Should the government save our auto industry?
08-08-2008, 07:18 PM
#32
Originally Posted by louis s2000,Aug 7 2008, 02:05 PM
Unions are becoming the downfall of all manufacturing jobs nationwide. How can you expect to pay someone $60 an hour to work on an assembly line building cars nobody wants and expect to make money?
GM are saying they NOW need to refocus on the type of cars they build ie smaller, fuel efficient etc...HELLO!!!! Toyota, Nissan and Honda have been doing this since the 80's!! It's laughable!
If I open a restaurant and sell crappy food while paying my staff incredible amounts, will the government bail me out too? Hmmm
GM are saying they NOW need to refocus on the type of cars they build ie smaller, fuel efficient etc...HELLO!!!! Toyota, Nissan and Honda have been doing this since the 80's!! It's laughable!
If I open a restaurant and sell crappy food while paying my staff incredible amounts, will the government bail me out too? Hmmm
This about sums up my comments. Those that don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.On the other hand where does this mentality stop? There has been LOTS of discussion over the last twenty years about "bailing out" the waterman of the Chesapeake Bay that make (made) their living by over harvesting blue crabs. Now that they have reached the end of the line which is the result of over harvesting for decades, and the result of agricultural run off into the Chesapeake Bay that has created "dead zones" that will not support life.
I think that I know, why this is happening but if I post it here this post will have to be moved to the political discussion threads. :-(
08-08-2008, 08:07 PM
#33
Registered User
If the government is bailing out dimbulbs who purchased houses they can't afford, why not the Big Three?
At least the first bailout of Chrysler was structured so that the government owned enough stock to make a couple of bucks when Chrysler returned to health. But we, the dumbasses, are getting nothing except downside risk in the mortgage bailouts.
At least the first bailout of Chrysler was structured so that the government owned enough stock to make a couple of bucks when Chrysler returned to health. But we, the dumbasses, are getting nothing except downside risk in the mortgage bailouts.
08-08-2008, 10:55 PM
#34
Registered User
Originally Posted by RedY2KS2k,Aug 8 2008, 08:07 PM
If the government is bailing out dimbulbs who purchased houses they can't afford, why not the Big Three?
At least the first bailout of Chrysler was structured so that the government owned enough stock to make a couple of bucks when Chrysler returned to health. But we, the dumbasses, are getting nothing except downside risk in the mortgage bailouts.
At least the first bailout of Chrysler was structured so that the government owned enough stock to make a couple of bucks when Chrysler returned to health. But we, the dumbasses, are getting nothing except downside risk in the mortgage bailouts.
Note that I don't agree with that bailout either. However, just because one does one stupid thing, doesn't mean one has to do every stupid thing available.
08-08-2008, 11:58 PM
#35
Let me preface this by saying, I didn't read the whole thread...and it's 3:57AM and I'm drunk... but I gave up on the "Big 3" a long time ago. They make a terrible product, have horrible service ethics, and could give a shit less about what buyers think down the road after the sale.
Before any of you knew me, I was a hard-core Pontiac man. After several bad experiences with that brand (and other GM affiliates), and a catastrophic experience with Toyota, I refuse to deal with anyone but Honda.
You make your bed and then you MUST lie in it. We all have to deal with it in our personal and business lives...why shouldn't they? And don't tell me the employees are not at fault...how they handle themselves directly affects what's happening right now.
Before any of you knew me, I was a hard-core Pontiac man. After several bad experiences with that brand (and other GM affiliates), and a catastrophic experience with Toyota, I refuse to deal with anyone but Honda.
You make your bed and then you MUST lie in it. We all have to deal with it in our personal and business lives...why shouldn't they? And don't tell me the employees are not at fault...how they handle themselves directly affects what's happening right now.
08-09-2008, 04:55 AM
#36
In Alan Greenspan's book, he discussed the Chrysler bailout.
paraphrasing since I'm to lazy to go find it.
he commented, he didn't know if he was more concerned that it wouldn't work or more concerned that it would, thereby setting the precedent for actions to follow. ...
You know that Greenspan is a pretty clever fellow.
paraphrasing since I'm to lazy to go find it.
he commented, he didn't know if he was more concerned that it wouldn't work or more concerned that it would, thereby setting the precedent for actions to follow. ...
You know that Greenspan is a pretty clever fellow.
08-09-2008, 10:54 AM
#37
Registered User
Originally Posted by S1997,Aug 7 2008, 02:43 AM
Could be that with our extreme version of laissez faire capitalism we might need the government to step in periodically and promote long term planning that is not so sensitive to short term measurable profit motives. After all there should be room somewhere in the system for furthering such a thing as the general welfare and sustaining the overall health of the economy.
By the way, I've never owned a car that was not a Honda. But I think one of my Hondas was built in the US.
08-09-2008, 01:12 PM
#39
Former Moderator
My comments were not necessarily about direct subsidies.
Tucker couldn't even compete against them in a 'fair' fight.
But apparently some other American companies are only surviving with some public assistance -- or maybe it's just propaganda.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/200...ubsidy-ap_N.htm
Tucker couldn't even compete against them in a 'fair' fight.
But apparently some other American companies are only surviving with some public assistance -- or maybe it's just propaganda.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/200...ubsidy-ap_N.htm
08-09-2008, 03:25 PM
#40
Registered User
Originally Posted by S1997,Aug 9 2008, 02:12 PM
But apparently some other American companies are only surviving with some public assistance -- or maybe it's just propaganda.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/200...ubsidy-ap_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/200...ubsidy-ap_N.htm
The argument has been going on for a decade, and isn't going to end soon. It has recently become stirred up again because of the tanker contract. Some people are wondering why the Air Force is considering buying an airplane that is a subsidized competitor to a US product. (As a taxpayer, however, that means that the EU would thus be subsidizing the USAF. I'm not sure I see the problem there.)