Should the government bailout the American car companies?

[Knipps]

To stir the pot, I want to know what you guys think of this
http://theamericansentinel.com/2008/...n-to-bailouts/

[NJSPEEDER]

That is exactly part of the problem that I have with the hard time that the Big 3 are getting in securing help. The finance companies have been handed a blank check and it has been given freely. The auto manufacturers ask for a loan and the government is acting like it is some horrible thing.

The financiers need a reality check.

-Tim

[SteveR]

Originally Posted by Knipps

To stir the pot, I want to know what you guys think of this
http://theamericansentinel.com/2008/...n-to-bailouts/

"regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return"

Nice. Bankrupt the country. 10 trillion? Pocket change. These are all great reasons why not to pay your taxes.

[BonzoHansen]

Originally Posted by SteveR

"regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return"

+1 to that.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by NJSPEEDER

That is exactly part of the problem that I have with the hard time that the Big 3 are getting in securing help. The finance companies have been handed a blank check and it has been given freely. The auto manufacturers ask for a loan and the government is acting like it is some horrible thing.

The financiers need a reality check.

-Tim

This is a stab in the dark, but perhaps other industries are more profitable than auto industry, as indicated on this chart.
Don't kill me if I'm wrong. And I'm aware that the chart is old but I doubt it changed much.



Also question to anyone, the most recent FORTUNE magazine states that GM has operated in a negative since 2000, is that true?

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Tsar

This is a stab in the dark, but perhaps other industries are more profitable than auto industry, as indicated on this chart.
Don't kill me if I'm wrong. And I'm aware that the chart is old but I doubt it changed much.



Also question to anyone, the most recent FORTUNE magazine states that GM has operated in a negative since 2000, is that true?

That was 2005, the peak of "profit" from subprime morgages....
Poor poor poor sample.
Comparing profit margins of someone who makes a profit making a product vs someone who sells a service are TOTALY different.

GM automotive has not been profitable for a while, its GMAC that kept them afloat, yes.
The current management didnt take control till 2003, and reorganization didnt start till 2005.

[BigAls87Z28]

There is a small small small part of me wants all three of them to get into massive car accidents ont he way to DC. Its December, its snowing in the midwest, temps are below freezing, its not unimaginable.
I would hope that The Big 3 and thier familes would sue the **** out of the Goverment for making them jump through these stupid hoops to get a measily 25 billion dollars.
Drive ****in cars nearly 1000 miles ONE WAY through the worst part of the country, at teh worst part of the year. Every stupid fat lazy southern senator that made them do all these stupid things like take a dollar for salary, give up thier private jets, and other stupid things that WONT DO **** TO MAKE THEM MOVE FOWARD AND MAKE BETTER CARS.

[SteveR]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Every stupid fat lazy southern senator that made them do all these stupid things like take a dollar for salary, give up thier private jets, and other stupid things that WONT DO **** TO MAKE THEM MOVE FOWARD AND MAKE BETTER CARS.

And that these senators won't do themselves. They all have private health care plans just for them, they have private jets too, get paid good money, and they are the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, yet our finances are crap. Will they give up their jets and health care and benefits and salary too because our financial system is crap and it's their oversight? I think not.

[Tsar]

Where can I sign up for the "measly" 25 bil?

[Mulletbird]

Originally Posted by foff667

1. Did it need to be brought up? eh, I think I would've understanding it probably costs them $20k+ to fly that thing to & from Detroit, now if they filled up that jet with dozens of their own people then it shouldn't be an issue. If it was just the CEO on the plane it sounds a little more disturbing that he couldn't just fly commercial. Its just too easy to point out wastefulness in this case & it definitely didn't help their case.

2. I totally agree, Toyota has gone larger & larger with their vehicles because they know they sell

Yes, they do fly others on those jets USUALLY (I know because when I worked at Borg-Warner - that's right, tier-1 supplier, and I worked in Diesel Systems for the big 3 + numerous others) and I got an email about once a week about openings on a corporate jet. But, Borg-warner is still doing great because we work with anyone, so if anybody makes money in the auto industry, so do we. On the other hand, I got an inside-look at how the big 3 work, and there's alot that imo could be done better. Like with government, too much politics wastes time and money.

[Mulletbird]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Im not giving them a pass, and yes the Japanese 3 did see to react quickly.
The Big 3 did not pay attention to the car market, that is for sure. But as of about 3-4 years ago, Ford and GM have moved foward with better cars. Chrysler has tried.
First big move was the new Malibu in 04. Its visual appearance was a big polarizing, but it was GMs first solid mid sizer. It was about 2-3 years too late, but still held strong vs Camry in quality. GM then revamped it in 08 and now is class leading. In between, you had the G6 and Saturn Aura to take up the gap.
The Fusion brought another excelent car to the market, along with Milan and Zepher/MKZ. 3 good cars to replace the lower end of the gap left by Taurus.
The Big 3..well, maybe 2, have put together solid vehicles since 2003, and they are getting better.

The Chevy Volt, Cruze, and the whole Family Zero engines have been coming together for years, well before the fuel crisis, not to mention the movements they already made with two-mode hybrids, BAS hybirds, E85, direct injection and HCCI.
Ford has been developing Ecoboost engines for some time as well. Ford has had a hyrbid vehicles on the market for 2 generations now, and coming out with more.
Things have been moving quickly for these large giants. They have developed technology to revolutionize the auto industry, but people cant see past the Hummer H2.

Do you own an E-85 vehicle? It is too expensive, and comes nowhere near the regular gas mode in terms of power (I have a friend, who happens to have won brackets with his e-85 truck in Lapeer, MI after I left) and just all around runs like **** according to him.

[Mulletbird]

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen

First, it was a GIANT PR mistake - they should have known the wolves would have their fangs out - especially the ones from the south that give the foreign companies big incentives to build. Second, just about no CEO shoud have one - it is a colossal waste of sharholder funds. Just because others do it doesn't make it right. Faulty logic.

yep. Now, if the company is doing great and the CEO is doing a good job, it's one of those benefits to help keep a good ceo. Not that they're bad, but imo if your company suffers, you should take a hit - especially if you're asking people to find other work after keeping up their side, and 100% if you're saying your company is about to go under.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Mulletbird

Do you own an E-85 vehicle? It is too expensive, and comes nowhere near the regular gas mode in terms of power (I have a friend, who happens to have won brackets with his e-85 truck in Lapeer, MI after I left) and just all around runs like **** according to him.

Uh..E85 is on average cheaper then regular gas. In Penn alone, E85 is average 1.49, which is deff. cheaper then Penn gas, since 1.49 is cheaper then NJ.
No, it doesnt produce the same amount of power in conventional engines, but in engines DESIGNED for it, such as Ford's Ecoboost and Saabs Biopower vehicles.

http://www.e85prices.com/

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

That was 2005, the peak of "profit" from subprime morgages....
Poor poor poor sample.

Ok, well where are the top industries now as far as the profitability goes? And the better question, I think, has the automotive sector become more profitable than 1.1 cents of a dollar?

Comparing profit margins of someone who makes a profit making a product vs someone who sells a service are TOTALY different.

Profit is profit, I care about money.

GM automotive has not been profitable for a while, its GMAC that kept them afloat, yes.
The current management didnt take control till 2003, and reorganization didnt start till 2005.

So wait, before you were saying that this recent Big 3 "crysis" has been due to the financial sector crap-out. Well what happened the other 7.5 years? The business has been failing for 8 years and now they want our money to keep themselves aflot? What is gonna change when they get their money (I do not doubt that they will get it)? Will they turn profit next year? No. Year after that? probably not, WHEN?? Kepping a business that has been in a slump for nearly a decade is...well poor business practice, but we have been over this part.


Oh didn't you say that it was going to cost us "only" 25 billion? What happened to that "factoid"? it's up to 34 now, How much more will they need after they WASTE 34 billion?

[Knipps]

Now the execs are saying they'll accept $1 pay.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/...ref=newssearch

and there's something on CNN now about the UAW in talks to renegotiate with the Big 3

[Mulletbird]

Yeah, those are the two things that need to happen - exec pay has to drop, and the pay of basic labor has to be more merit-based than the number of years you have. If those two things change, at least two (ford and gm) will be able to pull it off. Mopar/chrysler's been struggling for over a decade, and it doesn't look too good for them still.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Tsar

Ok, well where are the top industries now as far as the profitability goes? And the better question, I think, has the automotive sector become more profitable than 1.1 cents of a dollar?

No, but financials sure aint that big.

Profit is profit, I care about money.

If you want profit, go pump oil.

So wait, before you were saying that this recent Big 3 "crysis" has been due to the financial sector crap-out. Well what happened the other 7.5 years? The business has been failing for 8 years and now they want our money to keep themselves aflot? What is gonna change when they get their money (I do not doubt that they will get it)? Will they turn profit next year? No. Year after that? probably not, WHEN?? Kepping a business that has been in a slump for nearly a decade is...well poor business practice, but we have been over this part.

One of the major factors into the recent total loss of funds is the crapping out of the financial area, yes. On both buying the cars, and loaning the money to move foward with large programs.
Im gunna have to check, but GM posted a profit several times over the past 8 years, just not a tremendus amount.
What is gunna change is what they have been doing for the past 3years now. Shaking 100 year old traditions dont happen over night, you cannot turn around a ship this big that fast. THIS IS AMERICA'S PROBLEM!!! In this microwaveable world, they want to see them make a profit with a small drop in the bucket.
GM has made moves to cut its structual costs 9 billion dollars over the last year, and come 2010, will jump another 20 billion. When will it be profitable? When the dollar can be maniuplated against the Euro and we can dump thousands of cars in Europe or any other country's currency.

GM and Ford have both made MAJOR moves while making everyone happy and while they werent making money hand over fist like oil companies or financials, they werent ****ing the people that bought thier products or services.

Oh didn't you say that it was going to cost us "only" 25 billion? What happened to that "factoid"? it's up to 34 now, How much more will they need after they WASTE 34 billion?

I dunno, maybe you should ask AIG what they did with teh first 50 billion. Or where any of the trillion bucks went to stabilizing the financial industry? Oh yeah, buy other banks.

Ford wants access to a low intrested loan for 9 billion dollars
GM wants an infusion of 10 billion for the next few months, with a revolving credit of 4 billion
Chrysler wants 7 billion, but IMO they should get nothing.

If I was The Big 3. I would have marched in and came up with a much more agressive plan.
**** the jets, **** the dollar a year, **** all that.
100 billion dollars, Chrysler is absorbed into GM and Ford.
35 Billion into each Ford and GM.
Both GM and Ford get a 10 billion dollar infusion from each of their 35b.
The other 25 billion would be available in low intrest loans from the goverment in a revolving loan.
With the 10 billion, that should get GM and Ford to an even point and keep moving foward as the economy tries to rebount.
Then each 25 billion could be used to fund, destroy, or develop new products.

The other 30 billion dollars would go to the UAW's VEBA fund for both GM and Ford, helping to reduce IMMEDIATLY the costs on the automakers for legacy costs, etc etc. UAW would also have to increase its current input into VEBA as well on top of cutting things like job bank, etc etc which will reduce the total cost for VEBA.

[Mike]

mulletbird, you do know we have a multi-quote function right?

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

One of the major factors into the recent total loss of funds is the crapping out of the financial area, yes. On both buying the cars, and loaning the money to move foward with large programs.

Well that's recent, I can see this as an "excuse" but I'm talking about 7.5 prior to that. I had no idea they have not been profitable for so long.

Im gunna have to check, but GM posted a profit several times over the past 8 years, just not a tremendus amount.

The reason I asked is because I skimmed an article from FORTUNE magazine, where they had a chart with GM not posting profits since 2000. I can post it the chart, if needed, but I don't wanna scan the whole article (6 pages long).

What is gunna change is what they have been doing for the past 3years now. Shaking 100 year old traditions dont happen over night, you cannot turn around a ship this big that fast. THIS IS AMERICA'S PROBLEM!!! In this microwaveable world, they want to see them make a profit with a small drop in the bucket.

Well exactly, you can;t do it that fast, they haven't done it themselves for the past 8 years, I have a hard time believing they will turn turd into gold if they are given this "loan" money.

When will it be profitable? When the dollar can be maniuplated against the Euro and we can dump thousands of cars in Europe or any other country's currency.

So you want to place profitability of a company into governments hands? Because I do not think GM can manipulate the Euro.

I dunno, maybe you should ask AIG what they did with teh first 50 billion. Or where any of the trillion bucks went to stabilizing the financial industry? Oh yeah, buy other banks.

You're like that odd looking jealous kid on the block that keeps saying "mommy, mommy, he has it I want one too." Just because someone got government money doesn't mean GM should. Otherwise lets start giving it to everyone I'll take a Christmas bailout please!


Don't get stressed out over there big guy!

[Frosty]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081204/..._nissan_recall

Whoops, I thought the imports were above recalls.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by Frosty

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081204/..._nissan_recall

Whoops, I thought the imports were above recalls.

Faulty breaking lamps? Seriously?

[WildBillyT]

Originally Posted by Tsar

Faulty breaking lamps? Seriously?

Hyundai had a big recall a few years back over faulty flares on a bunch of brake lines or something like that. Funny because most of us could probably do better with crappy hand tools.

[BonzoHansen]

Originally Posted by Tsar

Faulty breaking lamps? Seriously?

Ever get behind a car with no brake lights? It's more dangerous than it sounds.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen

Ever get behind a car with no brake lights? It's more dangerous than it sounds.

Sure but I follow proper following distance so no problems here. My car also randomly shuts off while driving, local mechanics and GM dealership had it and all of them gave me back the car and said "there's nothing wrong with it". I'll take the faulty brake lights please!

[SteveR]

Nardelli seems like a fairly smart dude, Wagoner seems fairly brain dead