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.
They all did suffer. Ford rolled the dice early, mortgaged everything they had, and got credit early (and still took DOE handouts). other manufacturers started looking for partnerships. Foreign brands were propped up by THEIR governments.
Everyone did suffer except Subaru. How were Toyota and Honda (etc.), BMW, and Audi propped up by their governments?
But the fact is buyers were leaving GM and Chrysler. They left because they didn't like the product. That has nothing to do with bankers.
Ford deserves a medal for thinking ahead.
If only Chrysler had not been bailed out the first time under Jimmy Carter. None of this would have happened.
"A study released Monday by the Center for Automotive Research concluded that the government bailout of GM spared 1.2 million jobs in 2009 and preserved $39.4 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections in 2009 and 2010. “Any complete cost-benefit assessment of the federal assistance to GM in its restructuring must consider the total net returns to the public investment…” researchers Sean McAlinden and Debra Maranger Menk wrote in “The Effect on the U.S. Economy of the Successful Restructuring of General Motors.”
Except the rescue came about due to the failure of the BANKING industry that threatend to put MILLIONS out of work. Had nothing to do with GM or Chrysler making bad cars (Hell, GM was in the middle of a product rennaisance and turnaround at the time), and Ford almost got caught up in it, too, except that they had just "mortgaged the house" in order to get credit. See all manufacturing industries run on credit to get the materials to build their product. Credit had dried up with the banking failure and that threatened the major industries, of which auto manufacturing was the biggie. Bush's advisors rightly saw that if we let the banking failure kill off the automakers, we'd have a domino effect where the suppliers and local economies would fail heavily.
The Bush administration made the "Chicken Little" claims that if we allowed the big banks like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, etc. to fail, then we would have an economic domino effect including the countless number of workers that would be displaced from their jobs, therefore, over the objections of many Democrats and a few Republicans, TARP funds were GIVEN to the big banks and were NEVER required to be paid back back to the US Treasury.
Republicans (including Bush) almost universally rejected the call of Democrats to extend the same level of financial stability to the automakers and only, reluctantly and weakly, supported the extension of loans to the automakers, with the stipulation that any automakers that accepted the loans would have to surrender some measure of corporate control until the loans were paid back to the US Treasury. In fact, Romney stated at the time that it would be better to let GM fail because it was too big and bloated, without any consideration of the job losses (which were estimated to be in the millions, directly and indirectly).
I seem to recall President Obama being severely criticized and trashed by the Republicans and "Faux" (Fox) News for proposing and advocating of the temporary bailout of "Government Motors" (GM), in order to save millions of jobs and in spite of the fact that the loans were being paid back early and completely.
Funny, how historical facts and perspectives can change depending on who is successful.
I'm not saying GM or Chrysler haven't managed to turn things around, post-bailout. IMO, GM definitely has and Chrysler? Well, the buyout by Fiat will probably result in some improvements in some areas, and failure in others -- but it could survive as a car maker that's "competitive".
The point is, if we just let them fail as they deserved to do, the nonsense about "America wouldn't have any auto makers anymore!" is already disproved by up-and-comers like Tesla Motors.
In the short term, people who already bought GM or Chrysler vehicles would whine and complain since their precious warranty coverage would be called into question. And obviously the people who lost jobs there would whine and complain for a while (until they got a similar job with one of the companies that would appear to fill in the void). But the "Big 3" amount to entrenched and outdated thinking about automobile production anyway. (Even Ford, who bragged regularly about not accepting any bailouts, was right behind the others, working back room deals to ensure they got one too if things didn't pan out for them a few months down the road.)
IMO, we'd be stronger as a nation if we left them to fend for themselves and gave new, innovative auto-makers a better chance at taking over the top spots.
Wow.
You're pretty dismissive of people who have their consumer rights violated and workers who lose their jobs, benefits, and pensions (in other words, everything that they have worked for).
Am I to assume that you would want us to extend the same sense of dismissiveness and indifference to you, if either misfortune were to ever befall you?
How about the entire nation of taxpayers who were forced to contribute to propping up these failing companies, whether or not we had ANY stake whatsoever in their long-term survival?
I've never in my life accepted a union job, primarily because I don't believe in what it entails. (Essentially, you dismiss your own ability to do superior work, and settle for what the "collective" agrees you'll receive - based on how long you can stick it out with the same employer.)
The union auto workers who were at risk of losing their jobs, benefits and pensions aren't people I dismiss as "irrelevant". But at the same time, I look at their plight as unfortunate collateral damage of subscribing to an unsustainable business model in the current economy.
The labor unions were, IMO, a very necessary development in the evolution of the workplace. When they were formed, there were very real and legitimate reasons to work together as a collective, to muscle corporations into doing the right thing. This resulted, eventually, in the passage of many labor laws that have now taken over protecting those basic worker rights.
Today, the unions are essentially dinosaurs. They long ago achieved the worthy goals they were initially created to achieve, and now they primarily serve to benefit the union bosses. The demands they make today are typically unrealistic and unreasonable, given the rest of the economy everyone works in. The unions perceived as "weaker" are generally the ones not making the outlandish demands during labor negotiations -- but at the same time, serving a questionable purpose for their continued existence. (Why does it benefit someone to keep paying union dues, to be part of a collective that ensures they won't receive a raise for doing outstanding work?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak
Wow.
You're pretty dismissive of people who have their consumer rights violated and workers who lose their jobs, benefits, and pensions (in other words, everything that they have worked for).
Am I to assume that you would want us to extend the same sense of dismissiveness and indifference to you, if either misfortune were to ever befall you?
How about the entire nation of taxpayers who were forced to contribute to propping up these failing companies, whether or not we had ANY stake whatsoever in their long-term survival?
I've never in my life accepted a union job, primarily because I don't believe in what it entails. (Essentially, you dismiss your own ability to do superior work, and settle for what the "collective" agrees you'll receive - based on how long you can stick it out with the same employer.)
The union auto workers who were at risk of losing their jobs, benefits and pensions aren't people I dismiss as "irrelevant". But at the same time, I look at their plight as unfortunate collateral damage of subscribing to an unsustainable business model in the current economy.
The labor unions were, IMO, a very necessary development in the evolution of the workplace. When they were formed, there were very real and legitimate reasons to work together as a collective, to muscle corporations into doing the right thing. This resulted, eventually, in the passage of many labor laws that have now taken over protecting those basic worker rights.
Today, the unions are essentially dinosaurs. They long ago achieved the worthy goals they were initially created to achieve, and now they primarily serve to benefit the union bosses. The demands they make today are typically unrealistic and unreasonable, given the rest of the economy everyone works in. The unions perceived as "weaker" are generally the ones not making the outlandish demands during labor negotiations -- but at the same time, serving a questionable purpose for their continued existence. (Why does it benefit someone to keep paying union dues, to be part of a collective that ensures they won't receive a raise for doing outstanding work?)
I disagree with this assessment of unions, and the future retirees that will become dependent on family and society is proof that I'm right. The Carpenters union started putting money aside for me the day I joined and I now have something my 18 self would not have seen. Today's savings rates are dismal at best. Just because you are in a union it does not limit you, and your superior performance is noted. mine came in bonus's, gas cards, trucks, and 20% above journeyman scale. Had I been non union I would have made less money with little or no benefits.
Currently, management is winning the battle against the American worker, and the retirement savings rate is proof. I feel sorry for the young today that will live like 3rd world countries with several generations in one home. The American dream is dying, and your foolish perception is a major cause. You can thank certain media sources pounding away to indoctrinate a generation of fools. With politicians trying to give Social Security (40% of IRS money received) to Wall Street with a foolish perception they can handle it better than the government, and general cuts to people who worked their entire lives is nuts. SS operates on less than 2%, but Wall Street would have to profit 10 to 15%. only a fool would believe this is better.
No, we just prefer to argue, regardless of whether the OP's link has any relevance nowadays.
^^^^^The only thing of value in this whole thread^^^^^^^^
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.
re: dismissive?
