??? Should we pony up our taxpayer dollars, or more mythical money printed by the Fed, and bailout (throw cash at) our remaining American automobile manufacturers? Or should they be left to wither and die, or survive if they can?
My problem with throwing money at them is that it will only postpone the inevitable. I say their death is inevitable because they are saddled with union driven expenses that unless removed will be a continual drag on their ability to perform.
I like my American Iron. I would hate to see it disappear. But what's the "right" thing to do? ???
They destroyed the electric car when the public wanted it or something similar. They gave us a Hummer. Not all of us wanted that. ::)
I don't see any loyalty to the public of the US. Our jobs have mostly been given away by them. Not even the Cummins Diesel is made in the US. I think it's time to cut out the middle man. We don't even have the money to bail them out. Isn't having the ability to pay a requirement to pay a bill? Let their CEO's go hungry I think would be good.
Lets not keep rolling the presses and inflating the dollars, but of course Congress will disagree and print more bucks.
Seems to me that a bailout is the best way possible to encourage more of the same counterproductive policies at the corporate level that brought the bankruptcy on in the first place. Let 'em sink or swim. Heard somewhere that the non-union auto factories and auto parts manufacturers in other states are doing just fine. Bailing out businesses and otherwise meddling in the marketplace is not a proper function of gov't. It represents blatant socialization of our culture, and that goes for the bank bailout, too. The bureaucrats' willingness to make all of us pay for the mistakes of the well-connected few just shows how arrogant and power-drunk they are, and how little respect they have for us peons. Maybe we deserve it. We almost never fire the bums every 2, 4, or 6 years like we would if we had any sense.
i see AIG was in the news again. this time it was another junket but very hush-hush(don't want those bad pr reports). i think it was in new mexico, but somewhere in the southwest. send 'em more bail out money. >:(
Good for AIG.... They just got an additional bailout too. Aren't our politicians wonderful --- helping themselves to the money plate as they own AIG. YOu shOuld sEe the letTer I seNt to AIG rEp when theY offeRed Me a qUote.
In fact you can -- I saved a copy
RE: Complimentary Quote from AIG
From: glenn kangiser (glenn-k@msn.com)
Sent: Tue 11/04/08 8:58 PM
To: matrixdirect@jp311uyers.com
You guys really have the balls. Rip off the American Public for a bailout--- party to celebrate, and now you want me to give you business too?.... I don't think so --- Homey don't do dat.....
Sincerely, Glenn Kangiser
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 20:19:44 +0200
From: MatrixDirect@jp311uyers.com
To: glenn-k@msn.com
Subject: Complimentary Quote from AIG
From what I have seen if it is to be trusted Obama would attach some strings to a loan that would require the production of more efficient cars if a loan is made. And it sounds like it would be a loan not a grant. The number of jobs that would be destroyed is significant but like Don says the Unions are choking those companies to death. It seems like nothing is just a simple black and white issue anymore there are shaes of gray everywhere as the waters get muddied with extenuating circumstances that create these arguments. I have three GM products myself and all are gas guzzlers.
I agree there is no money to do a bailout with and the presses would have to roll to create it. That can't go on forever
I struggle to get by right now. We keep waiting for this to end but the end is not in sight. Doing this would push it further out of sight rather than having the opposite effect I think.
There are two ways to balance a budget, one is to increase income and the other is to decrease expenses. Borrowing isn't on the list. I suspect that if the big 3 were making autos people wanted to buy they could increase income. It now costs as much to buy a new vehicle as it used to cost to buy a home. So decreasing expenses is a good option. Taking away pay people are accustomed to is tricky business at best. But it has happened to many of us so why should this industry be any different.
I believe the auto industry needs to restructure itself to achieve some efficiency.
I really feel like INDEPENDENT business is what made this country great. The Government needs to stay out of it! Unions had an important place in this country but just like industry outgrowing it's means, the unions have lost sight of their purpose. They would rather see the company go under than make concessions.
Before I could approve of a bailout, I'd have to see all company personnel take a 20% pay cut and relinquish 80% of their fringe benefits, Beats being unemployed.
My thoughts are the manufacturers caved in to the unions over the past 20 or so years and it's those albatrosses that are doing them in. If there is to be bailout, loans, then those union contracts must be drastically revised to lower costs and make them competitive.
I was not in support of the financial bailout.
Screw the big three auto. The unions sucked the cash out of that industry, and now they want us to bail them out. NO!!!!
Page A8 of the ABQ Journal today, an editorial by Cal Thomas:
"According to the Wall Street Journal in September of 2006, on average, GM pays $81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to its U.S. Hourly workers."
You have got to be kidding me.
This same article indicates that Ford is selling a diesel car that gets 65mpg, but NOT selling it in the US. This is because it runs on diesel and environmentalists in this country fight to keep diesel taxes high and refinery capacity low.
I'm going to google and see if I can find that car.
-f-
I would say no deal to any auto bailout right now. But if the following strings were attached I would probably change my mind.
1) If Americans are paying for it, the auto makers no longer have any patents to sit on - they now belong to the US. All those stories of who killed the electric car, who killed the super engine, the battery technologies, all of that goes back into public domain where it can be pursued with private capital. If they were good ideas they will be explored and brought to market without any additional help than that.
2) let them go into bankruptcy first. Discharge stupid debts like paying the retired people 100k a year to retire at 45 and keep paying them that salary for the next 30 years. Yes it sucks for them, but if they are bankrupt and dead anyway they would get nothing more anyway.
3) You want to build cars in Mexico, ask Mexico for a bailout. Build them here, were not interested in sending more money to foreign countries when those jobs are badly needed here. If the only jobs you want to keep in the USA are management related then your done. period.
4) Yes, making them here will make them more expensive, but as the US citizens are part owners in the deal offer them tax breaks and incentives to buy american. If were reserved to the idea that without any help they are bankrupt and done then this is better than nothing.
5) Financing arms (GMAC, FMC, etc) must be split off from production companies. We dont need any more damn broken banks.
6) Might not be a bad idea to force the merger of them, do we really need 4 companies selling the same cars rebranded?
7) Complete catalog - If I can buy it in Europe or China, sell it here too.
Here it is...
(http://images.businessweek.com/story/08/600/0904_mz_ecocar.jpg)
articles...
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm?chan=autos_autos+--+lifestyle+subindex+page_top+stories
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/ford-econetic-fiesta-diesel-63mpg.php
Why stop with the automakers? Why not bail out Mervyns? Why not Circuit City? Why not Linens & Things? Why not give some money to 84 Lumber and BMC West so they can keep the stores in my town open and save those jobs? Why not the video rental shop down the street?
We vote each time we make a purchase. Businesses that don't get enough votes fail. When gov't props up a failed business, it has overridden our votes. By allowing this, we admit that gov't decisionmakers are smarter than all the rest of us put together, and that we approve of them taking our money by force and giving it to a business we voted down.
This is the antithesis of self-determination, liberty, and limited gov't, the principles this country was founded upon and prospered under to an unprecedented level. It is also absolutely wrong. Unlimited gov't and the prescribed life have been tried and failed. John is right when he says "None of us are as smart as all of us." We are seeing gov't slip more of the chains of the constitution, and if we fail to bind it down again, it will destroy what we have left of our prosperity and our liberty. Will the sheeple ever wake up?
Muldoon, I hope someday we get a chance to sit down and talk about some of these things over a hot cup of coffee or a cold beer. Our first visit was way too short!
Quote from: muldoon on November 12, 2008, 11:33:16 AM
I would say no deal to any auto bailout right now. But if the following strings were attached I would probably change my mind. Sorry my friend, but with or without strings, it is suicidal to condone gov't interference in the marketplace beyond policing for fraud, robbery, or monopoly.
1) If Americans are paying for it, the auto makers no longer have any patents to sit on - they now belong to the US. All those stories of who killed the electric car, who killed the super engine, the battery technologies, all of that goes back into public domain where it can be pursued with private capital. If they were good ideas they will be explored and brought to market without any additional help than that. If the market is allowed to work, those assets will eventually be properly utilized.
2) let them go into bankruptcy first. Discharge stupid debts like paying the retired people 100k a year to retire at 45 and keep paying them that salary for the next 30 years. Yes it sucks for them, but if they are bankrupt and dead anyway they would get nothing more anyway. Stupid debts are evidence of seriously incompetent management. Why force the taxpayers to give the incompetents another chance?
3) You want to build cars in Mexico, ask Mexico for a bailout. Build them here, were not interested in sending more money to foreign countries when those jobs are badly needed here. If the only jobs you want to keep in the USA are management related then your done. period. If they can get money somewhere else, fine. But we should not ever give them a penny that's been taken by force from a taxpayer.
4) Yes, making them here will make them more expensive, but as the US citizens are part owners in the deal offer them tax breaks and incentives to buy american. If were reserved to the idea that without any help they are bankrupt and done then this is better than nothing. Please, less, not more, gov't meddling in the marketplace!
5) Financing arms (GMAC, FMC, etc) must be split off from production companies. We dont need any more damn broken banks. I kind of like them to finance their own products for consumers. Gives them an incentive to build cars that last longer than it takes to pay for them.
6) Might not be a bad idea to force the merger of them, do we really need 4 companies selling the same cars rebranded? Apparently we don't need any of them, if they aren't selling enough cars for enough money to stay in business.
7) Complete catalog - If I can buy it in Europe or China, sell it here too. One reason some cars are not available here is different environmental and safety mandates. Another case of gov't interference in the market narrowing our choices.
My position is that:
1. Gov't interference in the marketplace is constitutionally inappropriate beyond criminal policing functions.
2. Gov't interference is ineffective and counterproductive over the long run. Look at the first Chrysler bailout. It ended up being bought by a private investment group. Wouldn't it have been better to have let that happen in the first place and leave the taxpayers out of it?
3. Gov't interference in the marketplace is dangerous to our liberty and prosperity. Gov't can only give what it takes from someone else first. Where is the net gain in that?
ED: increased font size for readability - MD
If GM has actual total costs of $81 an hour, and I do not doubt that figure, in a USA union factory there is no way on earth the vehicles can be priced competitively. None at all. That is why Mexico assembles many cars. They probably do it for $8 an hour or less. And a factory in India can probably do it for 81 cents an hour, or some other equally disproportionate amount. There's the problem with our USA auto industry.
I could favor loans, that would be repaid as Chrysler did a few decades ago. That though would require huge concessions from the unions and the workers. I think the unions are crazy enough, short sighted enough, stupid enough to ensure the Big 3 will go bankrupt. At that point everybody here will lose. Just another nail in the coffin.
Harry, I agree with you on every point. I am not advocating a bailout for anyone. However, if I had my choice I would rather bailout companies that produce a product (cars in this case), over companies that only leech from the rest of the system (banks, insurance and such). It is somewhat clear that all three of the remaining auto manufacturers are quite broken, GM, Ford, and Crystler. Likely they will all be in bankruptcy within the next 12-18 months. With them comes the jobs, not just the assembly workers, but the parts makers, the petroleum and plastics business, the glass workers, the shipping jobs, and with those jobs comes the service jobs as those economies equally contract. (google Flint for one of many examples on this concept).
I am not advocating bailing them out, but the fact remains that a bailout may indeed be the cheaper option from a government perspective.
Muldoon, point taken. You and some of the others are likely correct, the short-term reality will be some kind of pain sharing arrangement. And yes, there are some good aspects to that. I just can't swallow having the gov't mandate whose pain gets shared, when, and to what degree!
I found it interesting that the Prez-elect enshrined "change" as the centerpiece of his campaign, and then, in his first press conference since the election, endorsed this bailout before the furor over the bank bailout had even subsided. Sure looks like more of the same to me!
Harry
I believe they should go into bankruptcy and sort it out from there. But there are a few reasons not to let them disappear. First is security. Since WWI and WWII we have subsidized certain industries (food, energy) for security. We did not want the basics of a fuctioning economy being dependent on a foreign entity. We have very little manufacturing of anything left in this country. I don't want to see what little we have disappear.
Second is that they have are not playing on an equal playing field. In a perfect world, there is the "free" market. The japanese subsidize their steel, car, and bank industries and they have been for 40 years. The largest cost to US auto manufacturers is the health care, second is steel. Japan has universal health care and subsidized steel. The government also has a hand in their banks and has been given low interest loans to the auto manufacturing industry in Japan. I would like to see U.S. car makers punished for making crap for years. When the rest of the world made fuel efficient vehicles, the U.S. car makers lobbied government for the most lax fuel standards in the modern world, even less than china.
$25 billion in loans is being approved by the politicians without conditions it would appear. I watched a little TV tonight. Lots of folks are outraged.
!@$%&$$#@!!!! $^itheads politicians!
Abandon all hope! Just postponing tomorrow, the inevitable, without the making of big time changes to their corporate model.
Quote from: MountainDon on November 18, 2008, 02:02:55 AM
!@$%&$$#@!!!! $^itheads politicians!
Abandon all hope! Just postponing tomorrow, the inevitable, without the making of big time changes to their corporate model.
Tell us what you really think MountainDon ;)
I don't expect much change from our newly elected government. They talk a good game...but when it comes down to action..
Frankly, not much change is likely the best we can hope for from the new powers-that-be. I'm afraid that based on past performance and discussion, their preferred change would be all exactly in the wrong direction.
i would rather the auto makers get it than the ins. co.'s and bankers.$25 billion as opposed to $700 billion. and as long as were talking big money, i heard that it would cost $60 billion to make our energy grid independent from foreign oil and be completly green. that doesn't sound like a bad idea compared to the way we are throwing money around into a black hole. it would put 10's of thousands of people to work(paying taxes and spending money) and keep the cost of oil down while we work on phase #2(energy efficient transportation that is green, maybe natural gas like pickens said).$60 billion is six months the cost of fighting in iraq. i just don't understand our priorities anymore. is our gov't "smarter than a 5th grader"? ???
I think $60bn won't do it --- it's held together with band aids. These guys all lie to get free money in whatever large quantity they can. Then come the cost overruns.
I'm with you on the rather autos than criminals but would rather see them all get legit on their own.
Their combined intelligence is only used for theft and is high and devious. As to the part used for the benefit of the middle and lower class, they aren't interested in even thinking about it - -kindergarten minus there. Just a facade if they show interest.
Until the Big Shrinking Three are able to compete on the same playing field they are screwed. The latest numbers I've heard is that GM's actual hourly costs for a US plant worker is $71, while Toyota's US workers cost them $47. That places GM in a totally uncompetitive position. The only way out of that is to go through a bankruptcy where the union contracts can be broken.
Throwing money at them amounts to redistribution of wealth.
What REALLY makes me mad is that they don't put any conditions on the bailouts... just give them the money & it's business as usual... I agree, I'd rather see a business that is actually making a product get helped than the international bankers like Goldman Sachs >:( But there needs to be strict accountability & oversite (although our congress critters are just wolves in sheep's clothing...)
MtnDon, I guess that's why a lot of businesses go overseas...
Next will be the construction companies. I need a bailout.
Da%$....I sold all my GM Pre-market because I thought they were backing out.
Oh well, I made 500 bucks and for some reason, the stock is dropping (I went to the camera shop and Bass pro and haven't been keeping up)
I say we should have left the banks to fail and now let the car companies fail. yes times will be tough but the government could put all that money into the normal people in this country.
let me get this straight...the banks and car companies couldnt sell a decent product, therefore they couldnt get our money from us. so they turn to our government who in turn gives them our money. d* there is absolutely no logic there.
I'm going to start a business that sells jars of poop, then see if the gov will give me a few million to keep production going. ???
sorry, they "been there done that". the feds have been selling jars of poop to the public for decades.
This kind of shows how a free markets aren't "free." The Japanese and European Car manufacturers are now getting bailouts from their governments. This is simply a way to undercut American manufacturing. I hope we Tariff the hell out of them, but we won't.
I'm playing Russian Roulette with Ford today. Just bought 6000 shares at 1.48.
Popcorn time!
inline with my if they want to build plants in mexico, let mexico bail them out comment it seems that China may be looking to simply buy up GM and Chrystler.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/breaking-news-chinese-may-buy-gm-and-chrysler/
QuoteChinese Automakers May Buy GM and Chrysler
By Bertel Schmitt
November 18, 2008
Chinese carmakers SAIC and Dongfeng have plans to acquire GM and Chrysler, China's 21st Century Business Herald reports today. (A National Enquirer the paper is not. It is one of China's leading business newspapers, with a daily readership over three million.) The paper cites a senior official of China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology– the state regulator of China's auto industry– who dropped the hint that "the auto manufacturing giants in China, such as Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) and Dongfeng Motor Corporation, have the capability and intention to buy some assets of the two crisis-plagued American automakers." These hints are very often followed with quick action in the Middle Kingdom. The hints were dropped just a few days after the same Chinese government gave its auto makers the go-ahead to invest abroad. And why would they do that?
A take-over of a large overseas auto maker would fit perfectly into China's plans. As reported before, China has realized that its export chances are slim without unfettered access to foreign technology. The brand cachet of Chinese cars abroad is, shall we say, challenged. The Chinese could easily export Made-in-China VWs, Toyotas, Buicks. If their joint venture partner would let them. The solution: Buy the joint venture partner. Especially, when he's in deep trouble.
At current market valuations (GM is worth less than Mattel) the Chinese government can afford to buy GM with petty cash. Even a hundred billion $ would barely dent China's more than $2t in currency reserves. For nobody in the world would buying GM and (while they are at it) Chrysler make more sense than for the Chinese. Overlap? What overlap? They would gain instant access to the world's markets with accepted brands, and proven technology.
---
I think this is timed propaganda, funny how it's coming out now. I dont see how china would be dumb enough to buy them as is, but wait for chap11 or chap7 protection to ditch those pension and uaw responsibilities. Ironic thing is, once they lose those liabilities they stop being a broken company and wont need to be bailed out.
I watched part of a Senate hearing on C-span last night. The witnesses were the CEO's of the big 3, president of UAW and one economist peter-morici.
The economist expressed a negative reaction to the bailout saying he doubted the ability of the big 3 to repay the loan if it was made. He also stated that bankruptcy was a good option for them. Senator Dodd who chaired the hearing called him the Mouse that Roared. I couldn't watch the entire thing as my eyelids grew heavy. It aired at 10:00 at night. Hopefully it will be on again. Some of these move from c-span to c-span2
Her is a blurb I couldn't get the video to play when I opened it.: http://idiotinc.com/look-at-me/liveblogging-the-senate-automaker-bailout-hearing/#more-524
I think the Chinese bailout is the answer. Let them buy the big 3 and fire the CEO's and ones who are destroying them. The quality issue will work itself out. No worse buying a Chinese car than a Mexican car. The jobs are not here anyway - or maybe China will do it here for the cheap labor once the unions are out with their $75 hr. nut twisting labor.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on November 19, 2008, 10:55:51 AM
I think the Chinese bailout is the answer. Let them buy the big 3 and fire the CEO's and ones who are destroying them. The quality issue will work itself out. No worse buying a Chinese car than a Mexican car. The jobs are not here anyway - or maybe China will do it here for the cheap labor once the unions are out with their $75 hr. nut twisting labor.
American made, ain't nothin fina....comes straight to you, on a slow boat from China ???
Damn Ford is still tanking. Down to 1.39. I'm gonna need a lot of popcorn to follow this through. d*
Quote from: glenn kangiser on November 19, 2008, 10:55:51 AM
I think the Chinese bailout is the answer. Let them buy the big 3 and fire the CEO's and ones who are destroying them. The quality issue will work itself out. No worse buying a Chinese car than a Mexican car. The jobs are not here anyway - or maybe China will do it here for the cheap labor once the unions are out with their $75 hr. nut twisting labor.
At $65/hr x 40 hrs X 52 weeks a person would get paid $135K a year to be on an assembly line running a rivet gun or an impact wrench. They said it cost $105K to entice an employee to make an early departure, severance and healthcare I assume. Could you loan me $25B so I can afford to downsize. What? The UAW President didn't address that while I was listening. The main conversation from the CEO's was about how they were going to improve and become profitable. [toilet]
maybe. I think it's more likely that china would buy gm for its assembly technology and existing assets. I think GM china is one of the very few profitable business units left in GM. I dont understand why they would want to sell here in the US at all given the market, the credit environment to come, the amount of debt burdened people, and expectations from americans on safety and "greeness". If GM falls into chap7 bankruptcy, I could see china come in, pick up the carcass, and move production and eventually 95% of sales to china over the next decade.
Keep in mind in the US, we have maybe 6 or 7 major cities; ie Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Houston.. China has over 200 cities with more than 3 million. It's a developing market and demand is increasing. Their recent talks with Russia and Iran puts them on good even footing to keep oil flowing no matter what happens. I can see China repeating much of what our 1930's looked like and coming out of it with government investment in Infrastructure and manufacturing. They are very much in the same situation we were in at that time, when the industrialized revolution turned the US into a cheap labor manufacturing powerhouse that undersold England and most of Europe. Eventually the credit and fraud swamped the game and needed a contraction. We arose because our debt was low and we were in a position to spend money putting people to work -- much like China today.
It sure would be unfortunate if we took the role of Germany or Hungary in that analogy.
Hmmm....lost money today on Ford. Made some but not as much as I lost.
Bad day! >:(
But there's always tomorrow. ;D
So I see on the news that the CEO's of GM and Ford travel on one of a number of private corporate jets. That's how they arrived in DC with their hands out. They just don't get it do they? I think they are slime.
At least the Chrysler CEO said he was willing to work for a dollar for the next year. The GM guy said he wasn't ready to discuss that and the Ford CJO (Chief Jerk Off) said he thought things were fine as they are. That's $28 million worth of being fine last year for him.
Interesting thing I found in an article on Honda Motor Company... (couple years old)
Honda doesn't disclose executive pay in detail, but the sum of salaries and bonuses that Fukui [ed: Takeo Fukui is Honda's 61-year-old president] shares with 36 board members, $13 million, is just about enough for the boss at a big American company.
The FORBES ARTICLE (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0904/112.html) for the curious
I love my Honda!
Peter, I think you should sell your Ford stock no matter what the price. $1.26 is better than zero. If my prayers are answered they will be broke by Thanksgiving along with GM and Chrysler! I am totally incensed at these guys.
Quote from: MountainDon on November 20, 2008, 01:20:41 AM
Peter, I think you should sell your Ford stock no matter what the price. $1.26 is better than zero. If my prayers are answered they will be broke by Thanksgiving along with GM and Chrysler! I am totally incensed at these guys.
I agree with you about the companies needing to go broke Don. I expect the stock will bounce today and will get sold. I doubt any of them will go belly up on Thanksgiving though. They have more money than they're letting on, especially Ford.
Of the three, Ford is in the best shape and actually showed a profit first quarter (sort of, there's a lot of BS to sort through).
It makes me sad to see these hearings and se just how poorly the biggest companies in this country are run and to see just how stupid and out of touch our government is.
November has been an unpleasant month so far. There's a lot going on, most bad, but watching my predictions come true and seeing my country unravel is right at the top of the list of concerns.
I just looked at everything and my guess is any bounce will wait until next week.
To big a gamble to take on a stock that was a flip of the coin in the first place. Unless something changes in the next couple of hours, I'll pull the ripcord in pre market.
This is from another forum I frequent. A little too much nest feathering going on. Sounds like they took their business plan from the governmental administration play book.
A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (Ford) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.
On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing.
Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents, and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.
They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners, and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes, and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India .
The End.
Here's something else to think about:
Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US , claiming they can't make money paying American wages.
TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter's results:
TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.
Ford folks are still scratching their heads.
Fords per hr labor cost (pay and benifits) is over $70, Toyota's is about $35, you do the math.
I got out in pre market at 1.30. Between the short profits yesterday and the losses on Ford, I lost about 550.00. >:( Could have been a lot worse.
I'm looking at some of the funeral supply companies. People are dieing to use them ;D. Did you know Costco sells discount coffins :o
Here's an idea. Don't close Guantanamo Bay. Send the leaders of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, AIG, Ford, etc. there. Throw out the rule book and let them rot.
rofl rofl rofl
C'mon Don. Tell us how you really feel.
Just don't send Morgan Stanley. They just made up for yesterday. Bought 3000 at 9.03 and just sold at 10,22, ;D
i watched the highlights of the big 3 meeting w/washington and was stunned at the smugness and audacity of these A--H----S. their attitude and management and lack of leadership in looking at quarterly profits instead of farther down the road(read japanese strategies) is exactly what is driving these companies to ruin. the unions aren't helping either but they don't steer the company ship. i want the big 3 to hold out til my mom goes through god's other door (she gets my dad's retirment as income from fomoco) and then i don't care. want a bailout loan? management has to step down and unions have to renegotiate contracts. BTW, i have seen some posts where laborers are getting up to $80/hr. i would like to know where some of these figures come from. when i retired as a corr. officer at $19.69/hr the car co. line workers were making about $25/hr. that was in 2002. i know that benifits were calculated into some of these figures but they still seemed too high in some instances.
dan
What good is it to give these guys a loan? They are dead.
From GM's latest 10-Q
Short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt.
September 2008: $7.21 Billion
September 2007: $5.26 Billion
In one year's time, short term borrowing and interest on long term debt has gone up by $2 billion per quarter, $8 billion per year!
GM has $36 billion in long term debt and has a negative net worth of $60 billion.
---
Why would anyone give them a loan? Why should we, how exactly are they going to pay it back when they are burning 2 billion a quarter in losses? Looking at yahoo finance, there entire market cap is 1.6Billion. They are losing MORE than the entire company is worth every 3 months? And they keep continueing to keep doing it.
--
Heres an idea, I want every single executive to put their entire net worth up as collateral on this loan. Everything. I want the unions to put the entire pension fund up as collateral. All of it. Now I might believe them when they say they are going to make it work because they have direct and very personal reasons to do so. Then let's talk.
The other side is I dont really see whats so bad about bankruptcy? The airlines all went bk and they kept the planes in the air. Why would GM or Ford go into BK, wash away some liabilities and emerge a healthier company? The answer lies in lobbying money and the greed and fraud that makes all of us so mad.
NO MORE >:(
Quote from: MountainDon on November 20, 2008, 12:53:39 AM
So I see on the news that the CEO's of GM and Ford travel on one of a number of private corporate jets. That's how they arrived in DC with their hands out. They just don't get it do they? I think they are slime.
At least the Chrysler CEO said he was willing to work for a dollar for the next year. The GM guy said he wasn't ready to discuss that and the Ford CJO (Chief Jerk Off) said he thought things were fine as they are. That's $28 million worth of being fine last year for him.
Interesting thing I found in an article on Honda Motor Company... (couple years old)
Honda doesn't disclose executive pay in detail, but the sum of salaries and bonuses that Fukui [ed: Takeo Fukui is Honda's 61-year-old president] shares with 36 board members, $13 million, is just about enough for the boss at a big American company.
The FORBES ARTICLE (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0904/112.html) for the curious
I love my Honda!
Now
THAT makes me mad! >:( We don't have any Fords...
Quote from: muldoon on November 20, 2008, 12:09:58 PM
... bankruptcy? The airlines all went bk and they kept the planes in the air.
Exactly!!
The $70 - 80 an hour figures have all the regular and early retirement costs calculated in, if I understand correctly. All those incentives to leave their workforce early have some pretty good long term benefits.
peter, if your still in ford - this spike is probably a good exit. F is up to 1.45 on news.
Quote
BB Wire
By John Hughes and Nicholas Johnston
Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A group of U.S. senators has reached
a bipartisan agreement on aiding U.S. automakers, said an aide to
Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.
No details are available, Levin aide Tara Andringa said in
an e-mail. Levin and colleagues Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan
Democrat, George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, and Kit Bond, a
Missouri Republican, scheduled a 2:30 p.m. news conference in
Washington.
Congressional leaders haven't said whether they support the
plan.
Think about that a second. 4 senators, all from auto manufacturing states, all agree something should be done. No one else is in agreement and the news spins it as "bipartisan support". This is a flashing exit sign before anyone else figures out how thin this news actually is. reeks of desperation.
Maybe Exxon/Mobil should bailout the Big 3? As a sort of a thank you for all the business...
Quote from: muldoon on November 20, 2008, 01:47:52 PM
peter, if your still in ford - this spike is probably a good exit. F is up to 1.45 on news.
Quote
BB Wire
By John Hughes and Nicholas Johnston
Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A group of U.S. senators has reached
a bipartisan agreement on aiding U.S. automakers, said an aide to
Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.
No details are available, Levin aide Tara Andringa said in
an e-mail. Levin and colleagues Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan
Democrat, George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, and Kit Bond, a
Missouri Republican, scheduled a 2:30 p.m. news conference in
Washington.
Congressional leaders haven't said whether they support the
plan.
Think about that a second. 4 senators, all from auto manufacturing states, all agree something should be done. No one else is in agreement and the news spins it as "bipartisan support". This is a flashing exit sign before anyone else figures out how thin this news actually is. reeks of desperation.
Thanks Muldoo, but I was already out and took the loss, then wet ito Morgan Stanley and sold on the peak. Made a good profit on that.
Quote from: muldoon on November 20, 2008, 12:09:58 PM
What good is it to give these guys a loan? They are dead.
From GM's latest 10-Q
Short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt.
September 2008: $7.21 Billion
September 2007: $5.26 Billion
In one year's time, short term borrowing and interest on long term debt has gone up by $2 billion per quarter, $8 billion per year!
GM has $36 billion in long term debt and has a negative net worth of $60 billion.
---
Why would anyone give them a loan? Why should we, how exactly are they going to pay it back when they are burning 2 billion a quarter in losses? Looking at yahoo finance, there entire market cap is 1.6Billion. They are losing MORE than the entire company is worth every 3 months? And they keep continueing to keep doing it.
--
Heres an idea, I want every single executive to put their entire net worth up as collateral on this loan. Everything. I want the unions to put the entire pension fund up as collateral. All of it. Now I might believe them when they say they are going to make it work because they have direct and very personal reasons to do so. Then let's talk.
The other side is I dont really see whats so bad about bankruptcy? The airlines all went bk and they kept the planes in the air. Why would GM or Ford go into BK, wash away some liabilities and emerge a healthier company? The answer lies in lobbying money and the greed and fraud that makes all of us so mad.
NO MORE >:(
[/quote
Ditto!!!
Yagh!! >:( Today
Treasury overpaid for banks' assets
Watchdog panel finds $78 billion spent was more than their worth
By JIM KUHNHENN
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- A government watchdog has concluded that the federal government gave financial institutions a $78 billion subsidy last year by overpaying for stocks and other assets as part of its massive Wall Street rescue program.
In a report scheduled for release Friday, the Congressional Oversight Panel for the bailout funds found that in some cases the government paid dramatically more than the actual value of the stocks at the time of the transactions.
Geithner
Financially ailing insurance giant American International Group, deemed by the Treasury Department to be too big to be allowed to fail, received $40 billion from the Treasury for assets valued at $14.8 billion, the oversight panel found.
The findings added to the frustrations of lawmakers already wary of the $700 billion rescue plan, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Congress approved the plan last fall, but members of both parties criticized spending decisions by the Bush administration and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
The misgivings come as new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is preparing to place the Obama administration's imprint on the program with a sweeping new framework for helping banks, loosening credit and helping reduce foreclosures. Geithner plans to unveil the changes Monday.
In a bright spot for the rescue program, the same banks that received capital infusions from Treasury have already paid $271 million in dividends to the federal government and are expected to pay $1.5 billion more in dividends by the end of this month. Wells Fargo, which received a $25 billion infusion, has already announced it would pay Treasury $371 million in dividends this month.
The oversight panel examined 10 transactions, including eight made under a capital purchase program designed to put liquidity into the banks in hopes of easing credit. That money went to banks considered "healthy" financially but in need of capital to make loans.
Two other transactions went to AIG and to Citigroup Inc. under programs designed to help companies that were facing serious financial difficulties.
Overall, the panel and the analysts it retained to conduct the valuation study found that the Treasury used taxpayers' money to pay $62.5 billion more than the value of assets in the 10 transactions it examined. By extrapolating to the more than 300 institutions that received money, it concluded that the government in effect paid $78 billion more than the actual value of the assets at the time.
"Treasury chose to offer 'one size fits all' pricing in order to encourage all institutions to participate, and in so doing disregarded apparent differences in their financial condition," the report states. "A consequence is that Treasury effectively offered weaker participants greater subsidies than it offered to stronger participants."
Panel Chairwoman Elizabeth Warren, testifying to the Senate banking committee Thursday, said: "There may be good policy reasons for overpaying, but without a clearly delineated reason, we can't know that."
Reacting to the panel's conclusions, Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker said in a statement: "Treasury has made long-term investments to stabilize the financial sector and get credit flowing, but more needs to be done."
He said the plan that Geithner will announce Monday "will strengthen transparency and accountability measures so that taxpayers know where and how their money is being spent and whether it's achieving real results."
Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said the overpayment was sure to "raise eyebrows."
"I can understand some gap," he said. "No one is expecting perfection between the price you pay and what you think you're getting. But that's a pretty large disparity."
Some day we are supposed to go home Friday and have a new bank on Monday - don't know which one - ours didn't get the bail out -