Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: you know that 70 billion that was given to the Auto ind. « previous next »
Page: 1 2

dr3z

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3812
Offline
: February 26, 2009, 07:52:53 AM

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090226/earns_gm.html

Well 6.2 Billion is gone already.

Why keep giving them money??? We'd be better served just giving the money to us to buy cars!!

How about every American given a 5-10k check to only put towards a New AMERICA car.

what harm could that be???? I bet it would be better then whats going on now........

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#1 : February 26, 2009, 08:02:07 AM


How about every American given a 5-10k check to only put towards a New AMERICA car.

what harm could that be????


Well offhand you be putting millions of Americans into a GM, Chrysler or Ford product and I don't hate my fellow Americans that much.

Look, what is wrong with the Big 3 has nothing really to do with the current "crisis". They're using it as cover for the fact that these same problems were about to swamp them anyways. Look at all the issues:

1. Bad management
2. Awful product lines because of bad management
3. Too many of those awful product lines because of bad management
4. Too many dealerships thanks to stupid state laws
5. Too many cars no one wants thanks to stupid federal laws
6. Terrible labor costs thanks to bad union contracts
7. Terrible, beyond terrible retiree costs thanks to bad union contracts

None of those are going to be fixed due to more government money. #2 and 3 don't cost any money to fix, neither does 1. 3 and 4 are legal problems unrelated to money. 6 and 7 can only be solved if they stop getting federal money.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

dr3z

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3812
Offline
#2 : February 26, 2009, 08:05:29 AM

My statement is on the misuse of the taxpayer money by the gov.

How about we give every american 5-10k that goes ONLY towards purchasing a NEW AMERICAN automobile?

Talk about stimulating the economy. Not only the auto ind. will feel the rewards but the banks that can finance the rest of the loan.

Think about it.

Its more about giving the money to big biz then to US.

Snook

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 9083
Offline
#3 : February 26, 2009, 08:57:53 AM

Its more about giving the money to big biz then to US.

There you go...

Exactly why nothing will change in this country no matter who is in charge.

This country is run by corporations and special interests groups.


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
#4 : February 26, 2009, 10:21:50 AM


Look, what is wrong with the Big 3 has nothing really to do with the current "crisis". They're using it as cover for the fact that these same problems were about to swamp them anyways. Look at all the issues:

1. Bad management
2. Awful product lines because of bad management
3. Too many of those awful product lines because of bad management
4. Too many dealerships thanks to stupid state laws
5. Too many cars no one wants thanks to stupid federal laws
6. Terrible labor costs thanks to bad union contracts
7. Terrible, beyond terrible retiree costs thanks to bad union contracts

None of those are going to be fixed due to more government money. #2 and 3 don't cost any money to fix, neither does 1. 3 and 4 are legal problems unrelated to money. 6 and 7 can only be solved if they stop getting federal money.


GM needs to declare bankruptcy.

Not saying there are not other problems but they need to be able to renegotiate the Union contracts. Anybody notice that the Unions worked hand in glove with the car companies until the Govt wrote the check? They then immediately walked away from the table and said they were not prepared to 'concede' any more.  This will continue as long as the Feds keep on writing those checks.

GhostRider

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5991
Offline
#5 : February 26, 2009, 11:01:19 AM

I agreed with the Bank Bailout (in principal, but leave it to Govnt to screw it up), but I am dead set against the Auto Bail Out.  The truth is, American hasn't really been competitive in the Auto Industry since the late 70's.  Tarrifs keep the price of imported vehicles higher than they naturally would be, but despite the price differential, people still buy Honda, Toyota and Hyundai.  Why?  Better quality for a marginal difference in price.  American car companies chose to go with functional obsolescense (sp) rather than sell on quality.  And it bit them in the butt. 

The real problem I have with the Auto bail out is this:  If John Q Carguy wants to start a new car company, he has to compete with the "big 3" that already own 48% of the market share.  He simply cannot compete (see Saturn's sell out to GM).  In a naturally occuring free market economy, the big 3 go under, and other companies come along and actually IMPROVE upon the old business models, LEARNING from past mistakes.  This bail out is a slap in the face to the American consumer, American business person and the very notion of a free market system.  I hate it with a passion.


kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#6 : February 26, 2009, 11:26:25 AM

I agreed with the Bank Bailout (in principal, but leave it to Govnt to screw it up), but I am dead set against the Auto Bail Out. The truth is, American hasn't really been competitive in the Auto Industry since the late 70's. Tarrifs keep the price of imported vehicles higher than they naturally would be, but despite the price differential, people still buy Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. Why? Better quality for a marginal difference in price. American car companies chose to go with functional obsolescense (sp) rather than sell on quality. And it bit them in the butt.

The real problem I have with the Auto bail out is this: If John Q Carguy wants to start a new car company, he has to compete with the "big 3" that already own 48% of the market share. He simply cannot compete (see Saturn's sell out to GM). In a naturally occuring free market economy, the big 3 go under, and other companies come along and actually IMPROVE upon the old business models, LEARNING from past mistakes. This bail out is a slap in the face to the American consumer, American business person and the very notion of a free market system. I hate it with a passion.
Everything you said about the auto bailout should also be applied to the banks bailouts. I do not see how you can distinquish between the two. Government intervention in both has reaped the same results, crap.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

GhostRider

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5991
Offline
#7 : February 26, 2009, 11:38:10 AM

I agreed with the Bank Bailout (in principal, but leave it to Govnt to screw it up), but I am dead set against the Auto Bail Out. The truth is, American hasn't really been competitive in the Auto Industry since the late 70's. Tarrifs keep the price of imported vehicles higher than they naturally would be, but despite the price differential, people still buy Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. Why? Better quality for a marginal difference in price. American car companies chose to go with functional obsolescense (sp) rather than sell on quality. And it bit them in the butt.

The real problem I have with the Auto bail out is this: If John Q Carguy wants to start a new car company, he has to compete with the "big 3" that already own 48% of the market share. He simply cannot compete (see Saturn's sell out to GM). In a naturally occuring free market economy, the big 3 go under, and other companies come along and actually IMPROVE upon the old business models, LEARNING from past mistakes. This bail out is a slap in the face to the American consumer, American business person and the very notion of a free market system. I hate it with a passion.
Everything you said about the auto bailout should also be applied to the banks bailouts. I do not see how you can distinquish between the two. Government intervention in both has reaped the same results, crap.

I understand the philosophy you're coming from, but if the banks didn't get bailed out, the entire financial industry would have imploded (heck, it still might).


kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#8 : February 26, 2009, 11:43:38 AM

I agreed with the Bank Bailout (in principal, but leave it to Govnt to screw it up), but I am dead set against the Auto Bail Out. The truth is, American hasn't really been competitive in the Auto Industry since the late 70's. Tarrifs keep the price of imported vehicles higher than they naturally would be, but despite the price differential, people still buy Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. Why? Better quality for a marginal difference in price. American car companies chose to go with functional obsolescense (sp) rather than sell on quality. And it bit them in the butt.

The real problem I have with the Auto bail out is this: If John Q Carguy wants to start a new car company, he has to compete with the "big 3" that already own 48% of the market share. He simply cannot compete (see Saturn's sell out to GM). In a naturally occuring free market economy, the big 3 go under, and other companies come along and actually IMPROVE upon the old business models, LEARNING from past mistakes. This bail out is a slap in the face to the American consumer, American business person and the very notion of a free market system. I hate it with a passion.
Everything you said about the auto bailout should also be applied to the banks bailouts. I do not see how you can distinquish between the two. Government intervention in both has reaped the same results, crap.

I understand the philosophy you're coming from, but if the banks didn't get bailed out, the entire financial industry would have imploded (heck, it still might).
I think the FDIC would disagree with you.

The banking industry is a  very secretive industry, who really pulls the strings and why. We might want to see the relationships to Geithner, Barnanke, Goldman Sachs and George Soros.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

GhostRider

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5991
Offline
#9 : February 26, 2009, 12:42:54 PM

I agreed with the Bank Bailout (in principal, but leave it to Govnt to screw it up), but I am dead set against the Auto Bail Out. The truth is, American hasn't really been competitive in the Auto Industry since the late 70's. Tarrifs keep the price of imported vehicles higher than they naturally would be, but despite the price differential, people still buy Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. Why? Better quality for a marginal difference in price. American car companies chose to go with functional obsolescense (sp) rather than sell on quality. And it bit them in the butt.

The real problem I have with the Auto bail out is this: If John Q Carguy wants to start a new car company, he has to compete with the "big 3" that already own 48% of the market share. He simply cannot compete (see Saturn's sell out to GM). In a naturally occuring free market economy, the big 3 go under, and other companies come along and actually IMPROVE upon the old business models, LEARNING from past mistakes. This bail out is a slap in the face to the American consumer, American business person and the very notion of a free market system. I hate it with a passion.
Everything you said about the auto bailout should also be applied to the banks bailouts. I do not see how you can distinquish between the two. Government intervention in both has reaped the same results, crap.

I understand the philosophy you're coming from, but if the banks didn't get bailed out, the entire financial industry would have imploded (heck, it still might).
I think the FDIC would disagree with you.

The banking industry is a very secretive industry, who really pulls the strings and why. We might want to see the relationships to Geithner, Barnanke, Goldman Sachs and George Soros.

Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't the FDIC only insure customer deposits of $250,000 or less?


kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#10 : February 26, 2009, 01:02:19 PM

I agreed with the Bank Bailout (in principal, but leave it to Govnt to screw it up), but I am dead set against the Auto Bail Out. The truth is, American hasn't really been competitive in the Auto Industry since the late 70's. Tarrifs keep the price of imported vehicles higher than they naturally would be, but despite the price differential, people still buy Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. Why? Better quality for a marginal difference in price. American car companies chose to go with functional obsolescense (sp) rather than sell on quality. And it bit them in the butt.

The real problem I have with the Auto bail out is this: If John Q Carguy wants to start a new car company, he has to compete with the "big 3" that already own 48% of the market share. He simply cannot compete (see Saturn's sell out to GM). In a naturally occuring free market economy, the big 3 go under, and other companies come along and actually IMPROVE upon the old business models, LEARNING from past mistakes. This bail out is a slap in the face to the American consumer, American business person and the very notion of a free market system. I hate it with a passion.
Everything you said about the auto bailout should also be applied to the banks bailouts. I do not see how you can distinquish between the two. Government intervention in both has reaped the same results, crap.

I understand the philosophy you're coming from, but if the banks didn't get bailed out, the entire financial industry would have imploded (heck, it still might).
I think the FDIC would disagree with you.

The banking industry is a very secretive industry, who really pulls the strings and why. We might want to see the relationships to Geithner, Barnanke, Goldman Sachs and George Soros.

Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't the FDIC only insure customer deposits of $250,000 or less?
Usually, but there are other insurance policies depositors can purchase. The point of the FDIC was that they have a list of banks that they consider to be in trouble, their Troubled Banks List. Last year there were about 150 on that list and 24 banks actually failed. (purchased by other banks) So far this year I believe there are about 180 banks on that list and 14 have gone insolvent so far. This is a far cry from total collapse of the system, even without a bailout many of those banks could have restuctured with other banks. The FDIC was created in order to prevent a total loss to depositors, not to totally prevent all losses.

The toxic assets, or basically worthless assets, should be allowed to filter through the system. This would indeed create losses, but they would be losses to stockholders and a loss of tax revenue to the FED. This is the way the system is suppose to work and from losses should come better operating systems. The Fed does not want to lose tax revenue and will use our money to prevent this from happening.

Some people say they are too big too fail, I say they are too big to be sustained. Let the pieces fall and there will be capitalists ready to pick them up and make a better system, as long as the FED does regulate them into doing bad business deals.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

GhostRider

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5991
Offline
#11 : February 26, 2009, 01:34:55 PM

I agreed with the Bank Bailout (in principal, but leave it to Govnt to screw it up), but I am dead set against the Auto Bail Out. The truth is, American hasn't really been competitive in the Auto Industry since the late 70's. Tarrifs keep the price of imported vehicles higher than they naturally would be, but despite the price differential, people still buy Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. Why? Better quality for a marginal difference in price. American car companies chose to go with functional obsolescense (sp) rather than sell on quality. And it bit them in the butt.

The real problem I have with the Auto bail out is this: If John Q Carguy wants to start a new car company, he has to compete with the "big 3" that already own 48% of the market share. He simply cannot compete (see Saturn's sell out to GM). In a naturally occuring free market economy, the big 3 go under, and other companies come along and actually IMPROVE upon the old business models, LEARNING from past mistakes. This bail out is a slap in the face to the American consumer, American business person and the very notion of a free market system. I hate it with a passion.
Everything you said about the auto bailout should also be applied to the banks bailouts. I do not see how you can distinquish between the two. Government intervention in both has reaped the same results, crap.

I understand the philosophy you're coming from, but if the banks didn't get bailed out, the entire financial industry would have imploded (heck, it still might).
I think the FDIC would disagree with you.

The banking industry is a very secretive industry, who really pulls the strings and why. We might want to see the relationships to Geithner, Barnanke, Goldman Sachs and George Soros.

Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't the FDIC only insure customer deposits of $250,000 or less?
Usually, but there are other insurance policies depositors can purchase. The point of the FDIC was that they have a list of banks that they consider to be in trouble, their Troubled Banks List. Last year there were about 150 on that list and 24 banks actually failed. (purchased by other banks) So far this year I believe there are about 180 banks on that list and 14 have gone insolvent so far. This is a far cry from total collapse of the system, even without a bailout many of those banks could have restuctured with other banks. The FDIC was created in order to prevent a total loss to depositors, not to totally prevent all losses.

The toxic assets, or basically worthless assets, should be allowed to filter through the system. This would indeed create losses, but they would be losses to stockholders and a loss of tax revenue to the FED. This is the way the system is suppose to work and from losses should come better operating systems. The Fed does not want to lose tax revenue and will use our money to prevent this from happening.

Some people say they are too big too fail, I say they are too big to be sustained. Let the pieces fall and there will be capitalists ready to pick them up and make a better system, as long as the FED does regulate them into doing bad business deals.

I guess it's just a matter of perspective.  I watched Lehman go down.  I don't believe the fed could effectively save multiple banks from such mass extinction. 


kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#12 : February 26, 2009, 02:18:44 PM

I agreed with the Bank Bailout (in principal, but leave it to Govnt to screw it up), but I am dead set against the Auto Bail Out. The truth is, American hasn't really been competitive in the Auto Industry since the late 70's. Tarrifs keep the price of imported vehicles higher than they naturally would be, but despite the price differential, people still buy Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. Why? Better quality for a marginal difference in price. American car companies chose to go with functional obsolescense (sp) rather than sell on quality. And it bit them in the butt.

The real problem I have with the Auto bail out is this: If John Q Carguy wants to start a new car company, he has to compete with the "big 3" that already own 48% of the market share. He simply cannot compete (see Saturn's sell out to GM). In a naturally occuring free market economy, the big 3 go under, and other companies come along and actually IMPROVE upon the old business models, LEARNING from past mistakes. This bail out is a slap in the face to the American consumer, American business person and the very notion of a free market system. I hate it with a passion.
Everything you said about the auto bailout should also be applied to the banks bailouts. I do not see how you can distinquish between the two. Government intervention in both has reaped the same results, crap.

I understand the philosophy you're coming from, but if the banks didn't get bailed out, the entire financial industry would have imploded (heck, it still might).
I think the FDIC would disagree with you.

The banking industry is a very secretive industry, who really pulls the strings and why. We might want to see the relationships to Geithner, Barnanke, Goldman Sachs and George Soros.

Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't the FDIC only insure customer deposits of $250,000 or less?
Usually, but there are other insurance policies depositors can purchase. The point of the FDIC was that they have a list of banks that they consider to be in trouble, their Troubled Banks List. Last year there were about 150 on that list and 24 banks actually failed. (purchased by other banks) So far this year I believe there are about 180 banks on that list and 14 have gone insolvent so far. This is a far cry from total collapse of the system, even without a bailout many of those banks could have restuctured with other banks. The FDIC was created in order to prevent a total loss to depositors, not to totally prevent all losses.

The toxic assets, or basically worthless assets, should be allowed to filter through the system. This would indeed create losses, but they would be losses to stockholders and a loss of tax revenue to the FED. This is the way the system is suppose to work and from losses should come better operating systems. The Fed does not want to lose tax revenue and will use our money to prevent this from happening.

Some people say they are too big too fail, I say they are too big to be sustained. Let the pieces fall and there will be capitalists ready to pick them up and make a better system, as long as the FED does regulate them into doing bad business deals.

I guess it's just a matter of perspective. I watched Lehman go down. I don't believe the fed could effectively save multiple banks from such mass extinction.
And they shouldn't save them now.  If the Fed had done their job, including Geitner, the fraudulent securities they knew to some day be worth nothing could have been stopped.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

GhostRider

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5991
Offline
#13 : February 26, 2009, 02:21:54 PM

I have the sneaking su**CENSORED**ion that the Fed was just window dressing for Wall Street...I don't feel altogether confident that they have the ability to stop banks from going under on such a massive scale.


kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#14 : February 26, 2009, 02:27:41 PM

I have the sneaking su**CENSORED**ion that the Fed was just window dressing for Wall Street...I don't feel altogether confident that they have the ability to stop banks from going under on such a massive scale.
Agreed, and again I think Soros and friends are pulling the strings, how else can you justify Geitner, Barnanke and Paulson. It surely isn't on merit.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.
Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: you know that 70 billion that was given to the Auto ind. « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools