U S Big 3 Auto

13567

Comments

  • South of Seattle
    South of Seattle West Seattle Posts: 10,724
    I have an Audi that is 6 years old and it is 10,000 miles between oil changes. I do it more frequently, but you can wait that long if you want.
    NERDS!
  • sponger
    sponger Posts: 3,159
    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.
    reigning champion

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    inmytree wrote:
    exactly...

    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.
  • MrBrian
    MrBrian Posts: 2,672
    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."

    http://www.suntimes.com/business/1268410,CST-FIN-curious09.article
  • beachdweller
    beachdweller Posts: 1,532
    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)

    Stop by:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    beachdweller wrote:
    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.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    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?
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    We should absolutely not bail them out.

    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    know1 wrote:
    We should absolutely not bail them out.

    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
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    mammasan wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    mammasan wrote:
    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.

    We have to stop pretending.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    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).
  • MrBrian
    MrBrian Posts: 2,672
    mammasan wrote:
    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.

    Will that happen? Maybe, but I dont think so.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    know1 wrote:
    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
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    MrBrian wrote:
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    mammasan wrote:
    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    mammasan wrote:
    And that's fine as well. I just see the cost of not helping them out to be far greater.

    The cost to whom?

Categories