Should the government save our auto industry?
#41
Registered User
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Aug 9 2008, 03:25 PM
That's counter-fire. The EU is directly subsidizing Airbus (and has been for as long as Airbus has existed). The US has been complaining about it to the WTO, so now Europe is accusing the US of indirectly subsidizing Boeing.
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.)
I rather doubt the EU would have been subsidizing that particular contract, anyway.
#42
Registered User
Originally Posted by Warren J. Dew,Aug 9 2008, 01:55 AM
That's not correct. The mortgage bailout is structured as purchase of stock, so the government will get just as good or bad a deal as any other stockholder.
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.
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.
It's time for the American people and their government to grow some spine, and let the chips fall where they may in the mortgage meltdown.
Obviously, if someone was the victim of an outright fraud, I'm not opposed to helping them. But if someone doesn't go to prison, then there cannot have been a fraud.
#43
Registered User
Originally Posted by Wildncrazy,Aug 7 2008, 04:10 AM
Let 'em sink. They dug their way into the hole and they can dig their way out or they deserve to die.
#44
Registered User
Originally Posted by RedY2KS2k,Aug 9 2008, 06:30 PM
I have to disagree: the government is bailing out individual homeowners who should have to learn that when you buy things you can't afford, bad things happen.
#45
Originally Posted by Ruined 2,Aug 9 2008, 03:58 AM
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.
I had a '69 Firebird that I put 119,000 miles on. At 3,300 miles the rear window started to leak and the trunk would accumulate about an inch of water during a heavy rain. About the whole time that I owned the vehicle, the tail lights would leak and I had to replace one of the sockets on a rotating basis every few months.
Then back when I had a 1977 Chevy long wheel base G-20 van to haul my road race bike(s) even though the drive train was solid I had problems with stupid stuff like the "fit and finish" After about a year the carpet in the cockpit shrunk and pulled away from the edges of the cabin. That did it for me on GM products.
On another note: The UAW and GM negotiated a deal years ago to pay GM workers "NOT TO WORK". What kind of "brilliant" business model is that? NPR aired a series on this about two years ago. They interviewed one worker that had been collecting a GM pay check for twenty-two years since the last time he worked on a GM production line. He was working as a carpenter in a program similar to "Habitat for Humanity" working side by side with other carpenters that where working for $8 -$14 per hour. While he was making $22 per hour while being paid by GM. I have to ask: What rocket scientist thought of that program as a good business model?
#46
Registered User
Originally Posted by Warren J. Dew,Aug 9 2008, 05:42 PM
I rather doubt the EU would have been subsidizing that particular contract, anyway.
Airbus has long argued that the military buying military derivitives (such as the KC-135 tankers, the 707 and 767 AWACs, etc.) is some sort of a subsidy for the Boeing commercial airplane business. They don't seem to be arguing that very vocally any more now that they are doing the same thing.
Anyway, almost anything you read about this in the press is just grandstanding for the benefit of the opinion of the WTO. I can't say much more than this. I don't speak for anyone but myself, but even so, as a Boeing employee I have to not say anything that might be misinterpreted.
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Boeing has a better product than Airbus, and I'm looking forward to their new carbon airframe models. They seem to be taking risks, looking at the long-term marketplace, and making product that people want. There's no other American company that makes the big planes like Boeing.
I wonder if the gov't would bail out Boeing if they ran into trouble.
I wonder if the gov't would bail out Boeing if they ran into trouble.
#48
Registered User
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Aug 9 2008, 07:39 PM
The issue is that every Airbus plane is subsidized by the fact that they don't have to raise money from the commercial market in order to launch a new model. The A330 was included in that. They do pay back those loans, but only out of profits made. That's significant compared to raising the money out of cash resources or open commercial lending.
Airbus has long argued that the military buying military derivitives (such as the KC-135 tankers, the 707 and 767 AWACs, etc.) is some sort of a subsidy for the Boeing commercial airplane business. They don't seem to be arguing that very vocally any more now that they are doing the same thing.
Anyway, almost anything you read about this in the press is just grandstanding for the benefit of the opinion of the WTO. I can't say much more than this. I don't speak for anyone but myself, but even so, as a Boeing employee I have to not say anything that might be misinterpreted.
#49
Registered User
Originally Posted by cordycord,Aug 9 2008, 09:04 PM
I think Boeing has a better product than Airbus, and I'm looking forward to their new carbon airframe models. They seem to be taking risks, looking at the long-term marketplace, and making product that people want. There's no other American company that makes the big planes like Boeing.
Contrast this with Detroit. Rather than looking forward 10 or 20 years and seeing what might be needed, continuing to push the technology in innovative ways to lead the market, they instead developed products reactively, with quick fixes such as turning pickup trucks into SUVs to exploit a regulatory loophole. Even when they did do the research, such as Ford's aluminum Taurus that was in test a while back or GM's all electric Impact, they didn't follow through with well supported product development and release. As a result, only Japanese companies like Toyota and Honda had hybrid models on the market when fuel suddenly became an issue.
The American automobile industry needs companies like Boeing, not like the "big 3". Subsidies and bailouts won't do that.
#50
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Warren J. Dew,Aug 10 2008, 02:16 AM
The American automobile industry needs companies like Boeing