We're Agreeing Too Much!

[Rensa]

There's something terribly wrong with the War Room, guys! We're Agreeing Too Much. We need to go forth amongst the interwebz and find controversial news to verbally pummel each other with! It feels eerie being so conciliatory all the time.

[Tanooki]

Aww shaddup you know nothing.

[MR EPIC]

In a time when the economy is in shambles, the future has been in doubt and gas prices were at an all-time high, I think people just want to get along and find some common ground for once. Much like the 70s I think we'd all like to just smoke some bud and talk about peace love and unity brother. :)

[Rensa]

Aww shaddup you know nothing.
Screw youse all! :P

[Smokey]

In a time when the economy is in shambles, the future has been in doubt and gas prices were at an all-time high, I think people just want to get along and find some common ground for once. Much like the 70s I think we'd all like to just smoke some bud and talk about peace love and unity brother. :)

Nuh-uh.

[MikeWolfskin]

In a time when the economy is in shambles, the future has been in doubt and gas prices were at an all-time high, I think people just want to get along and find some common ground for once. Much like the 70s I think we'd all like to just smoke some bud and talk about peace love and unity brother. :)

Dead truth brother.

[Smokey]

^Nuh-uh.

[Lizzaroni]

There should not be an auto-industry bailout.

[virion]

In a time when the economy is in shambles, the future has been in doubt and gas prices were at an all-time high, I think people just want to get along and find some common ground for once. Much like the 70s I think we'd all like to just smoke some bud and talk about peace love and unity brother. :)

wasn't that the 60's? summer of love '69? acid and hendrix?

[Tanooki]

Damn right lizz. Let em fail. It's the damn unions fault ultimately there with their industry choking tactics that have driven up costs so high and benefits so high too that the auto industry can't afford them AND making cars that are valued today at a level comparable to the other nations who make cars too and that's why they fail. The UAW should be severely punished right along side of the American auto industry because the car people had no balls to stand up to those turds, and the union douchebags well...does anyone deserve $35/hr to put 2 bolts in a door to attach the door hinge to the body? (This is a real figure at the Ford plants in town here I kid you not.)

[virion]

^he is correct.. the pensions and salaries are unbelievable.. nice for the low level laborers that saved their money. but large in part is the auto industry having no real export income and also having to many lines of cars that aren't selling.

[Tanooki]

You want another factual laugh? Ford actually has one of the most fuel economic cars on the road, it's just not going to be sold stateside. They have this Ford Festiva out this year in europe that runs on clean diesel that gets over 60mpg on a standard 4cylinder engine. This new clean diesel engine burns the standard crap another way so cleanly it makes normal gas look awful and classic dirty diesel as nasty as some 1900s coal burning factory. :)

They refuse to sell it here because there aren't enough car style diesel pumps in the states is the claim. This is factually crap because all stations have at least 1 pump. So it's not that the US car companies can't do it, they won't. We should perhaps ask Ford why this is so. Perhaps something the UAW doesn't like about it is that the engines are made currently only in Britain so they won't get some cut out of it. (Awww...)

[MikeWolfskin]

There should not be an auto-industry bailout.

Right and we should not Bailout American car company’s like GMC and Ford because the alternative is much better, huh (Sarcasm) You do understand that no bail in that case means the loss of American cars, which means every vehicle will become out of state, which in turns means prices on cars go up even more in a very bad economy, which means less people on the road, which means less gas uses, which mean less cash flowing in the economy, which in turn means monopoly on vehicles, right? I don’t think you get how many peoples jobs are on the line, in a very already bad economy where people need jobs in American the most! The economy is worst then has been over in over 23 years! Yeah I may not like the bail idea completely but I’ll be damned if they don’t give the car company a very much needed makes sense for everyone, bail out.

[Lizzaroni]

Wow I am not even sure where to begin with that post.

[MikeWolfskin]

Wow I am not even sure where to begin with that post.

You have to ask your self if you care about are vehicle prices, our techs jobs, are the America car. Saying no to a bail out means the loss of America car company's like ford who have been with us forever.

However we can place all the fault on Bush for giving out 7 Billion cash bail out to wall street of all things, right before new administration comes in. Bush is one who started this bail out bull **** live with it.

[Lizzaroni]

You have to ask your self if you care about are vehicle prices, our techs jobs, are the America car. Saying no to a bail out means the loss of America car company's like ford who have been with us forever.
Uh (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081118150528.aspx), no? (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081117110306.aspx)

I mean, how you connect the Big Three to all of our tech jobs, absurd price increases, etc etc I really do not know. Similarly, you're acting as if the fact that Ford has been around for a long time justifies keeping it around for an even longer time - nevermind the fact that it is has been propped up for some time now, which is part of the reason why they're in this bind to begin with (such help very much cushioned the incentives for business to do well. That is, what is the point in taking care of your company when you can regularly rely on the government (read: taxpayers) to foot the bill?)

[MikeWolfskin]

Your still not getting it, the removal of this many American vehicle company's will in turn lead to a monopoly on cars and vehicle price in the automobile industry.

The removal of there car plaints will cost them more to shut down the plaints then keep them up and ruining. Keeping them up will also keep peolpe there jobs who are Techs, shutting them down will cost peolpe there jobs as well as remove the possibility of future jobs in a very bad economy that needs jobs more then ever.

Do you see how many less vehicles would be on the road if those company's shut down? It's a bad choice to let a company that helped get cars on the road go under, let peolpe lose more jobs and have nothing but import vehicles at ever higher prices because of it.

Sorry I like the vehicles in our world to be mixed for fail good business compassion. We already have to pay taxes this is just making a choice of where it goes. One that critical to if you or I or peolpe will have jobs let alone be on the road.

I'm not one to stick up for the big business ever, but in this one case I do.

[Smokey]

There should not be an auto-industry bailout.

Damn right lizz. Let em fail. It's the damn unions fault ultimately there with their industry choking tactics that have driven up costs so high and benefits so high too that the auto industry can't afford them AND making cars that are valued today at a level comparable to the other nations who make cars too and that's why they fail. The UAW should be severely punished right along side of the American auto industry because the car people had no balls to stand up to those turds, and the union douchebags well...does anyone deserve $35/hr to put 2 bolts in a door to attach the door hinge to the body? (This is a real figure at the Ford plants in town here I kid you not.)

^he is correct.. the pensions and salaries are unbelievable.. nice for the low level laborers that saved their money. but large in part is the auto industry having no real export income and also having to many lines of cars that aren't selling.

Too much agreement. Mike's got the right idea here (ironically so, considering he agreed with Epic earlier:hmm:).

[Tanooki]

Mike is nuts if he thinks you'll get a monopoly if the big 3 of this nation got slaughtered (reasonably speaking they'd probably all have to merge to live if that would even do it.) They maybe the American makers, but the Japanese, Koreans, and a bit with the Germans do some work in the states too (Germans more so just over literally the border into Mexico.) A monopoly would be one car maker period, and there's plenty. The problem here is they DO need to fail, that or by some means have the UAW forced out or forced to cooperate. Those jerks add over $2000 to the price of an american car over the Japanese and Korean models of the same make/type. That crap is what you get with those $35/hr jobs ratcheting on a pair of bolts to put a door on a car frame in the factory and it's insulting. The other guys still pay very high for what is done, but they regulated the UAWs ass and forced them to play ball or suffer for it (tossed out I'd imagine as unions aren't required by law thankfully.) The US car makers bluntly put are pussies. They refuse to do anything that'll offend the precious UAW and they walk all over them and have forced this situation as they choke so much of their funds and any profit that may come along they can't reinvest into other tech and things to drive costs down and quality up.

[Smokey]

I thought the foreign auto makers just didn't deal with the UAW period, for better or worse.

[Rensa]

Phew... I was starting to feel a bit dizzy there, but I'm all good now ;)

[Tanooki]

Smokey perhaps they don't, I don't know their situation completely with unions and so on. I just am familiar with the UAW on american autos since this is a Ford town here bigtime (2 large plants.) The UAW has ruined the american auto industry and is damaging the economy now on the whole for their own personal gains at the higher levels (teamsters/bosses.)

[virion]

i say we throw away all unions. unions don't do **** for me. i'm at a company right now where the union just got us a new contract that was a joke. and they want to persuade people to join the union by saying the company can fire you at any time for any reason.. when it's just a scare tactic. most companies for the most part will follow their procedures. i'm just happy now that most states are right to work.

[Lizzaroni]

Letting the big three come to terms with the market is a necessity that I assure you will not propel us into a car monopoly, given that there are more than three auto companies out there.

And I don't mean to supply really short answers; it's just that your Chicken Little claims are really absurd and I'm not sure how to seriously address them.

[Rorshach]

*sigh*

Fine. Since most of the people on these forums are quite liberal, I'll change my normally moderate stance and go conservative...

Also, I think it's interesting that Rensa was the one to post this. Considering that he's one of the most agreeable and likable members.

[Tanooki]

You're right, it's about 66% or so lib here. Liz is somewhere in the libertarian/anarchy area with things...I'm moderate but when it's the dollars I go right which is why I said let them burn and let the UAW thugs go with them.

Virion that doesn't surprise me. Are you wondering why during the presidential election McCain would try and roast in certain states Obama and the DNC for their love of 'card check?' Card check basically allows asswipes like you explained of there go deeper into scare tactics. Now they can only just do what you said, imagine if you had them checking your voting card and doing whatever they can legally or gray area so to make you vote a 'check' they like on your 'card?' This is something the thugs are going to get in the next year or two when the congress gets around to it as Obama won't stop it. You think the unions suck now, wait for that, then they can do that crap and knock on any industries door and force a 'card' ballot legally to get them into everywhere else too.

The union thug was right though, companies can fire you at any time is true, and if anything the unions do give that bit of security because if they tried to take out someone the union will go to bat for you to the extreme of an outright strike. Unions allow for morons to keep jobs and keep them at a very overpaid and overprotected rate.

[Smokey]

Smokey perhaps they don't, I don't know their situation completely with unions and so on. I just am familiar with the UAW on american autos since this is a Ford town here bigtime (2 large plants.) The UAW has ruined the american auto industry and is damaging the economy now on the whole for their own personal gains at the higher levels (teamsters/bosses.)

I know for a fact that they aren't in the Japanese auto industry. With benefits and everything, Ford auto workers make $71 an hour. Workers at the Toyota plant in Tennessee make $47 an hour. The UAW has definitely jacked things up, and they more than anyone are responsible for this garbage. The UAW doesn't even have a lot of people working in the union that have anything to do with the auto industry.

i say we throw away all unions. unions don't do **** for me. i'm at a company right now where the union just got us a new contract that was a joke. and they want to persuade people to join the union by saying the company can fire you at any time for any reason.. when it's just a scare tactic. most companies for the most part will follow their procedures. i'm just happy now that most states are right to work.

Exactly. The age of the union is over. They're just like the NAACP and the Rainbow Coalition. They serve no purpose but to gather everyone that wants to screw with things into one place.

[Lizzaroni]

I'm not an anarchist.

[MikeWolfskin]

Jeff your even more crazy, if the big 3 become one that be the same as losing them! It will still lead to a huge monopoly and over priced cars. You don't even understand how important those company are to Americana drivers. With out them none of us would be on the road to day.

I already posted this above but i fill like pointing out again " Bush already screwed us all where making a choice on where some of that Billion Auto bail out is going" No matter what we think about paying the taxes for it bush ****ed us all and where going to have to pay it thanks to him. May as well makes choice on where the cash is spent and I see let are car company have some of it. No USA cars mean monopoly, mean loss of job in USA, and finally will mean higher priced cars!

[DEATHSTAR]

Jeff your even more crazy, if the big 3 become one that be the same as losing them! It will still lead to a huge monopoly and over priced cars. You don't even understand how important those company are to Americana drivers. With out them none of us would be on the road to day.

I already posted this above but i fill like pointing out again " Bush already screwed us all where making a choice on where some of that Billion Auto bail out is going" No matter what we think about paying the taxes for it bush ****ed us all and where going to have to pay it thanks to him. May as well makes choice on where the cash is spent and I see let are car company have some of it. No USA cars mean monopoly, mean loss of job in USA, and finally will mean higher priced cars!

If ford GM and chrysler merged, how could we have a monopoly with Toyota, Honda and Nissan still selling cars in the US? I'm late to the discussion so maybe that was revealed earlier?

[MikeWolfskin]

If ford GM and chrysler merged, how could we have a monopoly with Toyota, Honda and Nissan still selling cars in the US? I'm late to the discussion so maybe that was revealed earlier?

I meant Americana car company monopoly, my bad for not saying so. Still it would not be good for car prices. In fact close to the same as losing all 3.

[DEATHSTAR]

I meant Americana car company monopoly, my bad for not saying so. Still it would not be good for car prices.

Car prices are excellent right now if you're in the market for one. There's a dealer by my house that's selling a Pacifica new and giving you a new PT Cruiser for $1 (about all that car is worth) in addition.

0% financing all over the place. Probably what's not good is trade-in value at the dealer for YOUR car.

[Tanooki]

You're a real fool mikey, grade A lost in the head with that response to me. The only major loss if any of them merged would be a percentage of the workforce as some plants would close, but jobs are always created too (not to sound cold.) Fact is it costs these days $2000 more to get an American vs the other cars of the same type and that's due to their stupid ways and bending over and smiling to the UAW. I know having a rational argument doesn't work with you because you don't think, you just run with a line and beat it to death like the locked war room thread on gaming you made a fool of yourself in.

You also by just staring a bush and blaming him for the entire mess proves you have little grasp on reality, economics, or the situation on the whole as you're just a 'blame the president' it is convenient crowd and that's just laughable. At this rate no one is giving those fools any money, and if they get it, it will be Obama and the congress next year likely if they prove a way on how to responsibly save their butts if given the cash to do it which they failed on this week flying down in their personal jets like idiots.

NO usa cars does not mean a monopoly, another point which proves you have no concept of economics or what the basic definition of some words are either. A monopoly by the book is having a sole (or damn near it percentage wise) seller of a good in a market so you buy from them or have nothing and deal with whatever terms and pricing they care to make up. If the US auto market tanked, swum around in bankruptcy, and re-formed with some new owners as 1 or 2 companies (or were just gobbled by foreigners) you'd still have multiple japanese, korean, european, indian, and other smaller companies to get from.


Deathstar is right though, with the economy so hosed you can buy1 get 1 free (or damn near it) these days on American dealer lots which is a hoot. I mean ...really think about it. You could get one car with some insane deals with near if not 0% interest, and then take the other and sell it locally for new like $2000 under sticker and basically pay off a good deal of your car loan...it's a great legal scheme. :D

[MikeWolfskin]

I'll stick to my words because I understand the removal of thous car company's will lead to less choices, less jobs, and more cost for a car in the end. And yes you do sound cold not caring about peolpe jobs.

[Lizzaroni]

Thousands of car companies....?

[Tanooki]

Well mike going by this thread and the other, you're pretty well figured out as someone who thinks they know a lot, but ends up just saying a lot is all. I'm not surprised really, you disagreeing, most here in the thread otherwise agreeing not with what you're saying. Probably best to leave it be.

And yes liz, if you count it off he's right... one, two, thousand. See?

[MikeWolfskin]

Just tell me this much Jeff, do you even care about other peoples jobs, life, or familiars are is it that your just cold? Don't be mad at me I did'nt sigh the Auto Bail out and screwed us all, it was Bush and you can thank him for it.

[Tanooki]

Yes I do, but I'm not closeminded enough to think that as a nation we need to as taxpayers coddle and bail out every pack of idiots that back themselves into a corner who come begging with a hand out for free cash. The way I see it is, jobs are valuable, but more valuable is an overall stable economy not being propped up by the taxpayers. The more propping the worse off the economy will be in the long run because it's going to have to go back to subsiding on its own, and bailouts set a bad precident. Yes, in short term you get a stock bounce, but then it falls back later as soon as a quarter ends and another bad report comes in proving it was a bad idea. I don't want to see more job loss, but if a few lost jobs will in the end ultimately cost us remarkably less lost jobs overall then I'm fine sounding heartless and letting some very overpaid union lackies get the boot when Ford, GM, and Chrysler go belly up, and/or have to merge and lay off like 1/3 or worse of their employees to save the companies.

I can't thank Bush for the auto industry you dolt, he had NOTHING to do with it. The only swing in the last 20 years that would have a true impact on the industry from a political standpoint it was NAFTA as it allowed free trade of goods, and jobs to other countries. Plants we had ended up going to Mexico (which was the case with VW for one example) where they could get it done for less. Ultimately it's the UNIONs fault for this mess combined with a spineless auto industry that refused to ever stand up to their crap in the American plants. There's a lot you can pin on Bush admittedly, but this isn't one of them, so try and get your facts straight.

[MikeWolfskin]

Bush has everything to do with it dumb ass he sighed the ****ing Bill you ****ing dumb ass! We get to pay more tax's because of his ****ing hands that signed the ****ing bill because of his ****ing choice, dumb ass! You would fill different if was your job on the line. Clearly Jeff your a dumb ass who has no sense economics by anymeans so do STFU and agree to disagree.

[Tanooki]

Please moron you're making yourself look even slower, do stop while you're ahead. Don't get into a wits contest with me, you'll lose considering you can't even form a sentence properly.

Let's see...

Point #1. The bill he signed off so far was basically a no choice deal with the economy in the spiral and was created in tandem with the democratic congress in a compromise, he's just one of hundreds involved in that mess many people (myself included) did not want.

Point #2. We may or may not get more taxes, depends on what Obama does. He claims lower taxes except for the highest 5%, which I can safely say you're not part of. Mind you rich people don't like tax increases so they may well hand it off to us regardless unless Obama lays down the regulation gauntlet to stifle that crap (we can only hope.)

Point #3. I would know how it feels I've been laid off twice and been on unemployment to expiration as well in the last 6 years so don't even dare go there ...one who lives at home with mommy and sponges still. Just don't.

Point #4. I do have a base grasp of economics as originally I was going to minor it in college and took a few courses, plus I do still pay attention to the business and political/global news.

You're a fool, this is pointless, you know you're wrong which is why you're going in circles like a headless chicken cursing your ass off as you got crap to stand on. Grow up and just back off as you're in over your head.

[virion]

do you even care about other peoples jobs, life, or familiars are is it that your just cold?

i don't care about no one's life.

[MikeWolfskin]

Please moron you're making yourself look even slower, do stop while you're ahead. Don't get into a wits contest with me, you'll lose considering you can't even form a sentence properly.

Let's see...

Point #1. The bill he signed off so far was basically a no choice deal with the economy in the spiral and was created in tandem with the democratic congress in a compromise, he's just one of hundreds involved in that mess many people (myself included) did not want.

You Republicans and your big business bull**** Bush the dumb ass are to blame for that.


Point #2. We may or may not get more taxes, depends on what Obama does. He claims lower taxes except for the highest 5%, which I can safely say you're not part of. Mind you rich people don't like tax increases so they may well hand it off to us regardless unless Obama lays down the regulation gauntlet to stifle that crap (we can only hope.)

No argument there.

Point #3. I would know how it feels I've been laid off twice and been on unemployment to expiration as well in the last 6 years so don't even dare go there ...one who lives at home with mommy and sponges still. Just don't.


Do you have no way to prove your point in a civil manner ever? All you do is use childes words come up with better or STFU.

Point #4. I do have a base grasp of economics as originally I was going to minor it in college and took a few courses, plus I do still pay attention to the business and political/global news.
Your the not the only person can wach news Jeff but you most not understand economics very well becuse the cars price will go up if the big 3 go out of business, nuff said.


You're a fool, this is pointless, you know you're wrong which is why you're going in circles like a headless chicken cursing your ass off as you got crap to stand on. Grow up and just back off as you're in over your head.

Your the ****ing fool here. Heartless and none understanding of what will be if the company's go out of business.

[MikeWolfskin]

i don't care about no one's life.

Then just do me a fav and say " All peolpe are not born equal" so I can what to aim the Magnum at you.:whack:

[Tanooki]

Wow you got even more grains of amusing intelligence with those comments. Thanks now we know where you are...far left delusional. And normally yes I'm good with civil discussion, but I leave them at the door when I consider the other end incapable of basic reasoning skills. You're one to talk with all the censored out colorful metaphors eh? Yup, totally heartless I am, you got it. I'm so so cold because I realize that a bailout for everyone and everything isn't the solution. I'm just so icy because despite having the same job loss issues twice in the last 6 years and understanding how much it sucks that I still could see it as a good thing to let the auto industry in the states learn its lesson sucking up to the UAW to back itself into this hole.

[MikeWolfskin]

Wow you got even more grains of amusing intelligence with those comments. Thanks now we know where you are...far left delusional. And normally yes I'm good with civil discussion, but I leave them at the door when I consider the other end incapable of basic reasoning skills. You're one to talk with all the censored out colorful metaphors eh? Yup, totally heartless I am, you got it. I'm so so cold because I realize that a bailout for everyone and everything isn't the solution. I'm just so icy because despite having the same job loss issues twice in the last 6 years and understanding how much it sucks that I still could see it as a good thing to let the auto industry in the states learn its lesson sucking up to the UAW to back itself into this hole.

Just repeat after me then heartless " All peolpe are not born equal" this way I can hate you endlessly.

There is no choice because Bush made the ****ing choices for us right as Obamas term is about to start like ****ing Republicans always do.

I agree with you on one part of something you posted there, and that's
the fact Obama would have come up with a much better game plain. However that's not a choice thanks Bush.

[HGW XX/7]

Then just do me a fav and say " All peolpe are not born equal" so I can what to aim the Magnum at you.:whack:

Well, it is true. All people are not born equal.

Socially speaking at least. I certainly wasn't on equal footing having to do that sutpid free lunch program through school 'cause my family was poor.

Equal constitutionally? Sure.

Equal socially? Not even close.

Even though I was starting low on the social latter, that doesn't bother me. With this system I have the equal opportunity to make money, and bailing out car companies and **** will ultimately end up hurting that opportunity.

If you give money to failures, all you're doing it slapping the people who worked hard and did it right in the face.

[DEATHSTAR]

That buy one car get the other for $1 is no joke: http://www.google.com/search?q=oak+lawn+buy+one+car+get+one+for+%241&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

This joint is a few miles from my house and I pass it daily on my commute to work downtown Chicago.

[virion]

Just repeat after me then heartless " All peolpe are not born equal" this way I can hate you endlessly.

this reminds me of one of my favorite lines from marilyn manson.. 'there's no need to discriminate, hate every mother****er that's in your way!'

hells yeah.

[HGW XX/7]

That buy one car get the other for $1 is no joke: http://www.google.com/search?q=oak+lawn+buy+one+car+get+one+for+%241&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

This joint is a few miles from my house and I pass it daily on my commute to work downtown Chicago.

Except who would want to do that deal? You get a PT Cruiser. The ugliest car ever made.

[Tanooki]

Hey if that'll get you to hate me so much you shut your sadly misinformed mouth...
"All people are not born equal." Happy? Do I have to believe it too, or is that enough?

You're so clueless to how the political situation in DC works it's actually giving me a real laugh here. You seem to blind in thinking that the President = man in charge. They're just one part of a three part system. They can suggest laws, but they can't just make laws and pass them all alone, you need congressional approval and judicial (supreme court) accuracy. But hey, if blind Bush hate on something you don't understand helps you sleep better at night having a false target to vent your rage, good and I hope the delusion works for you as it keeps many rational people away from ever thinking you think before you open your mouth. :)

If you give money to failures, all you're doing it slapping the people who worked hard and did it right in the face.

HGW thank you! That's exactly how I feel considering I was weeks away from having no place to live back in early 2003 due to some really bad luck. I had to scratch my way back and I'm still just barely above making better than breaking even and I'm saddled with a $5k/debt on a line of credit still. It pisses me off when kids who live at home with mom and mooch from there come up on the soap box and scream about crap they don't understand. HGW they're not that bad I can think of dozens on the road now worse, but they are stupid gas guzzlers due to a teeny motor with a stretched overly heavy body on the frame. BUT, you're missing the point, sell it new to some other chump and have much of your car you did want paid off! Win that way with a $1 PT.

[MikeWolfskin]

Well, it is true. All people are not born equal.

Socially speaking at least. I certainly wasn't on equal footing having to do that sutpid free lunch program through school 'cause my family was poor.


You are wrong and sad. I'm done here I've got nothing else to say will not say sorry to Jeff live with it.

[Smokey]

Thousands of car companies....?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's a spelling error and he meant "those". Makes more sense that way.

Well, first of all, even if the Big Three merged, that wouldn't be even an American monopoly. Paccar Inc is not controlled by any of the three, and it's American.

Secondly, I wouldn't blame Bush so much as the auto industries' cronies in Congress. The president only signs, he doesn't compose. Looks like someone needs to review their American civics class, and it isn't Rensa.

Thirdly, prices will not go up, even on Paccar's cars. It doesn't matter if it's the only American auto group left standing. There ARE foreign car makers that sell their wares over here, Mike. If prices went up, Paccar would go down. If that happened, I could see a scenario where North American prices became higher than the rest of the world's markets, but I find it to be unlikely. If the Big Three go under, something else will likely arise from the ashes.

Personally, I don't think they'll even go under. They'll probably pull a Kmart/Sears-Roebuck and file Chapter 11, if anything.

I'd call for a collective removal of heads from hind ends and ask for adult behavior, but that would defeat the purpose of this thread, wouldn't it? Particularly when controversial threads in the War Room are being locked down left and right.:dry:

[Tanooki]

I don't want your sorry's mike, but I do feel very sorry for you and all your problems. I just want you to start thinking for yourself, and if you can't take it, I don't think a lot of people here would miss ya as of late. :P He is right though, not everyone is socially equal and it's a shame you're blind to that reality. Neither of us are saying that is right, but it is a current fact of life. For example, some are born into the Hilton family, others are born out back of a Hilton family hotel in an alley. Crap happens, people aren't socially equal...deal with it. The entire point of the country here is to do what you can to do better for yourself, to be better off, and have a better life traditionally speaking than your parents had. What you're looking for is a communist society where everyone socially is equal, property is equal, everything in equity is equal. Utopias don't like that exist as they can't, people are greedy and desire by nature, and unless you're going to become the next overseer of the world and mandate labotomies for all, it ain't happening.

[virion]

^i got a job as a material handler for Paccar... would've been a nice job.. making alright money. but i didn't take it.

[Tanooki]

What is this paccar? I've never heard of this one before. But I do know another american company some of you 80s fanboys will enjoy. Go look up DMC (Delorean Motor Company) as it is back in business. Some guys bought up all the old parts, tons of them, and started years ago to refurb the older cars to new, but lately they got ahold of the molds and are slowly moving into making NEW Deloreans! Also, and I'm not sure it is american, but check out Tesla Motors too, electric cars with the distance finally, and the oomph to outdo some pretty nice sports cars on gas engines.

[MikeWolfskin]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's a spelling error and he meant "those". Makes more sense that way.

Well, first of all, even if the Big Three merged, that wouldn't be even an American monopoly. Paccar Inc is not controlled by any of the three, and it's American.

All I see is that if the big three became one they'd be one huge company that controls most of American cars and that's still a monopoly. Paccar would not stand a chance in that world.


Secondly, I wouldn't blame Bush so much as the auto industries' cronies in Congress. The president only signs, he doesn't compose. Looks like someone needs to review their American civics class, and it isn't Rensa.


I do blame Bush he makes the final choice it was in his hands to say Yes or No. Yes Congress also made a bad choice but that is because before this terms elections the Congress was ruled by a Republican minority. So of coarse the Republican president signed the bad choice bill made by his very peolpe the Republicans.

What is this paccar? I've never heard of this one before. But I do know another american company some of you 80s fanboys will enjoy. Go look up DMC (Delorean Motor Company) as it is back in business. Some guys bought up all the old parts, tons of them, and started years ago to refurb the older cars to new, but lately they got ahold of the molds and are slowly moving into making NEW Deloreans! Also, and I'm not sure it is american, but check out Tesla Motors too, electric cars with the distance finally, and the oomph to outdo some pretty nice sports cars on gas engines.

Paccar Inc NASDAQ: PCAR is the third largest manufacturer of heavy-duty trucks in the world (after Daimler AG and Volvo), and has substantial manufacture in light and medium vehicles through its various subsidiaries

[virion]

it mainly builds kenworth and peterbuilt semis jeff.

[MikeWolfskin]

If you give money to failures, all you're doing it slapping the people who worked hard and did it right in the face.

Right so you'd step on a poor person because your doing better huh? If so I pity you when your in that very same place someday. Don't forget where talking about the company's that helped get peolpe in cars all over our sates that are about freedom and equal chances.

If you all thing your so right, or you can do better then lets hear it! What would you do to save the car company's if you where in power? I don't think any of you can come up with a perfect answer!

[Tanooki]

Well then if you want to get into large scale trucks including Mac and Peterbilt too as made (and born) in the USA.

I fail to see the reasoning on how a republican minority in congress can control a democratic majority. That's like saying 2<1. The dems had control of congress for two years, did little to show for it too. Hell that twit Barney Frank is partly responsible for the fallout considering he knew what was up with Fannie and Freddie and went along with it, and Dodd in the house getting some fat deals from Countrywide on his mortgage before it went belly up touting it's strength too. They're all f'ups...deal with it.

[Smokey]

All I see is that if the big three became one they'd be one huge company that controls most of American cars and that's still a monopoly. Paccar would not stand a chance in that world.

Again, Mike, FOREIGN CAR MAKERS= no monopoly. Besides, there's no way in hell they could merge. Our antitrust laws aren't THAT bad.

I do blame Bush he makes the final choice it was in his hands to say Yes or No. Yes Congress also made a bad choice but that is because before this terms elections the Congress was ruled by a Republican minority. So of coarse the Republican president signed the bad choice bill made by his very peolpe the Republicans.

Prove that the Republicans crafted the auto bailout bail. Secondly, take an American civics course. Bush does not have either opening voice or the final voice. Congress has both. And your elections reference doesn't make any sense; by your logic (rather, by extrapolation of your logic, 'cause it doesn't make sense as is), Congress would fight Bush on general principle.

Finally, when the heads of the Big Three went to Washington to negotiate this bailout, they took three separate private flights. That indicates 1)they're not in as much trouble as everyone claims or 2)that they're far too prideful. Either way, you really believe that they deserve a bailout? And before you pull this garbage about not caring about the average worker or whatever, you're right, I don't care about those auto workers. You know why? They carry more responsibility for this mess than the Big Three executives do, because those workers are a part of the UAW, and the UAW was the cause of all this to start with. Frankly, I believe the bigger the kick in the teeth they get, the better. It certainly serves them right, the bastards.

[MikeWolfskin]

Well then if you want to get into large scale trucks including Mac and Peterbilt too as made (and born) in the USA.

I fail to see the reasoning on how a republican minority in congress can control a democratic majority. That's like saying 2<1. The dems had control of congress for two years, did little to show for it too. Hell that twit Barney Frank is partly responsible for the fallout considering he knew what was up with Fannie and Freddie and went along with it, and Dodd in the house getting some fat deals from Countrywide on his mortgage before it went belly up touting it's strength too. They're all f'ups...deal with it.

Well last I cheeked we where not owned by congress democratic majority but whatever Jeff it was still the final word of Mr Bush that made it happen. Anyways I again I agree that Obama would have come up a better idea.

[Tanooki]

This may end up a double post or not I dunno, but as far as the car companies there's a good start to the fix. I'd first look into regulating the hell out of the UAW because they're key in the entire problem. For years they've held the US auto industry by the balls with a rusty knife. If they didn't get every last concession they wanted, they'd shut down the places and put them into the toilet and refused to compromise. This is why they are suffering and not the others are they won't let the bastards in the door. Basically I'd regulate the powers of the UAW to damage the industry and force a situation where they can't ask for more than what the other places not under their control gets to keep prices, budgets, and r&d competitive with the other companies out there. Next, after regulating them, I'd force some fat cutting on the books...those private jumbo jets...sold. 100+mil golden parachutes, banned. I'd start giving incentives towards more battery and hydrogen powered cars to speed them along, not just talk about it like currently happens.

This is short and simple, but it would go a hell of a long way.

[DEATHSTAR]

Except who would want to do that deal? You get a PT Cruiser. The ugliest car ever made.

PT Cruiser is not only ugly but it's tied for 1st with the Ford Focus as worst cars I have ever driven.

But if I was in the market for a Pacifica, I'd sell the Cruiser and pay for a good deal of the note on the Pacifica. In all honesty the dealer is only doing this deal to lower his inventory before they have to count it for tax season. Realizing he won't move the PT's easily, he's juicing the sales of the Pacifica and running off taxable assets in the give away. Pretty shrewd marketing guy that Mancari is.

Side note, I meat the owner of that dealer when I interviewed to be his marketing manager about 5 years ago. He was paying too low but I could tell he was a smart guy.

[Smokey]

Well last I cheeked we where not owned by congress democratic majority but whatever Jeff it was still the final word of Mr Bush that made it happen. Anyways I again I agree that Obama would have come up a better idea.

I checked just to make sure that I didn't miss the passing of this bailout bill. You don't know what you're talking about. Plain and simple. Do us a favor and take your own advice about staying away from arguments about gov't and politics in general.

[Lizzaroni]

I'm just going to link to two articles here that shed a lot of light on what appears to be a big mess of a picture, given what I've read:

Making Sense on Detroit. (http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/17/making-sense-on-detroit/)
Breathtaking Capital Destruction. (http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/17/breathtaking-capital-destruction/)
Bailout vs. Bankruptcy Meme. (http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/11/16/gm-the-bailout-vs-bankruptcy-meme)

[HGW XX/7]

Right so you'd step on a poor person because your doing better huh? If so I pity you when your in that very same place someday. Don't forget where talking about the company's that helped get peolpe in cars all over our sates that are about freedom and equal chances.

If you all thing your so right, or you can do better then lets hear it! What would you do to save the car company's if you where in power? I don't think any of you can come up with a perfect answer!

1. Car companies aren't poor. Just ask the CEOs.

2. Just because I'm not going to give a poor person tons of money, doesn't mean I'm stepping on them. Giving it to them does nothing productive. You know that saying "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime."? That saying applies here.

3. If I were in power, I WOULDN'T save the car companies. They can save themselves, and if they can't, new ones will be created. Simple as that.

[MikeWolfskin]

2. Just because I'm not going to give a poor person tons of money, doesn't mean I'm stepping on them. Giving it to them does nothing productive. You know that saying "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime."? That saying applies here.


Oh My God Sean, LMFAO, I now you where going to quote that, I hate you now :D

[Darc Requiem]

1. Car companies aren't poor. Just ask the CEOs.

2. Just because I'm not going to give a poor person tons of money, doesn't mean I'm stepping on them. Giving it to them does nothing productive. You know that saying "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime."? That saying applies here.

3. If I were in power, I WOULDN'T save the car companies. They can save themselves, and if they can't, new ones will be created. Simple as that.

If the Big 3 go under there will be no more domestic car manufacturers. If I were in power I'd give our auto industry the same support Europe and Japan gives theirs. Not only that, I'd give importing manufacturers the same treatment as they give our companies. I've gotten a laugh at watching the pundits discuss the auto industry. They show their ignorance and obvious bias.

If hear another moron talk about the "gas guzzling SUVs" of the Big Three I'm gonna puke. They built what the public wanted to purchase. Look at huge numbers of SUVs Toyota has added to its lineup solely for the US market. Right before gas prices surged Toyota had just opened a new truck plant for the new full size Tundra. Nissan had rolled out the Titan few years earlier to go after this market. Honda even rolled out that POS Ridgeline to try and compete. I don't hear the complaints about the Ridgline and its 3.5 V6 and limited tow capability getting the same gas mileage as the more capable 5.3 V8 Chevy Silverado.

Bear in mind that these are vehicles that Toyota, Honda, and Nissan can only sell in the US market for the most part. I don't see the pundits getting their panties in a bunch about that. The Chevy Malibu gets better gas mileage than the Accord and Camry. Don't see any pundits commenting on that. Where of the complaints about Hyundai introducing its new 4.6L V8? The media has an import bias and its pathetic. One only has to look at the recall coverage, or lack their of of import vehicles to realize that.

[Lizzaroni]

If the Big 3 go under there will be no more domestic car manufacturers.
So?

If GM fails - or even GM and Ford both fail - we are not facing the loss of the U.S. auto industry. There are plenty of profitable operations, particularly those operating outside of Michigan. In 2008, the Big Three accounts for roughly 55% of light vehicle production and 50% of sales. To speak of the U.S. automobile industry these days, one must include Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Kia, Hyundai, BMW - and other foreign nameplate producers who manufacture vehicles in the U.S.

Those producers are the other half of the U.S. auto industry. They employ American workers, pay U.S. taxes, support other U.S. businesses, contribute to local charities, have genuine stakes in their local communities and face the same contracting demand for automobiles as does the Big Three. The difference is that these companies have a better track record of making products Americans want to consume and are not seeking federal assistance.

If taxpayers are forced to subsidize automobile producers, they should at least be able to subsidize the successful ones.

If one or two of the Big Three went into bankruptcy and liquidated, people would lose their jobs. But the sky would not fall. In fact, that outcome would ultimately improve prospects for the firms and workers that remain in the industry. That is precisely what happened with the U.S. steel industry, which responded to waning fortunes and dozens of bankruptcies earlier in the decade by finally allowing unproductive, inefficient mills to shut down.

In 2001, 12 firms accounted for 75% of U.S. hot-rolled steel production. In 2007, three firms accounted for more than 80% of hot-rolled steel production. The consolidation has afforded the steel industry an alternative to requesting bailouts in the face of declining demand.

Following the steel industry’s lead to an auto industry reckoning makes more sense - to the taxpayers, to the country, and ultimately to the auto industry - than another bailout.

[Darc Requiem]

So?

No offense but I won't even dignify that with a response.

[Tanooki]

I don't think I'd dignify it much either than saying she's right. :D

[Lizzaroni]

No offense but I won't even dignify that with a response.
It's a legitimate question. "I won't dignify that with a response" is a giant cop-out and essentially amounts to "I don't have an answer; it's just a faulty assumption I made in order to prop up my conclusion." I noticed you skipped over the rest of my post, by the way.

[Darc Requiem]

Okay I changed my mind. What do you think will happen to those jobs once the Big 3 go under? From a financial standpoint it would be better for those companies to have their cars built in Canada or Mexico. Its a red herring. Its so they can say "hey we're American." With the Big Three out of the picture those jobs will disappear faster than a dollar bill in a strip club. The Big Three have facilities in Canada and Mexico. For a business standpoint, they should have all of their facilities outside of the US. They can't do that however. They'd get skewered worse than they are now. What leverage would we have over foreign manufacturers to keep those plants here once the domestic manufacturers go belly up?

Not only that, car prices would go up significantly. Not for the reasons you think. Suppliers are shared in the US by domestic and foreign manufacturers. The Big 3 going under will take a good deal of the supply chain with them. The cost to manufacturer vehicles will go up when Toyota for example has to get it's parts shipped from Japan because the local supplier is no more. Both Toyota and Honda support a Big Three buyout because the subsequent supplier shock would adversely affect their business.

It's a legitimate question. "I won't dignify that with a response" is a giant cop-out and essentially amounts to "I don't have an answer; it's just a faulty assumption I made in order to prop up my conclusion." I noticed you skipped over the rest of my post, by the way.

No its because the assertion was patently ridiculous and shows little knowledge of the auto industry. If someone says "the world is flat", I wouldn't dignify that post with a response either. The reason the job loss would be so high from a potential loss of the Big 3 is because of the ripple effect. The parts suppliers do business with both domestic and foreign manufacturers and with over half of their business gone, they go belly up too.

[Smokey]

If the Big 3 go under there will be no more domestic car manufacturers. If I were in power I'd give our auto industry the same support Europe and Japan gives theirs. Not only that, I'd give importing manufacturers the same treatment as they give our companies. I've gotten a laugh at watching the pundits discuss the auto industry. They show their ignorance and obvious bias.

Exactly. The US needs to get competitive. In addition, people have been complaining about how badly we're faring in comparison to Japan in many arenas. If we applied the same techniques to car imports from Japan that they apply with us, we wouldn't see a leveling of the playing field. Japan would be ruined. The American car industry needs to get a little more savvy about these kinds of things.

Bear in mind that these are vehicles that Toyota, Honda, and Nissan can only sell in the US market for the most part. I don't see the pundits getting their panties in a bunch about that. The Chevy Malibu gets better gas mileage than the Accord and Camry. Don't see any pundits commenting on that. Where of the complaints about Hyundai introducing its new 4.6L V8? The media has an import bias and its pathetic. One only has to look at the recall coverage, or lack their of of import vehicles to realize that.

People always talk about the Big Three, GMC, Ford, and Chrysler. It's really the Big Four, though, because Honda's facing a lot of the same non-UAW related issues that the other three are facing. A lot of the legislation being debated also includes Honda, because its plants have been over here for over twenty years, while Toyota and others are relatively more recent and don't qualify for the bailout.

[Darc Requiem]

Another thought that has been bothering me. The idiots that say the Big Three should just claim bankruptcy. Yes in the middle of credit freeze. Where exactly are the operational funds going to come from again?

@Smokey

Honda is a Japanese company that is why they aren't included. Honda has other issues to worry about. The Japanese government has loosened up its monopoly standards to take into account global market share instead of domestic market share. The only thing that kept Toyota from ruling the entire Japanese auto industry was the Japanese government.

[MikeWolfskin]

My brother works at Honda and lets say there screwed, don't work there.

[Smokey]

@Smokey

Honda is a Japanese company that is why they aren't included. Honda has other issues to worry about. The Japanese government has loosened up its monopoly standards to take into account global market share instead of domestic market share. The only thing that kept Toyota from ruling the entire Japanese auto industry was the Japanese government.

I'm not sure if it was in regards to the September bailout or this one, but I know Honda was mentioned. I've been trying to find that article again, but I can't find it. I do know that since Honda has been here for a long time, they are eligible for the same gov't help that the Big Three are getting.

[Darc Requiem]

Ah I misunderstood you. They are eligible. My mistake Smokey. I thought you were asking why Honda wasn't apart of the Big Three.

[MikeWolfskin]

And how is Honda eligible?

[Smokey]

For the THIRD time, their plants have been over here for more than twenty years. That's enough to qualify them for any handouts the Big Three get.

[HGW XX/7]

Basically, all I'm seeing here is that they should be bailed out so people can keep their jobs.

**** that.

If you do that you have to bailout any company that has ever had to lay off anyone ever.

That's just asinine.

"Hey, let's give these terrible failing companies free money, so people can work for no particular reason other than to have these companies continue to fail."

Yeah, that works.

[Darc Requiem]

Basically, all I'm seeing here is that they should be bailed out so people can keep their jobs.

**** that.

If you do that you have to bailout any company that has ever had to lay off anyone ever.

That's just asinine.

"Hey, let's give these terrible failing companies free money, so people can work for no particular reason other than to have these companies continue to fail."

Yeah, that works.

Honestly I never liked the bailout idea period. I wouldn't have given the banks squat. The problem I have is this. Had the banks not imploded the financial markets the Big Three wouldn't need cash in the first place. The strain on the automobile industry is a result of the credit freeze caused by the banks. I wouldn't give the Big Three money. I'd give them the loan interest loans that they asking for to keep 3 million people employed. Would there be conditions? Most certainly.

It would be one thing if they were twiddling their thumbs they are not. The Big Three have gotten concessions from the UAW to put their wade costs more in line with their foreign competitors. Sure they still have the heavy legacy costs which keep them at a disadvantage. Not mention the jobs bank which is frankly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, but apparently the UAW is willing to give up the Jobs Bank if the Big Three gets financial assistance.

Having unemployment above 10% and forking over all those unemployment benefits isn't a wise course of action. Not mention it would push us into a depression. It's a matter of cost benefit analysis, and quite frankly the willingness of our goverment to give what amounts to 1.5 trillion dollars to the banking industry while saying no 50 billion dollars for the Big Three is laughable at best.

I don't want our economy further dependent on the phantom goods of the banking industry. I give you a loan, you sell that loan to someone, who sells it to someone else, isn't a good base for our economy. Having another industry with no domestic representation is not good for our economy.

[HGW XX/7]

^Thanks for the clarification.

It's more reasonable.

I still say the banks and the car companies shouldn't(ve) be(en) helped.

[Darc Requiem]

^Fair enough Sean. I certainly see your point of view on this and I really don't like all these bailouts. I just find it appalling that we can't loan the Big Three what amounts to pocket change in comparison to what we continue to give the banks. I mean Paulson hasn't shown to be competent and we give him $740 billion dollars followed by another $800 billion dollars. Money that he is giving to the companies that have single handle crippled not only our economy but have caused a downturn in the world economy on the whole? That's like a battered wife buying her husband some steel toed boots and then following up that purchase with a set of brass knuckles :doh:

[Lizzaroni]

Sorry, it's the holidays and I have two term papers plus a physics presentation so I'm gonna have to get back to your larger post later, Darc. But, quick comments:

It's a matter of cost benefit analysis, and quite frankly the willingness of our goverment to give what amounts to 1.5 trillion dollars to the banking industry while saying no 50 billion dollars for the Big Three is laughable at best.
There should not have a bailout either way, but I outlined why not in the original 700 billion dollar bailout plan. Here's a basic question though, that the Big Three could not answer when they requested the money. Perhaps you can: you could buy GM and Ford for a combined 5.85 billion; why should we bailout companies for close to ten times their worth?

I don't want our economy further dependent on the phantom goods of the banking industry. I give you a loan, you sell that loan to someone, who sells it to someone else, isn't a good base for our economy.
I really do not understand the aversion to "phantom goods." Can you elaborate?

Having another industry with no domestic representation is not good for our economy.
That's not true at all. Again, I suggest folks read the links I supplied earlier. Specialization based on comparative advantages is a great thing. In fact, a book I would buy everyone for Christmas if I had the money: Spin-Free Economics.

[Smokey]

I really do not understand the aversion to "phantom goods." Can you elaborate?

I think it's just the idea that the banks take your money, claim they still have it, but they're squirreling it away in multiple investments, where it can be easily lost. I realize that banks are out for profit, but they aren't doing smart things with the money. Darc can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the issue.

[Darc Requiem]

I'll get back to this thread when I get back home. I'm out of town in VA and trying to play catch up with all my friends and family. So I'm not ignoring your points. I'll probably give you a detailed response on Sunday or Monday Liz. I will answer one of your points. Buying Ford and GM for 5.85 billion doesn't make since for the same reason that Yamauchi didn't buy Sega when offered in 2001. Debt. GM alone is nearly 44 billion in debt. To purchase them would require you to the assume the debt.

@Smokey

You have the general idea. I mean you really shouldn't want to build your economy of of the selling of IOU's...

[Lizzaroni]

Don't worry about it, Darc. I'm swamped with school stuff myself and can't guarantee a swift response either way :(

[Lucas]

I think it's just the idea that the banks take your money, claim they still have it, but they're squirreling it away in multiple investments, where it can be easily lost. I realize that banks are out for profit, but they aren't doing smart things with the money. Darc can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the issue.

One word: Reg-u-lat-ion

[Smokey]

One word: Reg-u-lat-ion

Looks like four to me.

But yeah, there's no doubt whatsoever that we need these industries to be regulated to some extent.

[Lizzaroni]

Why do you assume the problem is regulation? I realize it's tempting to assume that regulation will be simply that: a governmental third party over-seeing business practices, but that is never what happens. What happens is this, and if regulation becomes a serious consideration as a remedy for this problem, you can refer back to this thread and watch it unfold: first, the government will say "OK, you can have this money, but under these regulatory conditions"; next, the car companies will say "OK, government, we will do as you say and, tell you what, we are so enthusiastic about helping out America and our beloved employees, that we would like to take an active role in this regulation; finally, the politicians and businessmen get together to craft regulations that ultimately are detrimental to the general consumer population but helpful to the select companies that participate in crafting the legislation.

There was never supposed to be a marriage between government and business; such practice is what led to this problem in the first place. The whole reason why the Big Three are in so much trouble is because of poor business practice, and they indulged in it because the government consistently cushioned the repercussions for things like not adapting to new consumption habits (ie. making cars that the American public ultimately was not clamoring for.)

[Smokey]

If we don't need government regulation, if that's what got us in this situation in the first place as you propose, what would be the remedy then? God knows they can't regulate themselves right now. They made a hash of it before, and they will do it again.

[Lizzaroni]

If we don't need government regulation, if that's what got us in this situation in the first place as you propose, what would be the remedy then?
Letting them suffer the consequences for poor business practice. You don't privatize profits and socialize losses.

God knows they can't regulate themselves right now. They made a hash of it before, and they will do it again.
Newsflash: businesses fail. The government is not supposed to prop up failing businesses; it's ultimately bad for everyone except the folks who get bailed out. Why do you feel these companies must exist - is there some law of nature that I'm neglecting to consider? Newton's law of the Big Three have to survive? If these companies cannot manage themselves, that's a problem that they need to deal with, not the government. We wouldn't bail out wal-mart, we wouldn't bail out my father's flag company, we wouldn't bail out banks (oh wait lol nvm THAT WAS BAD BUT NOT THIS ONE NOPE.)

[Smokey]

Letting them suffer the consequences for poor business practice. You don't privatize profits and socialize losses.

When businesses this big are concerned and so many livelihoods are on the line, something does need to be done. Yes, they brought this on themselves, them and the UAW. Fact is, we can't kick back and say "Shame on you". Failure of these three may not be as far reaching as the failure of the banking industry, what with the involvement of foreign automakers, but I really don't care to be at Japan's tender mercies when there's a chance of maintaining domestic automakers.

Newsflash: businesses fail. The government is not supposed to prop up failing businesses; it's ultimately bad for everyone except the folks who get bailed out. Why do you feel these companies must exist - is there some law of nature that I'm neglecting to consider? Newton's law of the Big Three have to survive? If these companies cannot manage themselves, that's a problem that they need to deal with, not the government. We wouldn't bail out wal-mart, we wouldn't bail out my father's flag company, we wouldn't bail out banks (oh wait lol nvm THAT WAS BAD BUT NOT THIS ONE NOPE.)

Actually, I think you are neglecting something- how far reaching these companies are. With no one to supply, parts shops and steel factories go out of business. With them gone, there's no demand for unrefined metals that go into making steel, so those mines shut down. And I sincerely doubt that the oil/gasoline industry would be unaffected by this, despite the push for alternate energy sources. It's a chain reaction that will affect millions. This country was built on the automobile. Should that fail, where would we end up? Not only that, it's obvious that the world economy is still heavily invested in ours. If we go down, everyone goes down.

[HGW XX/7]

Letting them suffer the consequences for poor business practice. You don't privatize profits and socialize losses.


Newsflash: businesses fail. The government is not supposed to prop up failing businesses; it's ultimately bad for everyone except the folks who get bailed out. Why do you feel these companies must exist - is there some law of nature that I'm neglecting to consider? Newton's law of the Big Three have to survive? If these companies cannot manage themselves, that's a problem that they need to deal with, not the government. We wouldn't bail out wal-mart, we wouldn't bail out my father's flag company, we wouldn't bail out banks (oh wait lol nvm THAT WAS BAD BUT NOT THIS ONE NOPE.)

:worship:

Dare I say I'm in love?

Nah, but I might be slightly aroused. Intelligence excites me.

/creepy

Seriously though, fantastic. I agree 100%.

[Darc Requiem]

Sorry, it's the holidays and I have two term papers plus a physics presentation so I'm gonna have to get back to your larger post later, Darc. But, quick comments:


There should not have a bailout either way, but I outlined why not in the original 700 billion dollar bailout plan. Here's a basic question though, that the Big Three could not answer when they requested the money. Perhaps you can: you could buy GM and Ford for a combined 5.85 billion; why should we bailout companies for close to ten times their worth?

I actually agree with you. There should have been no bailout. As for the cost purchase issue, I touched on that eariler. The massive debt that would be required would preclude that idea being feasible. The debt is only half the problem. The retired and pension benefits that would have to be assumed would be massive a well. That is part of the reason the Big 3 have a cost disadvantage against its foreign rivals.

Part of the reason the, in addition to massive sales and high profit margin, that the Big 3 all but left the small car business to Japan is that they couldn't build a competitive small car for a profit. The health costs add 2k to the cost of each car and on compacts and the profit margin is less than 2k.

If you look to Europe will small cars are bigger market with a more premium MRSP the Big 3 does quiet well. The European version of the Focus is light years ahead of our dilapidated American rendition and one of the better cars in the class. The same hold true for GM and its Vauxhall/Opel Astra. Saturn has the Astra in the States but its a lacks the multitude of options that it does in Europe and its GM loses money on each one they sell. Actually, the Big 3's worst market if by large North America, but that is another topic all together.

I really do not understand the aversion to "phantom goods." Can you elaborate?

Honestly it reminds me of pyramid scheme. The same loan is sold over and over again. Their no tangible product/service being rendered or created. How many jobs can we create with such an economic basis?

That's not true at all. Again, I suggest folks read the links I supplied earlier. Specialization based on comparative advantages is a great thing. In fact, a book I would buy everyone for Christmas if I had the money: Spin-Free Economics.

With no need to be appear "American" the motivation to continue building cars for Japanese companies all but disappears. Euro companies like VW, BMW, Daimler Benz, and possibly Renault Nissan could take up some of the slack but neither of the companies has the sales volume say a Toyota.

[virion]

Actually, I think you are neglecting something- how far reaching these companies are. With no one to supply, parts shops and steel factories go out of business. With them gone, there's no demand for unrefined metals that go into making steel, so those mines shut down. And I sincerely doubt that the oil/gasoline industry would be unaffected by this, despite the push for alternate energy sources. It's a chain reaction that will affect millions. This country was built on the automobile. Should that fail, where would we end up? Not only that, it's obvious that the world economy is still heavily invested in ours. If we go down, everyone goes down.

it won't have that far reaching of an effect. steel is used in other things, say buildings. plus. parts shops won't go out of business. even if the big three went under i would still be able to get all my parts for my Chevy truck aftermarket.

[Darc Requiem]

If I'm not mistaken manufacturers are required to make parts for a vehicle for ten years after it leaves production. Not sure how that would work if a company goes belly up though.

[Smokey]

it won't have that far reaching of an effect. steel is used in other things, say buildings. plus. parts shops won't go out of business. even if the big three went under i would still be able to get all my parts for my Chevy truck aftermarket.

Some will probably make it. Those industries do depend on the auto industry, though. The ones that survive (and it will be a case of survival, not profit) will be the exception rather than the rule, as the majority would go under.

[Lizzaroni]

When businesses this big are concerned and so many livelihoods are on the line, something does need to be done. Yes, they brought this on themselves, them and the UAW. Fact is, we can't kick back and say "Shame on you". Failure of these three may not be as far reaching as the failure of the banking industry, what with the involvement of foreign automakers, but I really don't care to be at Japan's tender mercies when there's a chance of maintaining domestic automakers.
We can too kick back. Like I said before, people lose jobs all the time. I'm plenty familiar with it; look up the history of Kodak in Rochester (once known as "Smug City" until the imaging capital became not-so-much.) The fact is that bankruptcy might be the best thing for these companies, as they could rewrite everything with the UAW. Again, I have to ask why we run to the aid of folks who will lose their jobs in one industry and not another; in fact, I'll add another question: why run to the aid of folks who might lose their jobs and not folks who might lose their homes?

Actually, I think you are neglecting something- how far reaching these companies are. With no one to supply, parts shops and steel factories go out of business. With them gone, there's no demand for unrefined metals that go into making steel, so those mines shut down.
Yes, because there are no other car companies outside of the Big Three.

And I sincerely doubt that the oil/gasoline industry would be unaffected by this, despite the push for alternate energy sources.
People will stop driving?

It's a chain reaction that will affect millions. This country was built on the automobile. Should that fail, where would we end up? Not only that, it's obvious that the world economy is still heavily invested in ours. If we go down, everyone goes down.
Holy ****, this is retarded. Countries were built early textile industries, telegraphs, slavery*, and horse and buggies too but we didn't prevent the inevitable. Look up Schumpeter's "creative destruction" and quit tossing out the line that because a country once prevailed in an industry that it must exist indefinitely. Get it through your heads, the auto-industry is not special.

*A true, but admittedly not completely analogous example.

[Smokey]

We can too kick back. Like I said before, people lose jobs all the time. I'm plenty familiar with it; look up the history of Kodak in Rochester (once known as "Smug City" until the imaging capital became not-so-much.) The fact is that bankruptcy might be the best thing for these companies, as they could rewrite everything with the UAW. Again, I have to ask why we run to the aid of folks who will lose their jobs in one industry and not another; in fact, I'll add another question: why run to the aid of folks who might lose their jobs and not folks who might lose their homes?

That hasn't been what you've been saying. That or you've been saying two different things interchangeably when you can't. The Big Three can come back from bankruptcy; Kmart has done it multiple times. In fact, I remember saying earlier that the Big Three should file for Chapter 11. We shouldn't let them fail, though. Each business has individual needs, depending on size, type, etc; how much sense does it make to treat each business exactly the same as the next?

As for letting one business fail and saving another, again, I think it's based on need and what that business does. And in regard to the second question, letting one or several people lose their homes is preferable (not by much, but there it is) to letting an international corporation fail and cost the employees their livelihoods, upon which they all lose their homes.

Yes, because there are no other car companies outside of the Big Three.

Please, tell me that with less demand suppliers won't fail as a result. Tell me straight up that nothing will change should the Big Three go down, 'cause that's what you're saying underneath the sarcasm.

A domestic automaker is rather important, not only so that more jobs are placed here, but it also keeps foreign automakers from jacking up their prices here. It keeps everything competitive, and I'm sure you can finish the sentence from there.

People will stop driving?

Look, with fewer cars being made, demand for gasoline will go down, and smaller companies may fail as a result. It's simple supply and demand.

Holy ****, this is retarded. Countries were built early textile industries, telegraphs, slavery*, and horse and buggies too but we didn't prevent the inevitable. Look up Schumpeter's "creative destruction" and quit tossing out the line that because a country once prevailed in an industry that it must exist indefinitely. Get it through your heads, the auto-industry is not special.

*A true, but admittedly not completely analogous example.

All of those were made obsolete by newer technology that became widely available. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the automobile isn't obsolete just yet. Newer tech does exist, but it isn't cheap, and it isn't widespread. We do need the auto industry right now, because it does fill a unique niche in American society, and it isn't about to be replaced.

[Rensa]

Look, with fewer cars being made, demand for gasoline will go down, and smaller companies may fail as a result.
I don't think I understand that logic at all. Assuming the market shrank following a collapse of these Big Three (which itself makes certain assumptions about their size), how would smaller makers (assuming you mean them) be significantly affected? They couldn't serve that many potential customers anyway; if anything it would be an opportunity for smaller makers to jump on more receptive customers. The only way it would be bad is if the Big Three were so big that the economies of scale for parts production were affected.

[Lizzaroni]

That hasn't been what you've been saying. That or you've been saying two different things interchangeably when you can't. The Big Three can come back from bankruptcy; Kmart has done it multiple times. In fact, I remember saying earlier that the Big Three should file for Chapter 11. We shouldn't let them fail, though. Each business has individual needs, depending on size, type, etc; how much sense does it make to treat each business exactly the same as the next?
I'll admit that I probably shouldn't use "fail" and "bankruptcy" interchangeably despite the fact I'd consider filing for bankruptcy to be a failure. For clarification, I'm saying a) car companies can fail, and should if they cannot survive on their own; and b) the reality is they'd probably file for bankruptcy (I assumed this was a given.) Let's pretend for a minute there is no bankruptcy and this is a simplified example - tell me why we shouldn't let them fail. There is apparently some mythical quality that the automobile industry possesses that makes them above market consequences. I normally don't beg, but for the love of God, at least read those links I posted earlier in this thread. And this one:

"Bailing out the Big Three is subsidizing failure. And you only subsidize something when you want more of it." (http://nhwatchdog.blogspot.com/2008/12/pat-buchanan-really-really-wrong-on.html)

As for letting one business fail and saving another, again, I think it's based on need and what that business does.
And therein lies the problem; you are arbitrarily applying a personal standard, which is why you somehow rationalized that people literally losing shelter is preferable to people losing a job - really, according to you and what logic? I'm saying bad businesses need to face the consequences for their actions regardless of size or product. I'm saying this because propping up bad businesses is bad for consumers (and everyone is a consumer.) I'm also saying this because when you cushion the consequences you consequently inhibit the incentives to do well. Everything that makes business competitive, and thus superior, is mitigated.

And in regard to the second question, letting one or several people lose their homes is preferable (not by much, but there it is) to letting an international corporation fail and cost the employees their livelihoods, upon which they all lose their homes.
Yes, people will lose jobs if any car company goes entirely under. No, it is not the end of the world. It is much easier for employees to find worse elsewhere than it is for business owners to make up for the loss of an entire business. Furthermore, there's no need to cry the sky is falling. Nothing about losing one's job implies that they will lose their home or even be in a state of unemployment for a significant amount of time. They will most likely fail for bankruptcy, labor agreements will change, but that's probably the realistic situation.

Please, tell me that with less demand suppliers won't fail as a result. Tell me straight up that nothing will change should the Big Three go down, 'cause that's what you're saying underneath the sarcasm.
I never said nothing will change. You said "With no one to supply," and I'm saying there are other car companies that exist besides the big three. Their loss is not the end of the entire auto-industry as a whole.

A domestic automaker is rather important, not only so that more jobs are placed here, but it also keeps foreign automakers from jacking up their prices here. It keeps everything competitive, and I'm sure you can finish the sentence from there.
I've already pointed out how ludicrous it is to state that protecting a business from failing is even remotely competitive. How you get to "jacking up prices," I'm not sure, since it would imply that foreign car companies would not be able to keep up with the demand for vehicles that American car companies would 'otherwise' (not likely, considering their situation) supply. In fact, the bailout is completely opposite a competitive market and is decidedly protectionist.

Look, with fewer cars being made, demand for gasoline will go down, and smaller companies may fail as a result. It's simple supply and demand.
Demand for gas is dependent on how much folks want to drive, not how many cars are available for purchase. People can still buy cars from other companies (who will likely either pick up the slack and/or buy up the big three), and people who already have cars will not lose them. Also, what Rensa said.

We do need the auto industry right now, because it does fill a unique niche in American society, and it isn't about to be replaced.
Ah, here it is again, that mythical status of the US auto-industry. You must support farm subsidies too (the good old yeomen farmer that we idealize here, no?) You've yet to give any reason why the industry deserves to be put on this pedestal. At least your earlier arguments attempted to ground themselves in some sort of logic, but this is by far the most annoying since it relies merely on your own perception of how much the auto-industry contributes to American culture. It's up there with "Well, I'm a car person so I just know better."

[Smokey]

I'll admit that I probably shouldn't use "fail" and "bankruptcy" interchangeably despite the fact I'd consider filing for bankruptcy to be a failure. For clarification, I'm saying a) car companies can fail, and should if they cannot survive on their own; and b) the reality is they'd probably file for bankruptcy (I assumed this was a given.)

Well, unless you're thinking of failure as "Oh, I did a bad thing" rather than "Oh, I no longer exist as an independent and functioning body", then the two don't mix. Anyway...

Let's pretend for a minute there is no bankruptcy and this is a simplified example - tell me why we shouldn't let them fail. There is apparently some mythical quality that the automobile industry possesses that makes them above market consequences. I normally don't beg, but for the love of God, at least read those links I posted earlier in this thread. And this one:

"Bailing out the Big Three is subsidizing failure. And you only subsidize something when you want more of it." (http://nhwatchdog.blogspot.com/2008/12/pat-buchanan-really-really-wrong-on.html)

I told you: jobs and dependency on foreign automakers. Buchanan had one valid point, which is that we can't afford to cede the auto industry to Asia, specifically Japan. I'd rather keep an American automaker here that nominally serves my interests rather than have it fail and have to look the Japanese for help. For some reason, I don't think they would be too generous in their dealings with us.

And therein lies the problem; you are arbitrarily applying a personal standard, which is why you somehow rationalized that people literally losing shelter is preferable to people losing a job - really, according to you and what logic? I'm saying bad businesses need to face the consequences for their actions regardless of size or product. I'm saying this because propping up bad businesses is bad for consumers (and everyone is a consumer.) I'm also saying this because when you cushion the consequences you consequently inhibit the incentives to do well. Everything that makes business competitive, and thus superior, is mitigated.

Any aid should cover the minimum operating needs. I figured that would be understood. As for my rationalization in that scenario you put forth, people can work out of motels and apartments and homes of friends and family in the event that they lose their home; the home will be the only loss. If they lose their job, though, they lose the means of maintaining everything else, and eventually they'll lose their home as well. In the former, you lose one. In the latter, you lose both.

Yes, people will lose jobs if any car company goes entirely under. No, it is not the end of the world. It is much easier for employees to find worse elsewhere than it is for business owners to make up for the loss of an entire business. Furthermore, there's no need to cry the sky is falling. Nothing about losing one's job implies that they will lose their home or even be in a state of unemployment for a significant amount of time. They will most likely fail for bankruptcy, labor agreements will change, but that's probably the realistic situation.

With the job market being as small as it is right now and I worked for one of the Big Three, I wouldn't want to take my chances out there, especially if the whole domestic industry goes under. Again, if they file for bankruptcy and things get renegotiated, it'd be different than an industry failure.

I never said nothing will change. You said "With no one to supply," and I'm saying there are other car companies that exist besides the big three. Their loss is not the end of the entire auto-industry as a whole.

That remark was restricted to the American auto industry. And I'd be curious to know what foreign auto maker would buy American made parts and steel with other cheaper alternatives elsewhere. At least the American auto makers feel some pressure to "buy American". Japan, Korea, and Germany don't.

I've already pointed out how ludicrous it is to state that protecting a business from failing is even remotely competitive. How you get to "jacking up prices," I'm not sure, since it would imply that foreign car companies would not be able to keep up with the demand for vehicles that American car companies would 'otherwise' (not likely, considering their situation) supply. In fact, the bailout is completely opposite a competitive market and is decidedly protectionist.

The continued presence of the American auto industry is what keeps things competitive. If it's not there, foreign auto makers don't feel any need to keep prices low; thus they jack them up. With no other viable alternative until alternate forms of transportation become widely available, the American consumer will have to go to the now-much-more-expensive foreign car company.

And Japan is insanely protectionist, yet somehow they manage to compete with US auto makers very well. I don't see why we can't do the same.

Demand for gas is dependent on how much folks want to drive, not how many cars are available for purchase. People can still buy cars from other companies (who will likely either pick up the slack and/or buy up the big three), and people who already have cars will not lose them. Also, what Rensa said.

I'll go ahead and answer Rensa. When I said "smaller companies", I was talking about gas and oil companies, not car companies.

I don't think foreign auto makers could pick up the slack, at least not for a while. The US is the biggest market for cars. You think foreign companies could compensate that quickly?

[Lizzaroni]

I told you: jobs and dependency on foreign automakers. Buchanan had one valid point, which is that we can't afford to cede the auto industry to Asia, specifically Japan. I'd rather keep an American automaker here that nominally serves my interests rather than have it fail and have to look the Japanese for help. For some reason, I don't think they would be too generous in their dealings with us.
If your interest is to buy a car, how do Japanese car makers not serve your interest? Half the **** we wear is made in Taiwan and China and whatever else and no one worries about going naked because one day China might flip out.

Any aid should cover the minimum operating needs. I figured that would be understood. As for my rationalization in that scenario you put forth, people can work out of motels and apartments and homes of friends and family in the event that they lose their home; the home will be the only loss. If they lose their job, though, they lose the means of maintaining everything else, and eventually they'll lose their home as well. In the former, you lose one. In the latter, you lose both.
That's assuming long-term unemployment, the same way you're assuming long-term ability to afford a hotel room or "squat." The salient point is this: you're cherry-picking scenarios based on your own preferences.

With the job market being as small as it is right now and I worked for one of the Big Three, I wouldn't want to take my chances out there, especially if the whole domestic industry goes under. Again, if they file for bankruptcy and things get renegotiated, it'd be different than an industry failure.
No one wants to take chances. If you're making a ****ton of money on inflated union wages, of course you wouldn't want to take a chance in the job market (OR renegotiate your labor contract for that matter.) That doesn't mean it's not the best thing to do for everybody. That's the problem with this bailout: it benefits a very select group of people at the expense of everybody else.

That remark was restricted to the American auto industry. And I'd be curious to know what foreign auto maker would buy American made parts and steel with other cheaper alternatives elsewhere. At least the American auto makers feel some pressure to "buy American". Japan, Korea, and Germany don't.
Wrong. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9783)

But here's the equally important thing to realize: If GM fails - or even GM and Ford both fail - we are not facing the loss of the U.S. auto industry. There are plenty of profitable operations, particularly those operating outside of Michigan. In 2008, the Big Three accounts for roughly 55% of light vehicle production and 50% of sales. To speak of the U.S. automobile industry these days, one must include Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Kia, Hyundai, BMW - and other foreign nameplate producers who manufacture vehicles in the U.S.

Those producers are the other half of the U.S. auto industry. They employ American workers, pay U.S. taxes, support other U.S. businesses, contribute to local charities, have genuine stakes in their local communities and face the same contracting demand for automobiles as does the Big Three. The difference is that these companies have a better track record of making products Americans want to consume and are not seeking federal assistance.

The continued presence of the American auto industry is what keeps things competitive. If it's not there, foreign auto makers don't feel any need to keep prices low; thus they jack them up. With no other viable alternative until alternate forms of transportation become widely available, the American consumer will have to go to the now-much-more-expensive foreign car company.
Do you even ****ing realize that "foreign automakers" is not one giant company and they still have to compete with one another? The elimination (absolute worst case scenario) of the US auto industry is not the end of competition; to prop them up is to, in fact, inhibit competition.

And Japan is insanely protectionist, yet somehow they manage to compete with US auto makers very well. I don't see why we can't do the same.
The Japanese government subsidizes car purchases for Americans at the expense of their taxpayers. Sucks for the Japanese, good news for us. I, for one, don't want to subsidize peoples' car purchases.

I'll go ahead and answer Rensa. When I said "smaller companies", I was talking about gas and oil companies, not car companies.

I don't think foreign auto makers could pick up the slack, at least not for a while. The US is the biggest market for cars. You think foreign companies could compensate that quickly?
You've still missed the mark: demand for gasoline is dependent on how much people want to drive, not the number of cars available.

[Smokey]

If your interest is to buy a car, how do Japanese car makers not serve your interest? Half the **** we wear is made in Taiwan and China and whatever else and no one worries about going naked because one day China might flip out.

We didn't nuke Taiwan or China. We did nuke Japan. Do you really think they're going to keep American interests in mind?

That's assuming long-term unemployment, the same way you're assuming long-term ability to afford a hotel room or "squat." The salient point is this: you're cherry-picking scenarios based on your own preferences.

The only long-term variable is loss of home after loss of job. Everything else is perfectly valid.

No one wants to take chances. If you're making a ****ton of money on inflated union wages, of course you wouldn't want to take a chance in the job market (OR renegotiate your labor contract for that matter.) That doesn't mean it's not the best thing to do for everybody. That's the problem with this bailout: it benefits a very select group of people at the expense of everybody else.

Look, I don't want a ****ing bailout. I've said it over and over: file for Chapter ****ing 11. Do what it takes to stay afloat.

Wrong. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9783)

You prate on about how the Big Three exemplify what's wrong in our society, then you quote a think tank in our nation's capital? Do you see the problem there?

Do you even ****ing realize that "foreign automakers" is not one giant company and they still have to compete with one another? The elimination (absolute worst case scenario) of the US auto industry is not the end of competition; to prop them up is to, in fact, inhibit competition.

1) Companies have formed agreements before
2) The United States is not well-liked by most countries that are home to major car companies
3) How the hell is keeping more players in the game inhibiting competition?

The Japanese government subsidizes car purchases for Americans at the expense of their taxpayers. Sucks for the Japanese, good news for us. I, for one, don't want to subsidize peoples' car purchases.

The point was that Japan protects its auto industry. We can do without Japanese cars; Darc's already shown us that. Raise tariffs on Japanese goods, and we can undercut the Japanese auto industry and help out our own.

You've still missed the mark: demand for gasoline is dependent on how much people want to drive, not the number of cars available.

The two aren't exclusive, so I'm not sure why we're even arguing this point.

[Darc Requiem]

Wow you guys have really gone off on a separate tangent. I am still waiting for the government to explain why they can bail out the banks but can't loan the Big Three 3 money. That is what gets me about the all these reports and discussions about the situation.

Normally Big Three could look to banks to garner loans. Since banks just f'd up royally that isn't an option. Hell, Ford doesn't need the money. The only want 9 billion on stand by in case GM or Chrysler go bankrupt. If anyone in the media bothered to do some actual research they would see that Ford was the worst off of the Big Three just a few years ago and they hired new management and made cuts to turn things around.

The news media is a joke as always. All automakers are having a terrible time right now. Sales are of 30% to 40% depending upon the manufacturer. They keep saying the Big Three is asking for a Bail out. They are asking for a loan as in, the taxpayers get their money back. The bank bailout doesn't have such definite pay back terms to say the least.

Getting back to Ford, I feel bad for them. They are not in the same dire straits as GM and particularly Chrysler. Congress wants Ford to show what they would cut. Ford has already sold Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin. In addition they've sold nearly all of their stake in Mazda.

They don't have much left to cut. They could cut Volvo, but if you look at the recent safety crash tests, you'll see that Volvo's engineering has vaulted Ford to the top of the crash worthiness rankings. I suppose they could can Mercury. However, Mercury only is already being trimmed to three namplates.. Even those nameplates are just luxed up Fords.

So they would actually lose money by canning Mercury. The cost saved by axing three cloned name plates would be out weighed by the cost to buy out the dealers. Most Mercury dealers are linked to Lincoln dealers. Mercury's lower priced cars are the volume for the Lincoln-Mercury dealerships and are a slight step up from Ford. So more than likely for would have to produce more Fusions/Escapes/Explorers to replace the Milan/Mariner/Mountaineers. Doing that would defeat the purpose of cutting Mercury. They'd have the same value and less revenue to show for it, since the Mercury nameplates retail and sell for more than the equivalent Ford model.

[Rensa]

We didn't nuke Taiwan or China. We did nuke Japan. Do you really think they're going to keep American interests in mind?
Er, are you actually suggesting that Americans shouldn't let their industries be dominated specifically by the Japanese because Japan has anti-American sentiment? Even disregarding how freaking absurd that idea it is, Japan is much more friendly toward America right now than China is (especially given the issue of Taiwanese independence).

[Smokey]

Er, are you actually suggesting that Americans shouldn't let their industries be dominated specifically by the Japanese because Japan has anti-American sentiment? Even disregarding how freaking absurd that idea it is, Japan is much more friendly toward America right now than China is (especially given the issue of Taiwanese independence).

I'm saying I don't even want that scenario to come to pass. And where are you getting the idea that China is unfriendly toward the US? China can't be very bitter about Taiwanese independence, anyway, seeing as they're sending them pandas (http:http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zmgx/t521998.htm//) in the next month or so. We are having no such relations with Japan. We still don't have any mutually profitable trade agreements with them, and they tax our goods insanely.

[Rensa]

And where are you getting the idea that China is unfriendly toward the US?
I'm not saying that, just that they're less friendly than Japan. The idea that either of them is hostile enough to actually warrant boycotting their products is absurd, of course, but you were the one who suggested it.
China can't be very bitter about Taiwanese independence, anyway, seeing as they're sending them pandas in the next month or so.
I know this is totally irrelevant to what you guys are talking about, but I can't really join into the economic discussion so I'm gonna take what I can get.

I don't think I need to point out that China and the US are serious economic rivals. Add to that the fact that any break from the 'One China' line incenses the PRC (see Tibetan protests during the Olympics) and that, despite announcing repeatedly that it opposes independence, the Bush administration has denounced Chinese threats of military action on Taiwan before. I should probably check myself in saying anything like, "The US supports independence" because it's a pretty complex situation, but if Taiwan ever actually went ahead with independence and China started rattling its sabre again, things would be a mite tense between the US and China.

I'm just sayin', if you're gonna compare US-China relations to US-Japan ones, well, I know whose house I'd be going to after school.

[Smokey]

I don't think I need to point out that China and the US are serious economic rivals. Add to that the fact that any break from the 'One China' line incenses the PRC (see Tibetan protests during the Olympics) and that, despite announcing repeatedly that it opposes independence, the Bush administration has denounced Chinese threats of military action on Taiwan before. I should probably check myself in saying anything like, "The US supports independence" because it's a pretty complex situation, but if Taiwan ever actually went ahead with independence and China started rattling its sabre again, things would be a mite tense between the US and China.

While it's true that there's a lot of competition between our two countries, there's also been a lot of cooperation recently, economically speaking. Also, we've been borrowing pretty heavily from them. I realize that holding the debts of your rival is the economic equivalent of having your opponent by the balls, but you'd have to be on pretty good terms to have that kind of cash changing hands.

I don't want to be in that situation with either country, as there's a lot of cons that outweigh the pros on both sides, but if it was one or the other, I'd still take mainland China over Japan. They might be our chief economic rival, but only because of sheer output. They're pretty inexperienced in the capitalist arena, whereas Japan learned from the best.

[Darc Requiem]

Smokey, I've been reading your posts about China and Japan. How can put this. Are you serious? Setting the aside the fact that Japan is our ally and China is not. There are serious issues with China. They price fix their currency. They invite foreign firms in for partnerships, learn how to build their products, and then give them the boot after essentially stealing their technology. Their protection of intellectual property is a joke. That is just a small sampling of the economic side of things. Not even gonna get into the other issues with China.

[Lizzaroni]

We didn't nuke Taiwan or China. We did nuke Japan. Do you really think they're going to keep American interests in mind?
Are you retarded? We revolted against Britain and practically annihilated huge chunks of the European population during WWII and we don't stop trading with them. There isn't a country out there that doesn't have some sort of dark history with another. Our current relationship with Japan is far, far friendlier than it is with China.

The only long-term variable is loss of home after loss of job. Everything else is perfectly valid.
Sorry, what? I asked you why it's acceptable to bail out people who will lose their jobs and not those who will lose their homes, and you responded with "People who lose their jobs will probably lose their homes." Now you're admitting that loss of home after unemployment is a long-term variable (as I said.) Thus it still stands that the assertion that folks will inevitably lose their home if they lose their job is an unwarranted assumption about the long term (see: your quote.) Does this mean you're admitting your wrong or just didn't understand my point?

Look, I don't want a ****ing bailout. I've said it over and over: file for Chapter ****ing 11. Do what it takes to stay afloat.
Then why are you consistently arguing that the government should bail out companies because of job loss?

You prate on about how the Big Three exemplify what's wrong in our society,
I never once said they exemplify what is wrong in our society.

then you quote a think tank in our nation's capital? Do you see the problem there?
No, because the article is absolutely correct and the location is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. I wouldn't discount a Detroit newspaper just because oh my gosh it's located in Detroit.

1) Companies have formed agreements before
2) The United States is not well-liked by most countries that are home to major car companies
3) How the hell is keeping more players in the game inhibiting competition?
1) What's your point?
2) We're not well liked in the countries that make our clothes either. Companies are interested in making money, period. If there's a market, they'll be here. Furthermore, any of the Big Three going down doesn't mean the US auto-industry will be entirely absent; it just means that they won't be the prevailing companies. Why can't other folks start successful auto-companies?
3) Because competition doesn't rest on number of players alone. If I'm playing soccer and am losing to a team by three points and the refs decide to give me an extra 2 so things can "remain competitive", that makes no sense at all.

The point was that Japan protects its auto industry.
At the expense of the Japanese people.

We can do without Japanese cars; Darc's already shown us that. Raise tariffs on Japanese goods, and we can undercut the Japanese auto industry and help out our own.
At the expense of the American people. (http://econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Selicklocal.html) I don't give two licks about whether my car is American or not. I care that it suits my needs.

The two aren't exclusive, so I'm not sure why we're even arguing this point.
Because your claim is that the Big Three failing will inevitably lead to lower demand for gasoline which is stupid because demand for gasoline relies on how much people want to drive, not how many American cars are available for purchase.

Wow you guys have really gone off on a separate tangent. I am still waiting for the government to explain why they can bail out the banks but can't loan the Big Three 3 money. That is what gets me about the all these reports and discussions about the situation.
You're completely right that the government is being inconsistent; I don't disagree with that. I'm saying the government is wrong on both counts for what are essentially identical reasons (ex. both privatize profits and socialize losses.) Arguing a position on one bailout and the opposite on the other is being just as inconsistent and stupid as Congress.

[Darc Requiem]

You're completely right that the government is being inconsistent; I don't disagree with that. I'm saying the government is wrong on both counts for what are essentially identical reasons (ex. both privatize profits and socialize losses.) Arguing a position on one bailout and the opposite on the other is being just as inconsistent and stupid as Congress.

That true to certain degree, but the banks are the reason for the auto industry's current collapse. Despite what the news says, all companies are taking huge hits. Every company's sales down in the 30 to 40% range. Not only that. Bankruptcy is not an option. Bankruptcy reorganization requires funding. The same credit freeze that has caused the Big Three to ask the government for money would prevent them from getting credit for reorganization.

In other words, I support the Big Three getting loans because of the bank bailout. The bank's screwed up. The credit freeze has caused the lowest auto industry sales since 1982. That in turn has caused increasing losses which has eaten up their cash on hand. The Big Three can't get loans because of the credit freeze and they can't file bankruptcy because of the credit freeze.

[Smokey]

Smokey, I've been reading your posts about China and Japan. How can put this. Are you serious? Setting the aside the fact that Japan is our ally and China is not. There are serious issues with China. They price fix their currency. They invite foreign firms in for partnerships, learn how to build their products, and then give them the boot after essentially stealing their technology. Their protection of intellectual property is a joke. That is just a small sampling of the economic side of things. Not even gonna get into the other issues with China.

Setting aside the fact that the term "ally" is incredibly vague (not to mention inaccurate, in this case), I fail to see what this has to do with economic relations with the US. Again, at least we can conduct amicable trade relations with China, negotiations that we could never conduct with Japan.

Are you retarded? We revolted against Britain and practically annihilated huge chunks of the European population during WWII and we don't stop trading with them. There isn't a country out there that doesn't have some sort of dark history with another. Our current relationship with Japan is far, far friendlier than it is with China.

Even you have to agree that nuclear bombing is far worse than anything we have done to date. Two nations overcome bad blood when faced with a common enemy. When has the US and Japan faced anything together? We can't even agree on environmental concerns (which is inherently an issue of global scope and thus demands global attention, including that of Japan and the US), and you say that Japan is far friendlier toward us than China is? At least we can agree with China about economic deals without either side threatening some manner of sanctions or other repercussions.

I'll give you this: the Japanese Prime Minister is on good terms with the US. He's fairly alone in that respect, and he doesn't have a lot of influence in the Japanese gov't right now (hasn't for a while). The average Japanese citizen holds us in contempt, as do the majority of Japanese leaders.

Sorry, what? I asked you why it's acceptable to bail out people who will lose their jobs and not those who will lose their homes, and you responded with "People who lose their jobs will probably lose their homes." Now you're admitting that loss of home after unemployment is a long-term variable (as I said.) Thus it still stands that the assertion that folks will inevitably lose their home if they lose their job is an unwarranted assumption about the long term (see: your quote.) Does this mean you're admitting your wrong or just didn't understand my point?

I'm admitting that loss of home after unemployment is the only long-term variable. Everything else I said still holds true.

Then why are you consistently arguing that the government should bail out companies because of job loss?

The only reason I said anything of that nature (which has not been consistently said, BTW) is that, like Darc said, the Big Three are getting screwed and it's not all their fault. They can't do anything on their own and they need help from the gov't. I don't want a bailout like the bank industry got, but if the auto makers can't save their ass because of extenuating circumstances, then the gov't needs to do something about it.

I never once said they exemplify what is wrong in our society.

That's how you've been carrying on this entire argument.

No, because the article is absolutely correct and the location is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. I wouldn't discount a Detroit newspaper just because oh my gosh it's located in Detroit.

No, it's in line with your opinion. I've never even heard of the CATO Institute, for one thing, and why should I take them seriously? What makes them any different from the other thousand useless think tanks scattered around the centers of power?

And the reason that article is wrong is that it assumes that one can fail and the other two will be fine for some magical reason. They're all in the same boat, more or less, and if one goes down, chances are that the other two will, as well.

1) What's your point?
2) We're not well liked in the countries that make our clothes either. Companies are interested in making money, period. If there's a market, they'll be here. Furthermore, any of the Big Three going down doesn't mean the US auto-industry will be entirely absent; it just means that they won't be the prevailing companies. Why can't other folks start successful auto-companies?
3) Because competition doesn't rest on number of players alone. If I'm playing soccer and am losing to a team by three points and the refs decide to give me an extra 2 so things can "remain competitive", that makes no sense at all.

1) A good ol' boy network of businesses will work together to ensure that they make a profit, or whatever else is on their agenda. Considering global opinion of the US right now, if the Big Three go down, it's not unreasonable to think that the major foreign auto makers will all raise prices in the US just to be vindictive.
2) If auto companies rise up in their place, they'll have shoes that Shaq couldn't fill. It'll take a long time before they can compete with foreign makers. And the difference between the countries that make cars and the countries that make our clothes is that, with the exception of China, they can't do a damn thing to annoy us; they depend on us. Germany, South Korea, and to an extent Japan don't rely on us nearly as heavily.
3) Your analogy doesn't fit. To use your team scenario, imagine the foreign auto makers are one team and the domestic ones are the other. If the domestic team loses a certain number of players, they forfeit the game. The coach, in this case the US gov't, should do what he can to keep his players in the game in order to compete with the other team, hence, keeping things competitive.

At the expense of the Japanese people.

Even if what you say is true, there is no reason we couldn't find another solution. When I said there was no reason we couldn't do what they do, I was speaking in generalities, not specifics.

At the expense of the American people. (http://econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Selicklocal.html) I don't give two licks about whether my car is American or not. I care that it suits my needs.

Again, generalities, not specifics.

Because your claim is that the Big Three failing will inevitably lead to lower demand for gasoline which is stupid because demand for gasoline relies on how much people want to drive, not how many American cars are available for purchase.

The original remark was more incidental than anything. I'm not inclined to argue this.

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

The average Japanese citizen holds us in contempt, as do the majority of Japanese leaders.

Wrong. When I was living in Japan last year, all I ever heard from my students, the other teachers, and random people/shopkeepers/restaurant workers, etc., was how much everybody loved America(ns). Nearly all of my students wanted to move to the US after graduation, and a good portion of the staff at the school where I was working had lived in the states for a few years and loved it here. The only thing they seemed not to like about the US was Bush. I can't say much for the "leaders" you mentioned, but as for the average citizens, you're dead wrong.

[Darc Requiem]

Setting aside the fact that the term "ally" is incredibly vague (not to mention inaccurate, in this case), I fail to see what this has to do with economic relations with the US. Again, at least we can conduct amicable trade relations with China, negotiations that we could never conduct with Japan.
.

Nothing vague about it. We have military base in Okinawa that is integral to our Pacific Theatre mobilization. Japan is much closer to hostile countries like China and North Korea. China is the country that no one really likes but everyone wants to get their business into for 1.2 billion people that live there to be honest. If China was country with a small population they'd be getting the same treatment as North Korea. They'd be getting sanctioned to hell and the West would most likely be trying to tap in to huge population of India. India doesn't limit the number children families can have. I don't fault the Japanese government for doing everything in their power to ensure the success of their businesses abroad, I fault our government for not doing the same.

Side note: Everyone talks about China but India is going to be the next superpower. The U.S. is on its way to being like the U.K.

[Smokey]

Wrong. When I was living in Japan last year, all I ever heard from my students, the other teachers, and random people/shopkeepers/restaurant workers, etc., was how much everybody loved America(ns). Nearly all of my students wanted to move to the US after graduation, and a good portion of the staff at the school where I was working had lived in the states for a few years and loved it here. The only thing they seemed not to like about the US was Bush. I can't say much for the "leaders" you mentioned, but as for the average citizens, you're dead wrong.

If anything can be said about the Japanese, it's that they're an incredibly polite people, am I right? I'd be inclined to think that they were being polite to you more than anything. I'm not saying that they were talking **** about you behind your back all the time, just that I wouldn't take all of that at face value.

Nothing vague about it. We have military base in Okinawa that is integral to our Pacific Theatre mobilization. Japan is much closer to hostile countries like China and North Korea. China is the country that no one really likes but everyone wants to get their business into for 1.2 billion people that live there to be honest. If China was country with a small population they'd be getting the same treatment as North Korea. They'd be getting sanctioned to hell and the West would most likely be trying to tap in to huge population of India. India doesn't limit the number children families can have.

We have a military base in Cuba, we have bases in Eastern Europe, we have bases in Iraq. I know they don't want us there. Having a base somewhere doesn't mean we're on good terms with them.

What does Japan's proximity to communist countries have to do with anything?

It doesn't matter why we're trying to get along with them. The fact is we are, and we can't do that with Japan. Our original ally in the Far East was China. Japan was not our first choice, and that shows in our relations, economic and otherwise.

Not that I understand why you included this, but India doesn't have 1) the same amount of people as China, or 2) the same kind of problem with its population as China.

I don't fault the Japanese government for doing everything in their power to ensure the success of their businesses abroad, I fault our government for not doing the same.

You're right, Japan's not bad for looking after their own interests. That's the prerogative of every sovereign nation.

Side note: Everyone talks about China but India is going to be the next superpower. The U.S. is on its way to being like the U.K.

Hmm, I dunno about superpower, but they're definitely going to be a power, no question. And the US will be on its way out if we don't get things straightened out.

[Hottotty]

Japans problem: No pirates.

/Thread

[Darc Requiem]

We have a military base in Cuba, we have bases in Eastern Europe, we have bases in Iraq. I know they don't want us there. Having a base somewhere doesn't mean we're on good terms with them.

True, but let me ask you this. If one U.S. military plane flew over Japan and the other flew over China, which one would get shot down?

What does Japan's proximity to communist countries have to do with anything?

As an allied Democracy we have common interests to be frank.

It doesn't matter why we're trying to get along with them. The fact is we are, and we can't do that with Japan. Our original ally in the Far East was China. Japan was not our first choice, and that shows in our relations, economic and otherwise.

But it does, as I said before China's massive population and burgeoning markets cause them to be able to get away things that any smaller country would get crucified for. See Nepal, their treatment of Taiwan, the laundry list of human rights violations etc.

Not that I understand why you included this, but India doesn't have 1) the same amount of people as China, or 2) the same kind of problem with its population as China.

Google is your friend Smokey. India will be the most populated country in the World in the next few decades. Currently they are second to China with a population of 1,147,995,904 billion people
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/in.html

China has population of 1,330,044,544 people
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/ch.html

You're right, Japan's not bad for looking after their own interests. That's the prerogative of every sovereign nation.



Hmm, I dunno about superpower, but they're definitely going to be a power, no question. And the US will be on its way out if we don't get things straightened out.

As for why I brought up India. Your answer on their population lends credence to why. India has the best engineers, doctors, scientist etc. in the world, the second largest population, a burgeoning industry, and nuclear weapons. Sounds like a Super Power in waiting to me. Especially since no seems to take notice of India despite these attributes.

[Smokey]

True, but let me ask you this. If one U.S. military plane flew over Japan and the other flew over China, which one would get shot down?

China, because the Japanese military doesn't really amount to much given what's in their constitution. If Japan had the capability to shoot down our plane and face the consequences, you'd better believe they would.

As an allied Democracy we have common interests to be frank.

Russia is ostensibly our ally, and it is technically a democracy, but our interests don't even come close to being common. Same with France and a number of other democracies.

But it does, as I said before China's massive population and burgeoning markets cause them to be able to get away things that any smaller country would get crucified for. See Nepal, their treatment of Taiwan, the laundry list of human rights violations etc.

Why they get treated differently doesn't matter. We are cooperating with them and not with Japan, hence we have friendlier relations with China than with Japan. Simple as that.

Google is your friend Smokey. India will be the most populated country in the World in the next few decades. Currently they are second to China with a population of 1,147,995,904 billion people
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/in.html

China has population of 1,330,044,544 people
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/ch.html

I'll be honest, I didn't know that the populations were that close, though 200mil is still a pretty big number. Even so, they don't have the same issues as China. Most areas in India can support large amounts of people. China doesn't have that luxury, and the people are crowded into smaller areas. That's why (or part of why) China limits reproduction and India does not. There are also several cultural differences involved, too.

As for why I brought up India. Your answer on their population lends credence to why. India has the best engineers, doctors, scientist etc. in the world, the second largest population, a burgeoning industry, and nuclear weapons. Sounds like a Super Power in waiting to me. Especially since no seems to take notice of India despite these attributes.

So did Germany, but they weren't a superpower. But I guess it's a wait-and-see kind of thing, so you could be right on that score.

[HGW XX/7]

So did Germany, but they weren't a superpower. But I guess it's a wait-and-see kind of thing, so you could be right on that score.

Germany was most definitely a superpower of the time, I don't see how that could be argued against. At the time World War II occurred Germany was just as much a superpower as any other nation in the world, if not more so.

Then again, was the term superpower even used before the end of WWII?

[Smokey]

Germany was most definitely a superpower of the time, I don't see how that could be argued against. At the time World War II occurred Germany was just as much a superpower as any other nation in the world, if not more so.

Then again, was the term superpower even used before the end of WWII?

Don't think it was. And in order for a country to be considered a superpower, I would think there would be some longevity involved, and Nazi Germany didn't last too terribly long. Not to mention that I can't recall a superpower (or nation with equal power, if you will) that was defeated in a contest of military might. Every one I can think of was due to internal breakups or it just faded away. I don't count the American Revolution because there were circumstances where the British had to focus on other areas of their empire; Germany had no such handicap.

[HGW XX/7]

Don't think it was. And in order for a country to be considered a superpower, I would think there would be some longevity involved, and Nazi Germany didn't last too terribly long. Not to mention that I can't recall a superpower (or nation with equal power, if you will) that was defeated in a contest of military might. Every one I can think of was due to internal breakups or it just faded away. I don't count the American Revolution because there were circumstances where the British had to focus on other areas of their empire; Germany had no such handicap.

They were bested in a military contest against the ****ing world. I don't think there's been any other 'superpower' that's actually been tested in anything equivalent to that.

I can see the argument about longevity though. I'm just saying that at the time, Germany probably would have been seen as a superpower.

[Smokey]

They were bested in a military contest against the ****ing world. I don't think there's been any other 'superpower' that's actually been tested in anything equivalent to that.

Napoleon says hi.

I can see the argument about longevity though. I'm just saying that at the time, Germany probably would have been seen as a superpower.

At the time, I can accept that. From a historical standpoint, though, they were just too short-lived.

[Lizzaroni]

OK, I'm too busy to respond to every single response, Smokey, so here's the summation of my argument:

- Economics is not a zero sum game. Just because the US auto-makers are in a precarious position does not mean we "lose" the game.
- You can't discount economic principles because you think this particular situation is special. Protectionism is protectionism is protectionism.
- Nothing in my posts indicated that I thought the auto-industry was the bane of society or anything close.
- People are getting laid off auto-bailout or no auto-bailout. There is no logical difference between supporting saving peoples' homes and saving peoples' jobs, and citing a worst case scenario doesn't change that fact.
- The dynamics between countries are constantly changing. You can't remain paranoid about relationships in 2008 because of something that happened in World War 2 unless the relationship hasn't changed. Otherwise, you're going to have to opt for pure isolationism, as there aren't many countries out there whose toes we haven't stepped on.
- Chapter 11 would be a good thing for these companies, especially when it'd give them the opportunity to renegotiate their labor contract.

[Darc Requiem]

@Liz

Bankruptcy would be fine but with the credit crunch there is no guarantee funding could be secured for reorganization. Which brings me back to the bank bailout. What was the point? There is still a credit freeze and they STILL keep getting more money.

[Tanooki]

Part of this freeze now are banks behaving badly and not keeping their word with the fat bailouts they were given. The deal was to unfreeze credit and have more liquidity to ensure and bring back credit and value into the market. So far a good pile of the bigboys have taken the money and are still acting like turds. Perhaps the gov't needs to punish them too. Damn bailouts and nothing but trouble.

[Darc Requiem]

As I've said before, I was against the bailout. However the worst offenders, the banks, keep getting money. I don't see a bank czar yet I see an auto czar. The banks have gotten 100 times the money that Congress has offered to the Big Three. So we get oversight on 15 billion but not on 1.5 trillion :doh: