In short, a bailout will not solve anything — just postpone things. If this goes through, Big Three executives will make decisions knowing that whatever happens, Uncle Sam will bail them out — just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the meantime, capital that could have gone to successful companies and programs will be directed toward companies with a history of using it badly.
Brooks goes on to use the phrase "progressive corporatism" to describe the situation of bailing out these companies. That's a great way to look at it; it's not capitalism or socialism, it's corporatism.
Anyway, I'm not for anyone losing their jobs, and Michigan's been kicked in the nuts enough times. However, I'm no fan of tossing money at people who have proven themselves incompetent.
Is there nobody who could step up and buy these companies? Would the auto industry be better off if GM went away and Chevy, GM, etc, were sold off and operated separately?
I don't want foreign ownership, but if it means people keep working, bring it on.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
After 1 year the difference goes from 2500 to well more than 5000 and just keeps increasing. You hit the nail on the head "You get what you paid for." Nobody wants to buy a used Ford.
I rented a Dodge Avenger for a week last year and loved every minute of driving that car. The handling, acceleration, interior, and even the stereo were more than satisfactory.
Of course, it's the mileage and the exterior that are the kicker. It's going to send you to the pump way too often and as far as appearances go, it's like a big rectangle on four wheels. I can't understand how anyone can seriously design a car to look like it's something that an Ogre beast would drive.
I rented a Dodge Avenger for a week last year and loved every minute of driving that car. The handling, acceleration, interior, and even the stereo were more than satisfactory.
Of course, it's the mileage and the exterior that are the kicker. It's going to send you to the pump way too often and as far as appearances go, it's like a big rectangle on four wheels. I can't understand how anyone can seriously design a car to look like it's something that an Ogre beast would drive.
I don't know much about that Dodge Avenger, so I did a car and driver search and found a comparison test they did, They threw it against the big names, accord, altima, camry.
They didnt seem to like it much.
--
2008 Dodge Avenger SXT
Seventh Place: The Buzzard-and-Baloney Brigade
It may look like a seven-eighths-scale Dodge Charger, but any other claim the Avenger may lay to its big brother’s well-earned reputation is a stretch.
What most damages the Avenger is its 173-hp, 2.4-liter “world engine,” built just down the road from us in Dundee, Michigan. It produces way too much racket—the noisiest in our group at full throttle and at 70-mph cruise. And the sound quality was alternately described as “walnuts in a Cuisinart,” “a weed whip with a loose spool,” and “four shot wheel bearings.”
What’s more, the engine felt overwhelmed in this package. To 60 mph, it was the second slowest in the group, and the four-speed transmission was often guilty of summoning the wrong gear. On backwoods roads, it was sometimes difficult to keep the powerplant on the boil, which at least mitigated the noise. The upside, however, was that the Avenger equaled the Camry for best observed fuel economy.
The Dodge lost points for its plasticky interior, with so many hard and angular edges that it resembled a gray Picasso. “There’s no common theme in here,” griped one editor. “Watch what your elbows bang into, because it’s gonna hurt.” With its squat, upright windshield and high beltline, the Avenger felt small, inside and out. And it wasn’t wholly an illusion. In this group, its back seat proved the most cramped for two adults, and the Dodge offered the least capacious trunk.
---
I don't know much about that Dodge Avenger, so I did a car and driver search and found a comparison test they did, They threw it against the big names, accord, altima, camry.
They didnt seem to like it much.
--
2008 Dodge Avenger SXT
Seventh Place: The Buzzard-and-Baloney Brigade
It may look like a seven-eighths-scale Dodge Charger, but any other claim the Avenger may lay to its big brother’s well-earned reputation is a stretch.
What most damages the Avenger is its 173-hp, 2.4-liter “world engine,” built just down the road from us in Dundee, Michigan. It produces way too much racket—the noisiest in our group at full throttle and at 70-mph cruise. And the sound quality was alternately described as “walnuts in a Cuisinart,” “a weed whip with a loose spool,” and “four shot wheel bearings.”
What’s more, the engine felt overwhelmed in this package. To 60 mph, it was the second slowest in the group, and the four-speed transmission was often guilty of summoning the wrong gear. On backwoods roads, it was sometimes difficult to keep the powerplant on the boil, which at least mitigated the noise. The upside, however, was that the Avenger equaled the Camry for best observed fuel economy.
The Dodge lost points for its plasticky interior, with so many hard and angular edges that it resembled a gray Picasso. “There’s no common theme in here,” griped one editor. “Watch what your elbows bang into, because it’s gonna hurt.” With its squat, upright windshield and high beltline, the Avenger felt small, inside and out. And it wasn’t wholly an illusion. In this group, its back seat proved the most cramped for two adults, and the Dodge offered the least capacious trunk.
---
I agree 100%, I was just pointing out things/issues they had, as in quality and so on. Which was the point.
In comparison to other cars in it's field/range...
It's true that the transmission was nothing to brag about.
However, I was able to extract quite a bit of fun out of that car by dropping it into a lower gear setting and then popping it into the standard drive setting after hitting 40 mph or so.
Interior is subjective, and I personally prefer the Avenger's interior stylings to the Camry's. The Camry's might be of a better quality, the Avenger's had a unique, almost gothic styling to it. I don't remember banging my elbows into anything.
Rear seating room? Not something I really consider.
I don't remember loud engine noise past 70 mph. That's probably due to the fact that the stereo was blasting the whole time.
I think the best thing that could happen to this country, in terms of automotive innovation, is to let those three companies crash and burn.
I know they employ tens of thousands of people, but letting these companies, who have done nothing more to this country that to whore itself out to the cheapest bidder (typically the American public) while supplying a sub-par product and destroying the environment...I say let the big 3 die!
This would only spawn a tremendous drive for REAL innovation, and REAL solutions.
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 agree, but it's going to hurt a lot of people that word hard, and what comes from death will take a while to develop.
I would have liked to see wall street fail and the auto industry get bailed out.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
Government aid to failing car makers should only be provided if the senior executives are fired, the boards of directors are discharged and replaced with public trustees and only fuel-efficient automobiles are made in the future, Ralph Nader said yesterday.
Nader told a packed house at the University of Waterloo that when the U.S. government bailed out Chrysler in 1979 the government demanded stock in return for the aid, and that stock was later sold by the treasury for $400 million.
"So that's the criteria (for a bail out) -- trusteeship, equity and the third is changing the nature of the product, making them fuel efficient and more compatible with safety and health," Nader said.
Nader was responding to a question following a speech he gave to mark the 35th anniversary of the Waterloo Public Interest Research Group (WPIRG). The group was started at the University of Waterloo about a year after a speech here by Nader in 1972.
Nader received a standing ovation after speaking and answering questions for more than two hours in the humanities theatre.
In the 36 years since his previous UW speech, it was quickly clear the famous crusader for justice and corporate accountability has lost none of the fire in his belly.
let the oil companies bail out the U S big three, think I heard this on Bill Maher Friday night. Not a bad idea, except what we need from the big 3 in the future will not be favorable for big oil.
Also, I think the unions have worn out their usefulness in the U S auto industry. Toyota plants in the U S are not union, and they treat and pay their workers fairly. UAW needs to go, or completely restructure, as an organization, also, alone with the automakers.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
let the oil companies bail out the U S big three, think I heard this on Bill Maher Friday night. Not a bad idea, except what we need from the big 3 in the future will not be favorable for big oil.
Also, I think the unions have worn out their usefulness in the U S auto industry. Toyota plants in the U S are not union, and they treat and pay their workers fairly. UAW needs to go, or completely restructure, as an organization, also, alone with the automakers.
Now that laws protect workers, Unions are clearly useless. Many years ago, when workers' rights were not guaranteed, the unions made sense, but now they are just a tool to extort the companies they work for.
Cincinnati '03 Flooded venue!
Bridge School '06 Night 1 & 2
Venice '07 pummeled by the sleet!
Nijmegen '07
Werchter '07
April Fools ~ LA1
Now that laws protect workers, Unions are clearly useless. Many years ago, when workers' rights were not guaranteed, the unions made sense, but now they are just a tool to extort the companies they work for.
agreed, I work for a large hotel chain, and we have less than 10% unionized because we provide a great work environment, opportunity, benefits, and pay. Unions really don't have much of an avenue to approach our employees with, but they still try.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
Now that laws protect workers, Unions are clearly useless. Many years ago, when workers' rights were not guaranteed, the unions made sense, but now they are just a tool to extort the companies they work for.
Unions are clearly not useless. Law protects workers from very serious attacks on their rights, not their everyday conditions. Actually the problem is the low number of unionized workers - a union should be used for discussion with other bodies to find compromise. In the (normally) rare cases compromise is impossible than pressure is made by the union and the bigger the union the higher the chances that pressure will work. It may seem completely unfair in a country where less than 20% of the workers are in a union but imagine if 80% or more (including the ceo's and other high executives) had memberships in different unions. Your working conditions would actually be negociated properly and in a much more democratic fashion. Real representative bodies could work out what is the best compromise for everyone. I can't remember if it's in Denmark or Sweden but they have very high number of unionized workers and it seems to work pretty well.
The problem is not the unions, the problem is a small group of persons have way too much power. Be it the UAW, or the CEO's at the top of the corporations, neither represent the majority's will.
I think the best thing that could happen to this country, in terms of automotive innovation, is to let those three companies crash and burn.
I know they employ tens of thousands of people, but letting these companies, who have done nothing more to this country that to whore itself out to the cheapest bidder (typically the American public) while supplying a sub-par product and destroying the environment...I say let the big 3 die!
This would only spawn a tremendous drive for REAL innovation, and REAL solutions.
I was watching the hearings today with the CEOs from the Big 3 and the Senate committee, and basically the big 3 keep saying if they aren't bailed out and they do crash and burn then the economic downfall to the U.S. would be enormous. Basically if the plants shut down than so will all the other companies that do business with them (parts, accessories, etc) which would make the U.S. unemployment rate go to 10%. This seems to be their only card or threat at the moment if they don't get this bailout plan, which makes me wonder if this was a constant thought in their minds. I wonder if they thought, "Hey, we can fuck up as much as we want. What are they gonna do? Let the big 3 auto companies fold? That would be economic suicide."
Some of the Senator's questions were interesting. One asked, "Well why do we need 3 U.S. auto companies? Why don't we go with 2 or 1?" Also, all of the senators pretty much agreed that if the auto companies do get this bailout, the they will be back again for more money. One of the Senators asked, "If we do give you this bailout, can you promise to never return to us for another bailout?" To which the GM CEO said, "Can you promise the economy will turn around?" Also, when asked why the amount of 25 billion was requested, none of the CEOs had a good response.
One senator made a good point. He basically said every time the government has made a deal with the Big 3 auto companies, the government has been fucked over. In the 70's with the gas crisis the government asked for smaller more fuel efficient cars, and the Big 3 made SUVs. During the Clinton administration they made deals to work on alternative fuel cars, and when Clinton left office the Big 3 dropped that kind of development, which is why they are basically 7 years behind Japan now.
My roommate's dad is an executive at GM and their government liason. So I may be biased...
But CNN said today that if the Big 3 go bankrupt, unemployment in the country will hit at least 10%!
That in itself convinces me.
And we have already approved 700 fucking billion dollars for banks... why not use 25 of it for car companies, why do the banks deserve it and not the Big 3?
All the rusted signs, we ignore throughout our lives, choosing the shiny ones instead...
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
let the auto industry fail. if they can't deliver a product worth buying they have no business being in business.
we don't want cars and trucks and SUV's that get 12 MPG. with the technology available they can do better than that. Since they haven't, fuck em, why should we as tax payers, after already deciding (by not buying their products) have to ensure their survival?
This is absurd already. No more bailouts of any kind. "Too big to fail" is bullshit. Every company has control over their size, and shouldn't allow themselves to grow to the point where they become too cumbersome to run. At this point, any corporation with any amount of influence is going to try this strategy, of asking Uncle Sam and ultimately those of us who pay taxes to bail them out. What's the worst that can happen? They get turned down? Waste a few hours of Congress' super-precious time?
This is absurd already. No more bailouts of any kind. "Too big to fail" is bullshit. Every company has control over their size, and shouldn't allow themselves to grow to the point where they become too cumbersome to run. At this point, any corporation with any amount of influence is going to try this strategy, of asking Uncle Sam and ultimately those of us who pay taxes to bail them out. What's the worst that can happen? They get turned down? Waste a few hours of Congress' super-precious time?
FUCK THIS BULLSHIT.
I don't know whether a bailout is a good idea or not. But it is not this simple. If no bailout leads to $200 billion (a number I've seen tossed around, probably inflated) in lost tax revenue it may be a reasonable investment for the taxpayers.
I don't know whether a bailout is a good idea or not. But it is not this simple. If no bailout leads to $200 billion (a number I've seen tossed around, probably inflated) in lost tax revenue it may be a reasonable investment for the taxpayers.
The Big 3 received a similar size loan from the government not to long ago to help them move towards manufactoring more energy efficient vehicles. Why not use that money to get them through the tough times while they restructure.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Comments
Brooks goes on to use the phrase "progressive corporatism" to describe the situation of bailing out these companies. That's a great way to look at it; it's not capitalism or socialism, it's corporatism.
Anyway, I'm not for anyone losing their jobs, and Michigan's been kicked in the nuts enough times. However, I'm no fan of tossing money at people who have proven themselves incompetent.
Is there nobody who could step up and buy these companies? Would the auto industry be better off if GM went away and Chevy, GM, etc, were sold off and operated separately?
I don't want foreign ownership, but if it means people keep working, bring it on.
heheh good stuff!
Bridge School '06 Night 1 & 2
Venice '07 pummeled by the sleet!
Nijmegen '07
Werchter '07
April Fools ~ LA1
Of course, it's the mileage and the exterior that are the kicker. It's going to send you to the pump way too often and as far as appearances go, it's like a big rectangle on four wheels. I can't understand how anyone can seriously design a car to look like it's something that an Ogre beast would drive.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I don't know much about that Dodge Avenger, so I did a car and driver search and found a comparison test they did, They threw it against the big names, accord, altima, camry.
They didnt seem to like it much.
--
2008 Dodge Avenger SXT
Seventh Place: The Buzzard-and-Baloney Brigade
It may look like a seven-eighths-scale Dodge Charger, but any other claim the Avenger may lay to its big brother’s well-earned reputation is a stretch.
What most damages the Avenger is its 173-hp, 2.4-liter “world engine,” built just down the road from us in Dundee, Michigan. It produces way too much racket—the noisiest in our group at full throttle and at 70-mph cruise. And the sound quality was alternately described as “walnuts in a Cuisinart,” “a weed whip with a loose spool,” and “four shot wheel bearings.”
What’s more, the engine felt overwhelmed in this package. To 60 mph, it was the second slowest in the group, and the four-speed transmission was often guilty of summoning the wrong gear. On backwoods roads, it was sometimes difficult to keep the powerplant on the boil, which at least mitigated the noise. The upside, however, was that the Avenger equaled the Camry for best observed fuel economy.
The Dodge lost points for its plasticky interior, with so many hard and angular edges that it resembled a gray Picasso. “There’s no common theme in here,” griped one editor. “Watch what your elbows bang into, because it’s gonna hurt.” With its squat, upright windshield and high beltline, the Avenger felt small, inside and out. And it wasn’t wholly an illusion. In this group, its back seat proved the most cramped for two adults, and the Dodge offered the least capacious trunk.
---
The Honda wins...btw i'm guessing you had the V6?
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/sedans/2008_honda_accord_vs_nissan_altima_chevy_malibu_hyundai_sonata_toyota_camry_ford_fusion_dodge_avenger_comparison_test+page-2.html
Call me stubborn, but I'm not much into letting a magazine tell me what cars I should or shouldn't like.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I agree 100%, I was just pointing out things/issues they had, as in quality and so on. Which was the point.
In comparison to other cars in it's field/range...
It's true that the transmission was nothing to brag about.
However, I was able to extract quite a bit of fun out of that car by dropping it into a lower gear setting and then popping it into the standard drive setting after hitting 40 mph or so.
Interior is subjective, and I personally prefer the Avenger's interior stylings to the Camry's. The Camry's might be of a better quality, the Avenger's had a unique, almost gothic styling to it. I don't remember banging my elbows into anything.
Rear seating room? Not something I really consider.
I don't remember loud engine noise past 70 mph. That's probably due to the fact that the stereo was blasting the whole time.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I think the best thing that could happen to this country, in terms of automotive innovation, is to let those three companies crash and burn.
I know they employ tens of thousands of people, but letting these companies, who have done nothing more to this country that to whore itself out to the cheapest bidder (typically the American public) while supplying a sub-par product and destroying the environment...I say let the big 3 die!
This would only spawn a tremendous drive for REAL innovation, and REAL solutions.
I agree, but it's going to hurt a lot of people that word hard, and what comes from death will take a while to develop.
I would have liked to see wall street fail and the auto industry get bailed out.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Terry Pender
RECORD STAFF
WATERLOO
Government aid to failing car makers should only be provided if the senior executives are fired, the boards of directors are discharged and replaced with public trustees and only fuel-efficient automobiles are made in the future, Ralph Nader said yesterday.
Nader told a packed house at the University of Waterloo that when the U.S. government bailed out Chrysler in 1979 the government demanded stock in return for the aid, and that stock was later sold by the treasury for $400 million.
"So that's the criteria (for a bail out) -- trusteeship, equity and the third is changing the nature of the product, making them fuel efficient and more compatible with safety and health," Nader said.
Nader was responding to a question following a speech he gave to mark the 35th anniversary of the Waterloo Public Interest Research Group (WPIRG). The group was started at the University of Waterloo about a year after a speech here by Nader in 1972.
Nader received a standing ovation after speaking and answering questions for more than two hours in the humanities theatre.
In the 36 years since his previous UW speech, it was quickly clear the famous crusader for justice and corporate accountability has lost none of the fire in his belly.
http://news.therecord.com/article/444094
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081115/auto_bailout_gettelfinger.html
Bridge School '06 Night 1 & 2
Venice '07 pummeled by the sleet!
Nijmegen '07
Werchter '07
April Fools ~ LA1
Also, I think the unions have worn out their usefulness in the U S auto industry. Toyota plants in the U S are not union, and they treat and pay their workers fairly. UAW needs to go, or completely restructure, as an organization, also, alone with the automakers.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Now that laws protect workers, Unions are clearly useless. Many years ago, when workers' rights were not guaranteed, the unions made sense, but now they are just a tool to extort the companies they work for.
Bridge School '06 Night 1 & 2
Venice '07 pummeled by the sleet!
Nijmegen '07
Werchter '07
April Fools ~ LA1
agreed, I work for a large hotel chain, and we have less than 10% unionized because we provide a great work environment, opportunity, benefits, and pay. Unions really don't have much of an avenue to approach our employees with, but they still try.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
The problem is not the unions, the problem is a small group of persons have way too much power. Be it the UAW, or the CEO's at the top of the corporations, neither represent the majority's will.
I was watching the hearings today with the CEOs from the Big 3 and the Senate committee, and basically the big 3 keep saying if they aren't bailed out and they do crash and burn then the economic downfall to the U.S. would be enormous. Basically if the plants shut down than so will all the other companies that do business with them (parts, accessories, etc) which would make the U.S. unemployment rate go to 10%. This seems to be their only card or threat at the moment if they don't get this bailout plan, which makes me wonder if this was a constant thought in their minds. I wonder if they thought, "Hey, we can fuck up as much as we want. What are they gonna do? Let the big 3 auto companies fold? That would be economic suicide."
Some of the Senator's questions were interesting. One asked, "Well why do we need 3 U.S. auto companies? Why don't we go with 2 or 1?" Also, all of the senators pretty much agreed that if the auto companies do get this bailout, the they will be back again for more money. One of the Senators asked, "If we do give you this bailout, can you promise to never return to us for another bailout?" To which the GM CEO said, "Can you promise the economy will turn around?" Also, when asked why the amount of 25 billion was requested, none of the CEOs had a good response.
One senator made a good point. He basically said every time the government has made a deal with the Big 3 auto companies, the government has been fucked over. In the 70's with the gas crisis the government asked for smaller more fuel efficient cars, and the Big 3 made SUVs. During the Clinton administration they made deals to work on alternative fuel cars, and when Clinton left office the Big 3 dropped that kind of development, which is why they are basically 7 years behind Japan now.
IMO the big three need to be split up and become thirty. Remove "too big to fail" out of the equation.
But CNN said today that if the Big 3 go bankrupt, unemployment in the country will hit at least 10%!
That in itself convinces me.
And we have already approved 700 fucking billion dollars for banks... why not use 25 of it for car companies, why do the banks deserve it and not the Big 3?
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
They better do something soon.
a-n-t-i-t-r-u-s-t
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
word.
i think this would be a MAJOR part of any REAL solution to thie ENTIRE mess.
Apply this to the banks too.
ESPECIALLY the banks.
And i mean, REALLY break them up.
100 or 200 times over.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
we don't want cars and trucks and SUV's that get 12 MPG. with the technology available they can do better than that. Since they haven't, fuck em, why should we as tax payers, after already deciding (by not buying their products) have to ensure their survival?
This is absurd already. No more bailouts of any kind. "Too big to fail" is bullshit. Every company has control over their size, and shouldn't allow themselves to grow to the point where they become too cumbersome to run. At this point, any corporation with any amount of influence is going to try this strategy, of asking Uncle Sam and ultimately those of us who pay taxes to bail them out. What's the worst that can happen? They get turned down? Waste a few hours of Congress' super-precious time?
FUCK THIS BULLSHIT.
I don't know whether a bailout is a good idea or not. But it is not this simple. If no bailout leads to $200 billion (a number I've seen tossed around, probably inflated) in lost tax revenue it may be a reasonable investment for the taxpayers.
The Big 3 received a similar size loan from the government not to long ago to help them move towards manufactoring more energy efficient vehicles. Why not use that money to get them through the tough times while they restructure.