Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we wouldn't have bailed out the auto industry where would that have gotten us in terms of manufacturing jobs?
Probably better off. Remember, the GM bailout was supposed to prevent GM going bankrupt. It failed, the company did go bankrupt anyway. It was restructured again in an illegal, unprecedented bankruptcy scheme, one which defrauded the stockholders and creditors, yet rewarded the UAW.
I was pondering the same thing when they kept bringing this up. The auto industry employs far fewer than the financial services industry, AND they are literally responsible for multiple deaths in the faulty ignition case...I mean they literally killed people in order to save money. Granted he financial services industry ruined lives too, but can you really say that one is better/worse than the other?
I think we would have been better off with the auto industry going the bankruptcy route anyway.
During the first internet bubble, all of those companies that went out of business had a fire sale on equipment and there were lots of smart motivated people that couldn't find jobs. End result was Internet 2.0 with these smart folks buying up the old equipment and office space at pennies on the dollar and we got things like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and multiple blogging platforms that paved the way for individuals to create content and be more self sufficient in terms of work and side income.
So if we finally let the inefficient auto industry go bankrupt, maybe we could have had similar innovation and elimination of some legacy issues in the auto industry such as like some of the crazy pensions, and poorly designed/constructed vehicles that for a long time most Americans weren't interested in buying. We know they were mass producing gas guzzling cars that were not selling well against many of the foreign cars like Hondas and Toyotas that got great mileage and last years longer than many American made models.
Maybe if they were allowed to fail, companies like Tesla would have jumped at the chance to buy up factories already well positioned as auto assembly lines with skilled workers already living in these neighborhoods and looking for work. Maybe other companies would have been formed to take advantage of the parts industry failing along with it and we could have had many more "smart" components built into cars more quickly than we do today, and just better quality/safer components too. American cars could have had the chance to be the envy of the world with an opportunity like this....much as our internet properties like Amazon and Facebook are. Along with that could have come great innovation, huge job growth, income gains, better insurance, and just happier people living in an economy spurred by all of this innovation. Basically the internet growth applied to the auto industry, probably on a smaller scale, but still a big positive impact.
But no...here we are today wondering why we cant "save manufacturing jobs" in an industry that missed out on a great opportunity to innovate. Oh...and good thing gas prices are low again because SUV sales are peaking past where they were before 2008. It's all OK though, as long as the Democrats want to play games and prop up a financially inefficient industry that cant afford for its employees, cranks out vehicles that kill the environment and people, and only makes small gains in terms of innovation, well that must be the right answer because Hillary and Obama say so, right?
As for the automakers - I don't think that their "sins" reached quite the plateau of greed, cynicism, and downright scamming that the Wall St fiasco did.
No? In the name of saving money, they literally looked the other way to let people die...because it was cheaper than fixing the problem. So greed plus death is still better than what happened on Wall Street?
Hillary and Bernie are literally tripping over themselves to showcase their support for bailing out the auto makers, which ultimately cost tax payers $10bn. Failure of the automakers really would not have been systemic, and would not have impacted people not working in these industries.
Bailing out Wall Street actually earned the tax payers a return. Also, a failure of the banks would have absolutely have been systemic - and would have impacted many more businesses and individuals than the auto makers failing.
Now you can disagree with the Wall Street bail out, there's no right or wrong answer - but I don't understand how there can be such a double standard - well, of course I understand, it's just political pandering. Hillary was just on stage now and basically said she would bail out the auto industry anytime they needed it.
The Center for Automotive Research ( CAR) said:
An incremental 1.88 million would have lost their jobs in 2009-10 if GM folded.
An incremental 4.15 million would have lost their jobs in 2009-20 if the entire US automotive industry folded ( GM was not the only automaker to get a bail out in 2008-09. CAR's position is that these failures would have dragged the US into the Greatest Depression. Who knows?
The GM bailout was a small portion of TARP which last I read had a net profit of about $11 billion, including losses on automaker bailouts.
Well, the Federal government made about $66 billion from the bailout in total. You are right, that we are out about $12 billion from the auto bailout. Everything had to be done very quickly and decisively back then . . . . there were clearly winners and losers. Bottom line, we avoided the worldwide economic meltdown, and we made a huge profit overall. Yes, I agree that we should have let the auto companies go bankrupt, so long as it was Chapter 11 reorganization and not Chapter 7 liquidation. But cherry-picking with 20/20 hindsight is not productive or fair.
Well, the Federal government made about $66 billion from the bailout in total. You are right, that we are out about $12 billion from the auto bailout. Everything had to be done very quickly and decisively back then . . . . there were clearly winners and losers. Bottom line, we avoided the worldwide economic meltdown, and we made a huge profit overall. Yes, I agree that we should have let the auto companies go bankrupt, so long as it was Chapter 11 reorganization and not Chapter 7 liquidation. But cherry-picking with 20/20 hindsight is not productive or fair.
Mick
Do you still believe in the tooth fairy also? Taxpayers lost money big time.
Well, the Federal government made about $66 billion from the bailout in total. You are right, that we are out about $12 billion from the auto bailout. Everything had to be done very quickly and decisively back then . . . . there were clearly winners and losers. Bottom line, we avoided the worldwide economic meltdown, and we made a huge profit overall. Yes, I agree that we should have let the auto companies go bankrupt, so long as it was Chapter 11 reorganization and not Chapter 7 liquidation. But cherry-picking with 20/20 hindsight is not productive or fair.
Mick
Nor is bailing out an industry on assumptions about an old tired failed business model that was bailed out previously. Can't we learn from our mistakes and "cherry-pick" based on the first history lesson and new assumptions?
It was absolutely GALLING that the very same Wall St *******s who caused the problem were bailed out. Many of them are now richer than they were before.
Yes, the taxpayers did make some money on the deal, but there were quite a few ordinary people whose life savings and pensions disappeared and who lost their jobs and homes - and they have *never* been bailed out.
As for the automakers - I don't think that their "sins" reached quite the plateau of greed, cynicism, and downright scamming that the Wall St fiasco did. And the automaker's bailout did save some jobs for ordinary Americans.
Is it pandering to reassure blue collar workers that you will try to save their jobs? Because that's what Clinton told those people.
Ordinary people lost their life savings and pensions because of Wall Street? Please explain.
Most who lost their homes had no equity in those homes, not even a month's security deposit, typically required of renters. People were using their paper equity like ATMs to live beyond their means.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
