Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

Big Three Auto CEOs Flew Private Jets


Recommended Posts

I would do what the governments are doing-helping the economy by helping a strong portion of it. And I would be happy to do it as I believe it makes sense both economically and morally. I predict there will be a bailout package, there will be concessions, and the big three will end up (in as little as 3 years time, probably closer to 5) quite profitable again and will pay all borrowed money back. Money well spent. I do in fact believe the big three have been successful. Close to 100 years has shown that they have survived change. And they probably will again. I don't think it's productive to kick them while they are down, I would rather give them a helping hand up. It was a VERY short time ago that they were immensely profitable remember. And companies get subsidies, grants, free land, etc. from government all the time. This is nothing new, just on a larger and more public scale.

 

Interestingly, the big three are not the only ones with issues.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...n-freefall.html

 

As for personal decisions made, that isn't the point. The current economy is excellent for a SMALL number of us. For those in my (and maybe your?) situation this is all great. Cheap property for the buying, low mortgages, cheap gasoline, cheap labour (race to the bottom economics), some of us are making a killing. I know that I am flush with the results of the current misfortune of others. But it's not good for the majority, and that is the problem. That's why I feel the loans to the big three are a good decision.

 

As regards to comments about "text books" anthony, I'm not sure I understand your point there. I understand the economics in the industry because I studied the industry yes. I understand the workings of it's effect on the economy because I studied that as well. I also worked with the industry, so i have formed my opinions on the matter not from news articles, friends, etc. but from involvement. I'm not one to give my two cents on let's say the telecommunications industry, because frankly, I have no knowledge of it, and haven't really followed it.

 

I guess only time will tell how they will fare. But I am thinking that the big three will emerge as strong players in the market once again. And I hope they do. Competition is good. Narrowing the market won't help anyone. And heads in the sand kind of thinking can't change that. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would do what the governments are doing-helping the economy by helping a strong portion of it. And I would be happy to do it as I believe it makes sense both economically and morally. I predict there will be a bailout package, there will be concessions, and the big three will end up (in as little as 3 years time, probably closer to 5) quite profitable again and will pay all borrowed money back. Money well spent. I do in fact believe the big three have been successful. Close to 100 years has shown that they have survived change. And they probably will again. I don't think it's productive to kick them while they are down, I would rather give them a helping hand up. It was a VERY short time ago that they were immensely profitable remember. And companies get subsidies, grants, free land, etc. from government all the time. This is nothing new, just on a larger and more public scale.

 

As for personal decisions made, that isn't the point. The current economy is excellent for a SMALL number of us. For those in my (and maybe your?) situation this is all great. Cheap property for the buying, low mortgages, cheap gasoline, cheap labour (race to the bottom economics), some of us are making a killing. I know that I am flush with the results of the current misfortune of others. But it's not good for the majority, and that is the problem. That's why I feel the loans to the big three are a good decision.

 

As regards to comments about "text books" anthony, I'm not sure I understand your point there. I understand the economics in the industry because I studied the industry yes. I understand the workings of it's effect on the economy because I studied that as well. I also worked with the industry, so i have formed my opinions on the matter not from news articles, friends, etc. but from involvement. I'm not one to give my two cents on let's say the telecommunications industry, because frankly, I have no knowledge of it, and haven't really followed it.

 

I guess only time will tell how they will fare. But I am thinking that the big three will emerge as strong players in the market once again. And I hope they do. Competition is good. Narrowing the market won't help anyone. And heads in the sand kind of thinking can't change that. :)

 

 

Wow you sure are optimistic about their futures. If they manage to avoid bankruptcy, and that's a big if, they will be drastically different then they are today. They will be much smaller than they are and bit players in the industry. They will kill some brands and there will probably be a merger so the big three will be two maybe one. You will not see them disappear off the map any time soon. Even if they file for bankruptcy they will restructure and survive in some form and break the union in the process.

 

They are far from a success. They are the opposite. They are an example of how to self destruct. Make no mistake they brought all this on them selves. A combination of bad management, crap product and a greedy union resulted in this mess they are in.

 

What I would do to fix the problem. Give them a helping hand with strict conditions which the Senate tried to do. If they refused the conditions let them file for bankruptcy and take their lumps. The union said they would not agree to wage cuts and other concessions and that's why the Senate did not pass the bail out. If the union doesn't want to take responsibility for their jobs why should the tax payer. It's insane they expect a handout but will not make sacrifices then selves. The sacrifices they have made are clearly not enough or they would not need a bailout and be days from bankruptcy. I would also put limits on executive compensation and have heavy government over site into what the bail money was being used for. They would not get a lump sum to do with as they pleased. I they started messing up again I would force them into bankruptcy where some serious work on restructuring could get done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of your ideas are good. The only thing i disagree with is when you say that the union would not agree to wage cuts. What most don't realize is that they already have done this last year. They dropped the starting wage for new hires to MUCH lower then the asian competition a year ago. The union's issue is the republican push for immediate changes to benefits for retirees. These are workers that already have fixed their incomes (and planned accordingly) while working, and then retired. The union doesn't want for them to be left in the cold (thus my eating dog food comments earlier ;)). Future costs can be realigned, but shock and awe kind of changes can cause greater problems economically (both individually and for society) then a thought out restructuring. That was the stumbling block here, not greed. And the UAW position is that they will take cuts, but believe that all the stake holders (shareholders, etc) should share an equal proportion of the cuts, not just the assembly line workers. It's the politically motivated ideology that is stopping things from moving forward. Even Bush wants this to go through, as he sees the bigger picture.

 

I don't personally think there will be a merger of chrysler and gm. Possible, but i don't think it will happen. Dropping of products and shrinking of operations most likely will happen and should. And I don't think the union (s) will be broken, but will be reduced as a direct result of less employees. The problem is supply and demand. Too much supply, not enough demand. Note that its not just the big three that are closing plants for january/february. The asian competition is too, just to a smaller degree. If people don't need the cars, there is no need for the plants/employees. Scaling back will be good. Killing off competition is not. And I don't think that all the product by the big three are crap. They did make some poor decisions as to stock types, but they have some good products.

 

I think conditions are part of any package. In fact, the company (and unions) have already agreed to government overseeing the restructuring plans. There are even provisions that if the "car czar" doesn't like the plans he/she can nix the bailout. Heavy government oversight would be good here. At least I think so. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think most of your ideas are good. The only thing i disagree with is when you say that the union would not agree to wage cuts. What most don't realize is that they already have done this last year. They dropped the starting wage for new hires to MUCH lower then the asian competition a year ago. The union's issue is the republican push for immediate changes to benefits for retirees. These are workers that already have fixed their incomes (and planned accordingly) while working, and then retired. The union doesn't want for them to be left in the cold (thus my eating dog food comments earlier ;)). Future costs can be realigned, but shock and awe kind of changes can cause greater problems economically (both individually and for society) then a thought out restructuring. That was the stumbling block here, not greed. And the UAW position is that they will take cuts, but believe that all the stake holders (shareholders, etc) should share an equal proportion of the cuts, not just the assembly line workers. It's the politically motivated ideology that is stopping things from moving forward. Even Bush wants this to go through, as he sees the bigger picture.

 

I don't personally think there will be a merger of chrysler and gm. Possible, but i don't think it will happen. Dropping of products and shrinking of operations most likely will happen and should. And I don't think the union (s) will be broken, but will be reduced as a direct result of less employees. The problem is supply and demand. Too much supply, not enough demand. Note that its not just the big three that are closing plants for january/february. The asian competition is too, just to a smaller degree. If people don't need the cars, there is no need for the plants/employees. Scaling back will be good. Killing off competition is not. And I don't think that all the product by the big three are crap. They did make some poor decisions as to stock types, but they have some good products.

 

I think conditions are part of any package. In fact, the company (and unions) have already agreed to government overseeing the restructuring plans. There are even provisions that if the "car czar" doesn't like the plans he/she can nix the bailout. Heavy government oversight would be good here. At least I think so. :)

 

Couple points here.

 

The union concessions on new hire wages is a joke. When was the last time the big three hired anybody since that concession was made :lol: They have been cutting workers so really how much of the big three work force is lower paid new hires if any? If they recover they have a lot of laid off people to bring back before they hire anybody. Since the companies are in such rough shape the unions need to bend more, after all it's their jobs on the line. People would be less resistant to a bail out if the unions got serious.

 

I also think you could take a clever to the management ranks of the big three. Besides being incompetent they are top heavy. They don't need to be flying around in private jets while begging for tax payer money.

 

As for government oversight I am generally very against it but when it's tax payers money being used to bail out a company that bail out money needs government watching over how it's used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats true with regards to new hires. But ideologically it was a HUGE concession by the union in the company's favor. But that wasn't the only conession. Other ones (like the unsustainable job bank for laid off employees-a HUGE drain that needed to be stoppered) was also conceded. More obviously has to be done, which i think will be done. And i think the ceo's agreed to work for no wages (but i'd be curious to see stock options and bonuses) for a year. And government oversight isn't always bad. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah DeCloet is known for his right wing views and column writing. But I noticed a few interesting points. Only 47% of the public favored a wall street bailout as opposed to 39% for the auto industry. Not really that big of a difference really, but one gets 700 billion, the other 14 billion......

 

It's interesting isn't it? 700 billion (in the US) of tax dollars to be given out to banks (private corporations) and nobody blinks though....why not just let them go under too and let a new bank fill the void? Still though, 39% ain't that bad, it was enough to get our conservatives voted into a governing party in Canada.............

 

Another interesting point from that article shows that the companies were selling 17 million cars up until 2005 as opposed to the current 12 million or so. Not that long ago. Lots can change in an industry in 3 years.

 

I was watching the news today about honda, toyota, etc. shutting plants down in the new year (temporarily) as well. And they are in pretty rough shape in Europe right now. Even the Japanese government is putting money into private industries to prop them up during the crisis. Seems it is happening everywhere....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah DeCloet is known for his right wing views and column writing. But I noticed a few interesting points. Only 47% of the public favored a wall street bailout as opposed to 39% for the auto industry. Not really that big of a difference really, but one gets 700 billion, the other 14 billion......

 

Doesn't matter which way the guy leans. He could be so far right wing that he is a Nazi doesn't change the facts or stats he was using. Those aren't his opinion.

 

This is the difference between reality and a debate in political science class. Doesn't matter what should be or shouldn't be. Only matters what is. The "is" is that the big three and their union are more hated than the scum on Wall Street. That's not good for their futures.

 

 

It's interesting isn't it? 700 billion (in the US) of tax dollars to be given out to banks (private corporations) and nobody blinks though....why not just let them go under too and let a new bank fill the void? Still though, 39% ain't that bad, it was enough to get our conservatives voted into a governing party in Canada.............

 

I was totally against the bail out for Wall Street. They let several banks fail and some were taken over so not everybody got bailed out. Many didn't. They should have all been left to die.

 

That Bail out is known as TARP. It was originally for buying bad debt. It got passed for that purpose. Once passed and the money was in the Governments hands they changed the rules. They started buying pieces of the banks and using the money for things that had nothing to do with it's original intent. It was a 700 billion fraud of the American people. You don't hear $hit about that though. Unbelievable how badly the tax payer was ass jammed and not a squeak from them. To make matters even more ludicrous guess what money is being used to bail out the loser car companies? Yep, the TARP money. The Senate shot down a bail out for them so Bush wants to use the money that was for the bank bail out. Ha Ha Ha I am laughing myself stupid at the American public.

 

Another interesting point from that article shows that the companies were selling 17 million cars up until 2005 as opposed to the current 12 million or so. Not that long ago. Lots can change in an industry in 3 years.

 

Even at that those sale volumes they were in financial difficulty. This is why they have no chance at survival in their current form. They will not return to those sale levels and even if they did they were still bleeding money. They were not very profitable companies that's why when things got bad they collapsed. The Asians were very profitable when things were good and now that things are bad they are still profitable just less so.

 

 

I was watching the news today about honda, toyota, etc. shutting plants down in the new year (temporarily) as well. And they are in pretty rough shape in Europe right now. Even the Japanese government is putting money into private industries to prop them up during the crisis. Seems it is happening everywhere....

 

Well of course their going to take a hit. There is a huge economic down turn how can they not take a hit. They are selling less cars because people are buying less. Simple economics. They are still making money and lots of it. They are just making less than they did when things were good. When things rebound eventually they are in strong shape to pick up the lost market share of the big three. This is the difference between excellent run car companies with flexible and non unionized work forces and poorly run car companies with in flexible unionized work forces.

 

Don't read too much into the Japanese bailing out their companies. That's their culture. That is why their economy is in a 2 1/2 decade slump. They are not an example of how to do things. You better hope we here in NA don't end up like the Japanese. They experienced a similar disaster in the late eighties and early nineties and have not recovered. Their stock market is at multi decade lows.

 

 

You want a good investment that you can start building a position in now gradually? Toyota. Stock is down over 40% from it's high. Making money hand over fist. Billions in cash on hand. Fast growing market share at the expense of the stupid three. You get a chance to buy a world class blue chip at cheap prices. You also know it's competition is useless. Benefit from the economic Darwinism that you are witnessing first hand.

 

Exciting times for those who did not have their heads shoved up their rear ends. Oh wait those clowns were buying houses they couldn't afford at prices that were unsustainable with mortgages they shouldn't have had from banks that were more stupid than they were. The moronic mary go round goes round and round ha ha.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bail out for wall street (and the banks) is actually a good idea. As do the majority of the commonwealth governments (right and left) as they all are doing it. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's a good idea to watch it fall apart. I think the government(s) see the foundation is falling apart and are doing what they can to fix it. Pumping money into the economy is probably the best thing to do at this point. It's like if my car has an oil leak. The best thing is to spend the money to fix it before it blows a gasket and I have to replace the whole engine. The pain of the cost is less then the pain of doing nothing. Same thing goes for the auto industry.

 

Japan does have some problems. But did you know that a LARGE proportion of their auto industry is unionized? As are the south koreans, indians, etc. Very militant unions actually. In some cases much more inflexible then the North American ones. And these countries are slowly bringing wages and benefits up, albeit much slower.

 

I met an Indian worker years ago from an auto plant in Asia. He was telling me that during their strikes they would stab "scabs" (replacement workers) (in the rear end as a warning) that would try to cross their picket lines. Much more vigorous in their defense of their employment then in NA.

 

"Even at that those sale volumes they were in financial difficulty. This is why they have no chance at survival in their current form. They will not return to those sale levels and even if they did they were still bleeding money. They were not very profitable companies that's why when things got bad they collapsed. The Asians were very profitable when things were good and now that things are bad they are still profitable just less so."

 

That is actually not true. They were actually quite profitable at that time. They just made poor decisions, there was a glut of vehicles in the market, and changes to the economy. You can't continue to produce more vehicles then people need/want to buy. And the flawed thinking that was more more more by the big three was also done by the other manufacturers as evidenced by their closing down for a period as well. Just to a smaller extent.

 

See i don't particularly believe that it needs to be the big three or another brand that produces the vehicles. It is not about WHO the vehicles are produced by, it is about WHERE they are produced. If gm, chrysler, and ford were to all close down permanently right now, the other companies could not step in and meet the demand. We would be left with lots of unemployed, and tons of imports. The process has to happen slowly, with a gradual shift (as has been happening). It would just be too much of a shock to the economy to lose such a large number of jobs at once (this would go with any sector).

 

I would use the example of UPS vs. Fed Ex. The first unionized, the second (for the most part with a few tiny exceptions) not. Both profitable, both HUGE (approximately 200-250 k workers each). At one time Fed ex was bankrupt. But they rebounded. But imagine if one or the other were to just close completely. How many businesses would be affected? Lots. There is always a spin off effect when such large companies could/would go under. The other side just couldn't pick up the slack.

 

And you are right about the people over extending themselves. My wife and I have always lived well below others in our income bracket. Less trips, smaller house, not so fancy cars, etc. But I sleep well at night knowing that if things did go bad, we wouldn't have to worry for a long time. Besides, once you live like you are poor, everything else seems like luxury. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the bail out for wall street (and the banks) is actually a good idea. As do the majority of the commonwealth governments (right and left) as they all are doing it. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's a good idea to watch it fall apart. I think the government(s) see the foundation is falling apart and are doing what they can to fix it. Pumping money into the economy is probably the best thing to do at this point. It's like if my car has an oil leak. The best thing is to spend the money to fix it before it blows a gasket and I have to replace the whole engine. The pain of the cost is less then the pain of doing nothing. Same thing goes for the auto industry.

 

Japan does have some problems. But did you know that a LARGE proportion of their auto industry is unionized? As are the south koreans, indians, etc. Very militant unions actually. In some cases much more inflexible then the North American ones. And these countries are slowly bringing wages and benefits up, albeit much slower.

 

I met an Indian worker years ago from an auto plant in Asia. He was telling me that during their strikes they would stab "scabs" (replacement workers) (in the rear end as a warning) that would try to cross their picket lines. Much more vigorous in their defense of their employment then in NA.

 

"Even at that those sale volumes they were in financial difficulty. This is why they have no chance at survival in their current form. They will not return to those sale levels and even if they did they were still bleeding money. They were not very profitable companies that's why when things got bad they collapsed. The Asians were very profitable when things were good and now that things are bad they are still profitable just less so."

 

That is actually not true. They were actually quite profitable at that time. They just made poor decisions, there was a glut of vehicles in the market, and changes to the economy. You can't continue to produce more vehicles then people need/want to buy. And the flawed thinking that was more more more by the big three was also done by the other manufacturers as evidenced by their closing down for a period as well. Just to a smaller extent.

 

See i don't particularly believe that it needs to be the big three or another brand that produces the vehicles. It is not about WHO the vehicles are produced by, it is about WHERE they are produced. If gm, chrysler, and ford were to all close down permanently right now, the other companies could not step in and meet the demand. We would be left with lots of unemployed, and tons of imports. The process has to happen slowly, with a gradual shift (as has been happening). It would just be too much of a shock to the economy to lose such a large number of jobs at once (this would go with any sector).

 

I would use the example of UPS vs. Fed Ex. The first unionized, the second (for the most part with a few tiny exceptions) not. Both profitable, both HUGE (approximately 200-250 k workers each). At one time Fed ex was bankrupt. But they rebounded. But imagine if one or the other were to just close completely. How many businesses would be affected? Lots. There is always a spin off effect when such large companies could/would go under. The other side just couldn't pick up the slack.

 

And you are right about the people over extending themselves. My wife and I have always lived well below others in our income bracket. Less trips, smaller house, not so fancy cars, etc. But I sleep well at night knowing that if things did go bad, we wouldn't have to worry for a long time. Besides, once you live like you are poor, everything else seems like luxury. :)

 

 

I don't know where you get your facts about the big three being "quite profitable at the time". They were losing market share by the boat load and have been for years. They may have been making money but they were not in good shape. If they were they would not be in the shape they are in now. they were barley making it and that's why this bump in the road has killed them. Continue to argue that there is no problem. Things are great. They are in great shape. They will live for ever because they are the best companies that ever existed. I will continue to live in reality and invest accordingly. I can assure all the digits in my brokerage account are very real and they wouldn't be there if I seen things like you do. You have debated me for two pages in this thread actually trying to defend the car companies and their loser ways. Completely out of touch with the reality of the situation. Just like the car companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't know where you get your facts about the big three being "quite profitable at the time". They were losing market share by the boat load and have been for years. They may have been making money but they were not in good shape. If they were they would not be in the shape they are in now. they were barley making it and that's why this bump in the road has killed them. Continue to argue that there is no problem. Things are great. They are in great shape. They will live for ever because they are the best companies that ever existed. I will continue to live in reality and invest accordingly. I can assure all the digits in my brokerage account are very real and they wouldn't be there if I seen things like you do. You have debated me for two pages in this thread actually trying to defend the car companies and their loser ways. Completely out of touch with the reality of the situation. Just like the car companies."

 

Um, readily available information? And I don't believe that I ever said that there was no problem, things are great and they are in great shape. I just don't believe in the "shock and awe-burn everything that I don't like to the ground" kind of thinking.

 

Most people are less then 6 months away from the street. Believe what you will, whatever helps you sleep at night. Hating everyone and everything isn't the answer and will never bring reality to the situation. Never has been, never will be. No matter how much you debate me (as you have for the past two pages).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, readily available information? And I don't believe that I ever said that there was no problem, things are great and they are in great shape. I just don't believe in the "shock and awe-burn everything that I don't like to the ground" kind of thinking.

 

Most people are less then 6 months away from the street. Believe what you will, whatever helps you sleep at night. Hating everyone and everything isn't the answer and will never bring reality to the situation. Never has been, never will be. No matter how much you debate me (as you have for the past two pages).

 

I have been following the car company situation for over a decade. In fact about 15 years. About the time I got into investing heavily actually. In that entire time the big three were never good companies. They were losing market share the whole time and going in and out of profitability. The Asians were gaining market share at the big three's expense the whole time. This is a fact not my opinion. Nissan ran into some trouble in the nineties got their crap together and became very profitable and well run. The big three just keep diving.

 

Burn to the ground shock and awe? Not what I am about. Bailing out losers who bring their problems on them selves I am against. Here is a new term for you. Perhaps you are familiar with it. If not Google it. "Moral Hazard" This is what concerns me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer facts.

 

Since 1996 auto IMPORTS from Japan have grown 118% in Canada. EXPORTS have declined 69%. Our auto trade deficit with Japan equals $6.3 billion. IMPORTS from Korea have increased 710%. EXPORTS have declined 75%. A 1.7 billion deficit. Both are directly related to the breaking down of trade barriers in Canada (and the same thing happened in the US) and the protectionist strategies of the Asian governments.

 

Auto workers pay approximately 2.2 billion in taxes each year. The big three pay close to 7 billion in taxes. 9 billion dollars in DIRECT lost taxes if they go belly up (as the asians CANNOT step in and fill the gap domestically). Obviously the 2.2 billion would be mitigated by the finding of mcjobs by the workers, but if they even make half as much at new found employment, it is over a billion dollars lost government revenue per year from the workers alone. Seems that a bailout package of a few (3.4?) billion in Canada might be not that bad of an investment for the government....in a purely dollars sort of way.

 

Keep in mind too (from a purely Canadian vantage point) that it is 10% cheaper labour cost wise to produce here (due to governmental health benefits, etc.). As well, most figures put the productivity of the workers in the auto industry in canada at 10-15 % more productive vs. the US (vehicles per worker, or hours per vehicle).

 

October Auto sales for the Big Three in the U.S. fell 41%. Suzuki down 49%, Toyota down 26%, Nissan down 36%, etc. all took a hit by the credit freeze.

 

Rather then "Moral Hazard" I would google "Emotional" and "Diatribe". :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer facts.

 

Since 1996 auto IMPORTS from Japan have grown 118% in Canada. EXPORTS have declined 69%. Our auto trade deficit with Japan equals $6.3 billion. IMPORTS from Korea have increased 710%. EXPORTS have declined 75%. A 1.7 billion deficit. Both are directly related to the breaking down of trade barriers in Canada (and the same thing happened in the US) and the protectionist strategies of the Asian governments.

 

Auto workers pay approximately 2.2 billion in taxes each year. The big three pay close to 7 billion in taxes. 9 billion dollars in DIRECT lost taxes if they go belly up (as the asians CANNOT step in and fill the gap domestically). Obviously the 2.2 billion would be mitigated by the finding of mcjobs by the workers, but if they even make half as much at new found employment, it is over a billion dollars lost government revenue per year from the workers alone. Seems that a bailout package of a few (3.4?) billion in Canada might be not that bad of an investment for the government....in a purely dollars sort of way.

 

Keep in mind too (from a purely Canadian vantage point) that it is 10% cheaper labour cost wise to produce here (due to governmental health benefits, etc.). As well, most figures put the productivity of the workers in the auto industry in canada at 10-15 % more productive vs. the US (vehicles per worker, or hours per vehicle).

 

October Auto sales for the Big Three in the U.S. fell 41%. Suzuki down 49%, Toyota down 26%, Nissan down 36%, etc. all took a hit by the credit freeze.

 

Rather then "Moral Hazard" I would google "Emotional" and "Diatribe". :)

 

Um what does any of that have to do with what I said. I said the car companies were not very profitable you said they were when the economy was good. None of those stats have anything to do with how profitable the car companies are. So don't know why you posted that.

 

 

Here is some info for you. Did you know that about 80% of the vehicles manufactured in Canada get shipped to the US? You want to go on a rant about imports and exports and trade barriers. If I am the US tax payer and I'm footing the bill for a bail out. I would demand that the cars being manufactured in Canada be manufactured in the US and repatriate all the jobs. How well do you think the Canadian companies would do than?

 

Imports are up because we buy so may of their vehicles and why not? There better period. You advocate put barriers in place to force me to buy the crap the big three make? Give them even more reasons not to improve. If knowing they will get bailed out isn't enough now we can add forcing people to buy their cars or pay a penalty for buying foreign.

 

 

The reason the car companies are garbage is because of moral hazard. They know they can screw up all they want and they will get bailed out. They have no fear of consequences. If their bail out is in doubt resort to fear mongering like the CEO's did. I loved their horror stories of how the world would end if we didn't safe their useless asses. They should be let to fail and they will learn or die.

 

Emotional? Maybe. Diatribe that's your domain. Moral Hazard is very real and a major reason the stupid three are in the boat they are in. Both the management and the unions refuse to make the major changes that need to be made. Why should they? 1984 and his kind will wipe their butts for them and pat them on the head and go "there there you guys are doing your best?" :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again you fail to understand the logic and point. The 80 % figure is correct, however it is returned in kind by the US manufacturers that ship TO canada. You obviously don't understand how the autopact worked. Here is a little read for you about the auto pact:

 

http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/e..._auto_pact.html

 

The auto pact was an excellent agreement which helped BOTH the Canadian and US auto industries. It was like a handshake between Canada and the US in the auto industry. And it kept the hands of the foreign countries out of the north american pockets. The WTO (at the behest of the asian auto manufacturers) are what broke down the trade barriers which led to the decline of the big three. There was a tarrif placed on the imports prior to the dissolution of the auto pact which helped keep the market from getting flooded by off shore imports.

 

With the dissolution of the auto pact the NA market has been opened to the Asian competition. But the door has not opened both ways. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. You obviously failed to read my posts, as I am not advocating for the big three SPECIFICALLY, but an auto manufacturing market that is INSIDE OF NORTH AMERICA. The point is not to make you buy from the big three, the point is to have those that make wealth off of the citizens of north america contribute to it's society. If there were a 100% worldwide free market things would be different. By the way, I drive a toyota. :P

 

See if the jobs are lost and imports come in, we lose jobs, tax dollars, and STILL buy the cars....It doesn't matter if they are made at the big three or not. It's just that the big three has made the huge investments in NA market places, unlike the competition. If the competition would step in, build plants here, create jobs and taxes, then I would be for that, and not the governmental loans. But it isn't/won't happen. And don't forget that of the 3.4 billion announced governmental assistance (yes a loan, not a gift) 3 times that will be paid this year alone back from the industry (in taxes both corporate and individual). Looking at it that way, as they have paid the taxes 3 times over this year alone, why can the industry not ask for a portion to be used to assist them? I mean people complain about how much they make (the workers), but remember that they also pay way more in taxes then the ones making lets say 15 bucks an hour. So aside from the bailout, they pay and pay and pay taxes to those that make less, yet only see the same amount of governmental assistance (we all can access health care, ei, etc. equally), yet shouldn't recieve access to funds that they paid when in need?

 

I don't believe any auto CEO said the "world would end." Once again, emotional diatribe. They did state the amount of jobs that would be lost, etc. Cold hard facts. Nothing more, nothing less. The CEO's made some mistakes visually, yes. But that doesn't change the facts of the matter. In my experience when someone knows that they are wrong or simply doesn't completely understand the situation about something they will resort to personal insults rather then intellectual discussion. It amazes me how many people that are not in an industry (or even in the workforce at large) have an opinion about how others should work. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had enough of this pointless discussion with you. You answer equations you weren't asked and you don't give straight answers to some questions you are asked. You behave like a politician and I don't have time for them either. All I have done is given you a platform to spout your left wing point of view which has nothing to do with the reality of the situation with the car companies. You sound like the guys who head the car unions who have a BS excuse for everything and are completely disconnected with reality. The reality is playing out right in front of you and nothing you say is going to change it. So this will be my last post in this thread. No matter what you post in response to this. No matter how provocative it may be I won't bite. I will spend the time on more pleasurable things like watching the big three disintegrate and knowing you can't do anything but watch it happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have had enough of this pointless discussion with you. You answer equations you weren't asked and you don't give straight answers to some questions you are asked. You behave like a politician and I don't have time for them either. All I have done is given you a platform to spout your left wing point of view which has nothing to do with the reality of the situation with the car companies. You sound like the guys who head the car unions who have a BS excuse for everything and are completely disconnected with reality. The reality is playing out right in front of you and nothing you say is going to change it. So this will be my last post in this thread. No matter what you post in response to this. No matter how provocative it may be I won't bite. I will spend the time on more pleasurable things like watching the big three disintegrate and knowing you can't do anything but watch it happen.

 

 

Hope you become more cheerful then all of your posts both in this thread and others. Bye bye. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...