mean a loss of 2.5 million jobs, said the independent Center for Automotive Research.
Ford Motor (F) also reported an alarming cash burn. But if there's a silver lining, it's that it's in better shape to withstand the downturn than GM. Analysts said Ford already has taken difficult and expensive steps, such as ramping up investments in fuel-efficient models. It reported a third-quarter loss of $129 million, but consumed $7.7 billion of reserves, leaving it with $18.9 billion.
GM said it has suspended buyout talks with Chrysler, which is owned by a private-equity firm seeking an exit strategy. A GM-Chrysler combination got poor advance reviews from market analysts.
Benson said Chrysler probably will be sold off in pieces to foreign buyers such as Nissan Motor (NSANY) or to Korean automakers, with its Jeep brand and minivans the most attractive operations. Chrysler "has almost nothing in the product pipeline," Benson said. "It has spent little on [research and development] the last couple of years and it might not have the horsepower to develop a new car on its own."
So 1 in 10 jobs in the U S are tied to the big three automakers, to let them fail will mean a depression I believe. With so many jobs tied to them, how can Bush not want to save them? I understand throwing more money at them is insanity, but I think them failing hurts the majority of Americans more than AIG and others fail.
I'm for and against saving them, it's such a freakin mess.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
So 1 in 10 jobs in the U S are tied to the big three automakers, to let them fail will mean a depression I believe. With so many jobs tied to them, how can Bush not want to save them? I understand throwing more money at them is insanity, but I think them failing hurts the majority of Americans more than AIG and others fail.
I'm for and against saving them, it's such a freakin mess.
Well, letting them fail leaves an enormous vaccum for someone else to come in and take advantage. These laborers will still be able to do thier jobs, they'll just be working for someone else.
The big 3 automakers have made really really poor executive decisons for the last 30+ years the same goes with domestic Airlines like Delta for example. Bailing out these executives is sending the wrong message and it's keeping a dead bloated unhealthy animal on life support.
Out of death, comes life or opportunity in this sense. Everything about the big 3 is absolutely inefficient and bloated.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Well, letting them fail leaves an enormous vaccum for someone else to come in and take advantage. These laborers will still be able to do thier jobs, they'll just be working for someone else.
The big 3 automakers have made really really poor executive decisons for the last 30+ years the same goes with domestic Airlines like Delta for example. Bailing out these executives is sending the wrong message and it's keeping a dead bloated unhealthy animal on life support.
Out of death, comes life or opportunity in this sense. Everything about the big 3 is absolutely inefficient and bloated.
I was wondering about that too. I get that the US needs car manufacturing and it is a huge part of their economy. But why does it have to be GM, Ford and Chrysler. I mean instead of giving billions to these terribly run companies, with tons of overpaid workers, why not give the money to say Honda or Toyota, or BMW and use it as an incentive to move a bunch of their operations to the US?
If they can't learn how to become competitive without this government safety net, then they are going to just become a black hole that we keep throwing money at while they continue to show a net loss.
Furthermore, I fully blame their union contracts as one of the biggest reasons they can't be competitive. If we do give them money, it should come with stipulations and one of those should be to get rid of the unions.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I was wondering about that too. I get that the US needs car manufacturing and it is a huge part of their economy. But why does it have to be GM, Ford and Chrysler. I mean instead of giving billions to these terribly run companies, with tons of overpaid workers, why not give the money to say Honda or Toyota, or BMW and use it as an incentive to move a bunch of their operations to the US?
It doesn't. It should be a company that wants to try and be competitive and not just a leech of our tax dollars.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If they can't learn how to become competitive without this government safety net, then they are going to just become a black hole that we keep throwing money at while they continue to show a net loss.
Furthermore, I fully blame their union contracts as one of the biggest reasons they can't be competitive. If we do give them money, it should come with stipulations and one of those should be to get rid of the unions.
Normally I would agree with you on this, but if any of the companies go under the consequences would be devastating. So many jobs are tied to the auto industry that it's collapse would cause unemployment to sky rocket and our economy would be hit hard.
I hate to say it but I think we need to bail them out. I think that the bail out should have some stipulations to it and shouldn't just be a blank check with no strings attached.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Normally I would agree with you on this, but if any of the companies go under the consequences would be devastating. So many jobs are tied to the auto industry that it's collapse would cause unemployment to sky rocket and our economy would be hit hard.
I hate to say it but I think we need to bail them out. I think that the bail out should have some stipulations to it and shouldn't just be a blank check with no strings attached.
So let's use the bailout money to pay unemployment, then. I want companies to come in who will be managed correctly and strive to be innovative and competitive.
We do not need to keep throwing good money at these dinosaurs filled with high paid executives and high paid union factory workers.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Normally I would agree with you on this, but if any of the companies go under the consequences would be devastating. So many jobs are tied to the auto industry that it's collapse would cause unemployment to sky rocket and our economy would be hit hard.
I hate to say it but I think we need to bail them out. I think that the bail out should have some stipulations to it and shouldn't just be a blank check with no strings attached.
Does the "auto industry" collapse simply because GM, Ford, and Chrysler go bust? Of course not.
If GM, Ford and Chrysler go bankrupt, people will still be buying just as many cars, and the companies that fill the gap will continue to need suppliers and supporting vendors to operate.
I don't think we should bail them out. They should go bankrupt or one of them should eat Chrystler.
I'd like to see GM and Ford survive with Chrystler going down. It's time. They have been run inefficiently and there current situation is 100% their management's fault. Yes, it will hurt the economy to have these firms fail. But, we need to allow the market to heal itself. Propping them up will not help demand. They will continue to ask for more and more funds. From what I heard last night, it costs $9 billion for GM to survive a day.... you willing to throw that over? More accurately, are you willing to fork over a bunch of loot just to have them ask for more in one month... and more the next month and so on?
The way I look at it, demand for cars has retrenched... no doubt. That said, it will rebound with the economy. Auto makers abroad would be naive to not attempt to buy-out one of these firms or atleast portions of it. Moreover, this is not contagion from housing. The auto issue is a reaction to a recession. The fact that these firms can't hold themselves afloat means they are inefficient. They should declare bankruptcy if it comes to it. But, the government should not get involved via bailouts. This doesn't have to do with housing.... which is the CAUSE of the problem. FIX THAT!
To use a sinking ship analogy....The government should be focusing on the CAUSE of the leakage (housing). Not bucketing out the overflowing water, in different parts of the ship (industries).
Normally I would agree with you on this, but if any of the companies go under the consequences would be devastating. So many jobs are tied to the auto industry that it's collapse would cause unemployment to sky rocket and our economy would be hit hard.
I hate to say it but I think we need to bail them out. I think that the bail out should have some stipulations to it and shouldn't just be a blank check with no strings attached.
If we bail them out, the question will then become, will the auto industry still make the same mistakes that got them into this mess in the first place?
They probably will.
Maybe it's best to let them go down, sure people lose their jobs, everything goes under. But I bet the masses will never allow such a thing to happen again, they will be aware. They will wake up. Perhaps it's time?
Unless as you say, not just give them a blank check. They will have to work out many issues.
So let's use the bailout money to pay unemployment, then. I want companies to come in who will be managed correctly and strive to be innovative and competitive.
We do not need to keep throwing good money at these dinosaurs filled with high paid executives and high paid union factory workers.
The problem is that many of the areas that would be affected by the job loss if these companies go under have no other industry to fall back on. It would absolutely destroy the economy of that area and affect people that don't even work for the auto industry. If there are no other jobs left in the area then these people have no future employment prospects. What happens to them after the unemployment runs out. Do we just let them slip through the cracks or do we expand the timeframe for receiving unemployment and for how long to we extend it?
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Does the "auto industry" collapse simply because GM, Ford, and Chrysler go bust? Of course not.
If GM, Ford and Chrysler go bankrupt, people will still be buying just as many cars, and the companies that fill the gap will continue to need suppliers and supporting vendors to operate.
We have to stop pretending.
No the whole industry will not go bust but there is no assurance that Honda, Toyota, etc... will open new plants in the US to replace the one's closed by GM, Ford and Chrysler. Like I said i don't like the idea of a bailout. It runs against everything I believe in, but sometimes we have to do things we don't like for the greater good. In my opinion this is one of those times.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
If we bail them out, the question will then become, will the auto industry still make the same mistakes that got them into this mess in the first place?
They probably will.
Maybe it's best to let them go down, sure people lose their jobs, everything goes under. But I bet the masses will never allow such a thing to happen again, they will be aware. They will wake up. Perhaps it's time?
Unless as you say, not just give them a blank check. They will have to work out many issues.
Will that happen? Maybe, but I dont think so.
Well this is where we, the electorate play our part, we have to force our representatives in Congress to include stipulations in the bail out.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
No the whole industry will not go bust but there is no assurance that Honda, Toyota, etc... will open new plants in the US to replace the one's closed by GM, Ford and Chrysler.
Who suggested such an assurance? Who even suggested that Honda, Toyota or others should open new plants in the US?
Like I said i don't like the idea of a bailout. It runs against everything I believe in, but sometimes we have to do things we don't like for the greater good. In my opinion this is one of those times.
That's perfectly fine -- bailout whomever you'd like to bailout based on your opinions. But you've just said the magic words -- "greater good" -- and I have absolutely no interest in playing along with that.
That's perfectly fine -- bailout whomever you'd like to bailout based on your opinions. But you've just said the magic words -- "greater good" -- and I have absolutely no interest in playing along with that.
And that's fine as well. I just see the cost of not helping them out to be far greater.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Comments
Ergonomics, something the American car makers have no idea about.
Tell me about it, I just negociated northern Ohio in a gigantic land yacht of a rental Impala. I have no idea why they built that car in that manner. You can't see out of it, it has tiny mirrors, and it's just unwieldy. Why should my Toyota truck be a better driver than a rental car?
Maybe we should just all drive BMW's? They make them in South Carolina anyway, Kia just built a plant in Georgia. Hundaai (I have no idea) has a plant in Alabama. Mercedes has a plant in SC as well I believe. Nissan Titans are built in Mississippi and i think Toyota actually is assymbled in Detroit.
American car makers just desided to throw all thier weight behind SUV's. Ok. Live by it, die by it I guess.
I know that the german automakers may build a better driver, but as far as all around cars... there aren't many better in history than the Honda Accord.
Here's how I look at it. We bailed out the banks for the bad credit we might as well bail out the big 3 for they essentially became lending institutions themselves. Plus I have $1200 GM dollars built up on my credit card I don't want to lose:)
Land yacht. Love that term.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026_pf.html
Literally a year later, they were panicing and now the big advertising campaigns are "refuel America" etc. Cash back for gas. NOT buy better, more fuel efficient cars! But gimmicks.
As far as I am concerned, this was preventable by being innovative and forward thinking. Like so many other things, we dropped the ball.
haha!...land yacht.
I tell you something about buying BMWs, the ones made in the US,Germany or South Africa. They all come with included service. for 4 or 5 years. Rotors, Oil,brakes, the works.
What a great incentive to buy from them, even forgetting the fact that they make nice cars. Audi also has that service plan.
I also agree, the Honda Accord is one the best cars ever built.
I've owned 3 BMWs and have always gotten terrific service and performance. You actually save money on oil services, etc., compared to comparably priced other cars.
Which Models?...
BMW cars also tend to also run about 10-15,000 miles between oil changes with the Synthetic oils. But that can infact go well past 20,000 miles without problems.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
The funny thing is an aveo is just a rebranded suzuki. I test drove one before I bought my Fit (well the Pontiac Wave) and the Fit had way more options, and the Wave looked cheap outside and especially inside and didn't handle nearly as well and they were pretty much the exact same price.
Ford Motor (F) also reported an alarming cash burn. But if there's a silver lining, it's that it's in better shape to withstand the downturn than GM. Analysts said Ford already has taken difficult and expensive steps, such as ramping up investments in fuel-efficient models. It reported a third-quarter loss of $129 million, but consumed $7.7 billion of reserves, leaving it with $18.9 billion.
GM said it has suspended buyout talks with Chrysler, which is owned by a private-equity firm seeking an exit strategy. A GM-Chrysler combination got poor advance reviews from market analysts.
Benson said Chrysler probably will be sold off in pieces to foreign buyers such as Nissan Motor (NSANY) or to Korean automakers, with its Jeep brand and minivans the most attractive operations. Chrysler "has almost nothing in the product pipeline," Benson said. "It has spent little on [research and development] the last couple of years and it might not have the horsepower to develop a new car on its own."
http://www.suntimes.com/business/1268410,CST-FIN-curious09.article
I'm for and against saving them, it's such a freakin mess.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Well, letting them fail leaves an enormous vaccum for someone else to come in and take advantage. These laborers will still be able to do thier jobs, they'll just be working for someone else.
The big 3 automakers have made really really poor executive decisons for the last 30+ years the same goes with domestic Airlines like Delta for example. Bailing out these executives is sending the wrong message and it's keeping a dead bloated unhealthy animal on life support.
Out of death, comes life or opportunity in this sense. Everything about the big 3 is absolutely inefficient and bloated.
I was wondering about that too. I get that the US needs car manufacturing and it is a huge part of their economy. But why does it have to be GM, Ford and Chrysler. I mean instead of giving billions to these terribly run companies, with tons of overpaid workers, why not give the money to say Honda or Toyota, or BMW and use it as an incentive to move a bunch of their operations to the US?
If they can't learn how to become competitive without this government safety net, then they are going to just become a black hole that we keep throwing money at while they continue to show a net loss.
Furthermore, I fully blame their union contracts as one of the biggest reasons they can't be competitive. If we do give them money, it should come with stipulations and one of those should be to get rid of the unions.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It doesn't. It should be a company that wants to try and be competitive and not just a leech of our tax dollars.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Normally I would agree with you on this, but if any of the companies go under the consequences would be devastating. So many jobs are tied to the auto industry that it's collapse would cause unemployment to sky rocket and our economy would be hit hard.
I hate to say it but I think we need to bail them out. I think that the bail out should have some stipulations to it and shouldn't just be a blank check with no strings attached.
So let's use the bailout money to pay unemployment, then. I want companies to come in who will be managed correctly and strive to be innovative and competitive.
We do not need to keep throwing good money at these dinosaurs filled with high paid executives and high paid union factory workers.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Does the "auto industry" collapse simply because GM, Ford, and Chrysler go bust? Of course not.
If GM, Ford and Chrysler go bankrupt, people will still be buying just as many cars, and the companies that fill the gap will continue to need suppliers and supporting vendors to operate.
We have to stop pretending.
I'd like to see GM and Ford survive with Chrystler going down. It's time. They have been run inefficiently and there current situation is 100% their management's fault. Yes, it will hurt the economy to have these firms fail. But, we need to allow the market to heal itself. Propping them up will not help demand. They will continue to ask for more and more funds. From what I heard last night, it costs $9 billion for GM to survive a day.... you willing to throw that over? More accurately, are you willing to fork over a bunch of loot just to have them ask for more in one month... and more the next month and so on?
The way I look at it, demand for cars has retrenched... no doubt. That said, it will rebound with the economy. Auto makers abroad would be naive to not attempt to buy-out one of these firms or atleast portions of it. Moreover, this is not contagion from housing. The auto issue is a reaction to a recession. The fact that these firms can't hold themselves afloat means they are inefficient. They should declare bankruptcy if it comes to it. But, the government should not get involved via bailouts. This doesn't have to do with housing.... which is the CAUSE of the problem. FIX THAT!
To use a sinking ship analogy....The government should be focusing on the CAUSE of the leakage (housing). Not bucketing out the overflowing water, in different parts of the ship (industries).
If we bail them out, the question will then become, will the auto industry still make the same mistakes that got them into this mess in the first place?
They probably will.
Maybe it's best to let them go down, sure people lose their jobs, everything goes under. But I bet the masses will never allow such a thing to happen again, they will be aware. They will wake up. Perhaps it's time?
Unless as you say, not just give them a blank check. They will have to work out many issues.
Will that happen? Maybe, but I dont think so.
The problem is that many of the areas that would be affected by the job loss if these companies go under have no other industry to fall back on. It would absolutely destroy the economy of that area and affect people that don't even work for the auto industry. If there are no other jobs left in the area then these people have no future employment prospects. What happens to them after the unemployment runs out. Do we just let them slip through the cracks or do we expand the timeframe for receiving unemployment and for how long to we extend it?
No the whole industry will not go bust but there is no assurance that Honda, Toyota, etc... will open new plants in the US to replace the one's closed by GM, Ford and Chrysler. Like I said i don't like the idea of a bailout. It runs against everything I believe in, but sometimes we have to do things we don't like for the greater good. In my opinion this is one of those times.
Well this is where we, the electorate play our part, we have to force our representatives in Congress to include stipulations in the bail out.
Who suggested such an assurance? Who even suggested that Honda, Toyota or others should open new plants in the US?
That's perfectly fine -- bailout whomever you'd like to bailout based on your opinions. But you've just said the magic words -- "greater good" -- and I have absolutely no interest in playing along with that.
And that's fine as well. I just see the cost of not helping them out to be far greater.
The cost to whom?