1. "I took a train here." (Jim Press apparently totally misses the point here. Why didn't you drive? Right. Exactly).
2. "It's not a bailout, its a loan." (Not if you never pay it back it isn't. And if all you need is a loan, issue more debt. Oh, wait, no one will lend to you? Right. That's why we call it a "bail out.")
3. "It's not our cars that are hurting us here. It's the global credit crunch." (A clearer sign that the big three are out to lunch you will not find).
4. "We've totally changed in the last four years."
5. "The UAW trust is paying for worker health care so that's not our expense anymore." (And who is funding the UAW trust? Hate to break it to you, but health care isn't free just because you altered the accounting on it so when people say that a worker costs $75 per hour you have something to say to confuse the issue).
6. "We only need $25 billion dollars."
7. "We only need $34 billion dollars." (It's looking like $38 billion already and their proposals for $34 billion have only been out for a few days).
Who will finally stop the madness?
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 1:34PM
Fuck Detriot. Bk'em all. I hope they all fail and they deserve to.
Posted by Clown Capital , Dec 03, 2008 1:49PM
I can't fuckin deal anymore. We are essentially about to give money to a company that has no idea how to BE a company. They don't have an effective business plan, management could not be any more inept, and the quality of the product is marginal AT BEST. Yet, we're worried about the potential collateral damage to suppliers if they fail and how many people will be out of a job?????
WHAT,
THE,
FUCK....
Posted by cy , Dec 03, 2008 2:04PM
well done, ep
Posted by AJ , Dec 03, 2008 2:08PM
Which idiot took the train?
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 2:19PM
Let's give Canada the whole city of Detroit (as opposed to Detriot).
Posted by Adam , Dec 03, 2008 2:25PM
Can we just DK Detroit?
Posted by Anal_yst , Dec 03, 2008 2:34PM
In all fairness the only progress they've really made has been in the last 5 or so years. Unfortunately for them its a bit of a too little, too late thing.
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 2:34PM
Even if they get the money they fail in 5 years.
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 2:36PM
http://www.unionfacts.com/unions/unionProfile.cfm?id=149
note the job bank section - $70-85k to sit on the bench.
burn bitches! burn!
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 2:39PM
Anal - define progress for the Big 3?
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 2:48PM
WTF!!! Now Chrysler's putting a gun to the head of the Gov't, saying if they are allowed to collapse then the US will see another "Great Depression". What a last ditch whore effort for this money......let those gutter sluts rot now for playing the Depression card!
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 2:48PM
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081203/AUTO01/812030439/1361
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 3:12PM
@12 - Well there's an unbiased source...
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 3:21PM
@12,
nice 45 mph fastball... See the response to where you posted it on the other article.
Posted by Formerly FEPWJ , Dec 03, 2008 3:50PM
Quick question, if we are bailing out the auto manufaturers to save American jobs, then why are people accepting a plan from General Motors it that they shed one third of their American work-force? Just thinking, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of throwing them say....ten figures to stay afloat
Posted by Anal_yst , Dec 03, 2008 4:26PM
Gents, just playing the Devil's advocate here, but non-finance types are asking the same questions about why we're throwing $ at Wall Street firms and banks.
1. Inept management with no idea what's going on in their own firms.
2. Antiquated business models based on unrealistic assumptions.
3. Overpaid and entitled workers.
etc, etc ad nauseum.
I'm not saying they're right (they certainly aren't WRONG), but gents/ladies lets not be so quick to point the finger without a bit of a self-examination, k?
Posted by HeadlessHorseman , Dec 03, 2008 4:54PM
Anal_yst,
Your point isn't lost on me but the way I reconcile the disparity and inequality to which you point is:
If Citi or any other bank worth its salt were to fail, the broader economy suffers. The banking system's role in facilitating commerce is critical. The seizing up of credit affects everything (retail, b2b, housing, auto, and etcetera). The ability to transact business would be constrained even more severely than we've already began to (see thus far).
If, on the other hand, one or all of the "big 3" were to fail, it simply doesn't have the same effect on the broader economy. Sure you'll expect the ripples to collapse a few suppliers and maybe even a few suppliers' suppliers (many of which haven't been doing much better than the "big 3" to begin with). Sure some towns will have restaurants and bars that were previously patronized by auto workers close.
I do, however, concede what I believe to be your larger point; that while finance may be more important than manufacturing to the health of the broader economy, those individuals working in finance shouldn't be so quick to assume that either they or their firms are necessarily superior in other regards...chiefly those that you've listed.
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 5:00PM
Anal_yst,
Your point isn't lost on me but the way I reconcile the disparity and inequality to which you point is:
If GM or any other car manufacturer worth its salt were to fail, the broader economy suffers. The manufacturing sector's role in facilitating commerce is critical. The seizing up of manufacturing affects everything (retail, b2b, housing, banking, and etcetera). The ability to transact business would be constrained even more severely than we've already began to (see thus far).
If, on the other hand, one or all of teh Big3 (Citi, JPM, BOA) were to fail, it simply doesn't have the same effect on the broader economy. Sure you'll expect the ripples to collapse a few banks and maybe few brokers (many of which haven't been doing much better than the "big 3" to begin with). Sure some towns will have restaurants and bars that were previously patronized by bankers close.
I do not, however, concede what I believe to be your larger point; that finance is more important than manufacturing to the health of the broader economy. Those individuals working in finance therefore shouldn't be so quick to assume that either they or their firms are necessarily superior.
Headed Horseman
Posted by HeadlessHorseman , Dec 03, 2008 5:08PM
Okay,
What's up with db lately? Yesterday my machine catches a trojan when I open the site. Today it truncates my post, adds a period, rearranges my handle to read "Headed Horseman", displays it at the bottom of the post, and logs it as a "guest"
This should be interesting
Posted by Anal_yst , Dec 03, 2008 5:24PM
I think some joker thought he/she was being funny, when alas, he/she was not.
What is lost on people who do not make the distinction you and I are able to make is that while manufacturing is indeed important for a variety of very obvious reasons, we're not talking about the collapse of the big 3 - merely the streamlining. Even if the big 3 were to collapse (autos, that is), entrepreneurs and competitors would likely step in to pick up at least some of the slack.
Its worth mentioning though, that who talks about the situation in black/white (big 3 exist and get bailout, big 3 don't get bailout and *poof* magically dissapear) is retarded.
Now, a similar argument can be made for banks - excess capacity (from inflated hiring/output during credit bubble) needs to be reduced and streamlined. However, unlike a fictitous "collapse" of the big 3 automakers, a collapse of JPM, BAC, and C would result in immediate disaster of epic proportions as the entire world simultaneously freaks the f*ck out.
Apples and oranges, folks.
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 5:28PM
"lost on people who do not make the distinction you and I are able to make". Headless Horsement and Anal_yst = rare individuals of superior intellect
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 5:56PM
@Headless Horsement
lay off porn for a while
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 6:33PM
@16
I agree with points 1 and 2. And the banks do have an overpaid, self-entitled workforce as well. But one major difference is the banks can summarily can any of those workers on a moment's notice and regularly do so, even in good years. Wouldn't even have to give severance if they didn't feel like it.
Try firing a union worker. Not only can't you get rid of the dead weight, you have to fund their healthcare benefits FOR LIFE. Now I'm not naive enough to suggest it's all the union's fault. Management are complete morons too. Indeed, all involved deserve what's coming. However, the consequences will be quite severe if all of the Big 3 completely liquidate. Not as bad as if the large I-banks were to fail, but it would still be very bad.
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 10:20PM
The chances the Big 3 would be forced to liquidate are slim. However, bankruptcy means that the way they have done business is kapoot. This scares the bejeesus out of the entrenched management and unions, who have the most to lose. I say, suck it up, go bk, and right the ship. I'm tired of their whining and holding their hand out whenever there's a problem. Deal with it.
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 10:34PM
With economic instability can come social instability.
Are you all really this naive? You do not think an epic chain reaction would occur? All to save 30 billion, when you burn 700? You actually believe someone will fill this void. Japan, Germany.. maybe St Nic?
They wont even make it out of BK.
All over 40$ an hour plus healthcare. They competed and did not need a bailout before credit issues. But now you nitpick. Oh wait .. I know. There are no Greenbergs or Finklesteins on the assembly line.
With economic instability can come social instability.
Posted by guest , Dec 03, 2008 10:49PM
@ 16-23 (excluding 22):
Three points I’d like to share:
1) The modern financial system is a fiction we choose to believe (as in, a dollar bill is really just linen and lumber mashed up and flattened out. We all choose to agree that roughly 2/3 of one is worth a candy bar). Will the world end if banks collapse? No. Maybe people will get a bit aggressive and suddenly our right to keep and bear arms will mean something, but theoretically you could still fire up a factory in the morning and continue with life. That theory assumes some sort of an egalitarian paradise, and while I admit that it is a laughable idea, you have to admit that it is at least conceivable.
On the other hand, if the manufacturing firms all disappeared, there would be no more use for the banks.
Many of you seem to assume that finance makes the world go 'round, without remembering that the migrant tribes who formed the basis of modern civilization had no concept of CDOs, credit swaps, or even LIBOR. They just decided that this dude made really good arrows and that dude could shoot them with passable accuracy and that they would both be better off if they hunted together. Then they found some girls and told them to pick a few berries in case things didn’t go so well.
2) Whose job is more important to save: an overweight, 22-year-old banker who makes a $60,000 base, or a guy with two kids, a house, and makes only $50,000?
3) Finally, one of you mentioned something about the role of banks in the facilitation of commerce. I can accept that on a theoretical basis, but as I alluded to above theory seldom represents reality. When Citi, BoA, and JPM start to take their role seriously (as opposed to seeking the fast road to massive wealth without considering the long-term impact), maybe I can take them more seriously and will be less inclined to laugh in your face when you try to claim that they are critical to the functioning of society.
Cheers!
Posted by guest , Dec 04, 2008 7:58AM
I heard someone say that they have worked very hard these past two weeks preparing for this Congressional presentation.
Hmmm. Ergo, they deserve $38B or whatever the number is now?
Posted by guest , Dec 05, 2008 1:17PM
Took the train???? Too bad he didnt take Clive Barkers MIDNIGHT MEAT TRAIN - we would all have been better off.
Posted by guest , Dec 07, 2008 4:34AM
The only automakers asking for a bailout from their countrymen have the UAW. Why?
Posted by guest , Dec 10, 2008 12:57PM
Just a letter to the editor fo a West Virginia newspaper.... A little chest-thumping.... Good to read, and it's good to be armed with those facts.
Attached is a well written "Letter to the Editor" from Elkins Fordland.
Editor:
As I watch the coverage of the fate of the U.S. auto industry, one alarming and frustrating fact hits me right between the eyes. The fate of our nation's economic survival is in the hands of some congressmen who are completely out of touch and act without knowledge of an industry that affects almost every person in our nation. The same lack of knowledge is shared with many journalists whom are irresponsible when influencing the opinion of millions of viewers.
Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama has doomed the industry, calling it a dinosaur. No Mr. Shelby, you are the dinosaur, with ideas stuck in the '70s, '80s and '90s. You and the uninformed journalist and senators that hold onto myths that are not relevant in today's world.
When you say that the Big Three build vehicles nobody wants to buy, you must have overlooked that GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the U.S. and Ford outsold Honda by 850,000 and Nissan by 1.2 million in the U.S. GM was the world's No. 1 automaker beating Toyota by 3,000 units.
When you claim inferior quality comes from the Big Three, did you realize that Chevy makes the Malibu and Ford makes the Fusion that were both rated over the Camry and Accord by J.D. Power independent survey on initial quality? Did you bother to read the Consumer Report that rated Ford on par with good Japanese automakers.
Did you realize Big Three's gas guzzlers include the 33 mpg Malibu that beats the Accord. And for '09 Ford introduces the Hybrid Fusion whose 39 mpg is the best midsize, beating the Camry Hybrid. Ford's Focus beats the Corolla and Chevy's Cobalt beats the Civic.
When you ask how many times are we going to bail them out you must be referring to 1980. The only Big Three bailout was Chrysler, who paid back $1 billion, plus interest. GM and Ford have never received government aid.
When you criticize the Big Three for building so many pickups, surely you've noticed the attempts Toyota and Nissan have made spending billions to try to get a piece of that pie. Perhaps it bothers you that for 31 straight years Ford's F-Series has been the best selling vehicle. Ford and GM have dominated this market and when you see the new '09 F-150 you'll agree this won't change soon.
Did you realize that both GM and Ford offer more hybrid models than Nissan or Honda. Between 2005 and 2007, Ford alone has invested more than $22 billion in research and development of technologies such as Eco Boost, flex fuel, clean diesel, hybrids, plug in hybrids and hydrogen cars.
It's 2008 and the quality of the vehicles coming out of Detroit are once again the best in the world.
Perhaps Sen. Shelby isn't really that blind. Maybe he realizes the quality shift to American. Maybe it's the fact that his state of Alabama has given so much to land factories from Honda, Hyundai and Mercedes Benz that he is more concerned about their continued growth than he is about the people of our country. Sen. Shelby's disdain for "government subsidies" is very hypocritical. In the early '90s he was the driving force behind a $253 million incentive package to Mercedes. Plus, Alabama agreed to purchase 2,500 vehicles from Mercedes. While the bridge loan the Big Three is requesting will be paid back, Alabama's $180,000-plus per job was pure incentive. Sen. Shelby, not only are you out of touch, you are a self-serving hypocrite, who is prepared to ruin our nation because of lack of knowledge and lack of due diligence in making your opinions and decisions.
After 9/11, the Detroit Three and Harley Davidson gave $40 million-plus emergency vehicles to the recovery efforts. What was given to the 9/11 relief effort by the Asian and European Auto Manufactures? $0 Nada. Zip!
We live in a world of free trade, world economy and we have not been able to produce products as cost efficiently. While the governments of other auto producing nations subsidize their automakers, our government may be ready to force its demise. While our automakers have paid union wages, benefits and legacy debt, our Asian competitors employ cheap labor. We are at an extreme disadvantage in production cost. Although many UAW concessions begin in 2010, many lawmakers think it's not enough.
Some point the blame to corporate management. I would like to speak of Ford Motor Co. The company has streamlined by reducing our workforce by 51,000 since 2005, closing 17 plants and cutting expenses. Product and future product is excellent and the company is focused on one Ford. This is a company poised for success. Ford product quality and corporate management have improved light years since the nightmare of Jacques Nasser. Thank you Alan Mulally and the best auto company management team in the business.
The financial collapse caused by the secondary mortgage fiasco and the greed of Wall Street has led to a $700 billion bailout of the industry that created the problem. AIG spent nearly $1 million on three company excursions to lavish resorts and hunting destinations. Paulson is saying no to $250 billion foreclosure relief and the whole thing is a mess. So when the Big Three ask for 4 percent of that of the $700 billion, $25 billion to save the country's largest industry, there is obviously oppositions. But does it make sense to reward the culprits of the problem with $700 billion unconditionally, and ignore the victims?
As a Ford dealer, I feel our portion of the $25 billion will never be touched and is not necessary. Ford currently has $29 billion of liquidity. However, the effect of a bankruptcy by GM will hurt the suppliers we all do business with. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy by any manufacture would cost retirees their health care and retirements. Chances are GM would recover from Chapter 11 with a better business plan with much less expense. So who foots the bill if GM or all three go Chapter 11? All that extra health care, unemployment, loss of tax base and some forgiven debt goes back to the taxpayer, us. With no chance of repayment, this would be much worse than a loan with the intent of repayment.
So while it is debatable whether a loan or Chapter 11 is better for the Big Three, a $25 billion loan is definitely better for the taxpayers and the economy of our country.
So I'll end where I began on the quality of the products of Detroit. Before you, Mr. or Ms. Journalist continue to misinform the American public and turn them against one of the great industries that helped build this nation, I must ask you one question. Before you, Mr. or Madam Congressman vote to end health care and retirement benefits for 1 million retirees, eliminate 2.5 million of our nation's jobs, lose the technology that will lead us in the future and create an economic disaster including hundreds of billions of tax dollars lost, I ask this question not in the rhetorical sense. I ask it in the sincere, literal way. Can you tell me, have you driven a Ford lately?
Jim Jackson
Elkins