Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Subdude

Bailout Nation 2: General Motors

  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. What should be GM's fate?

    • Bailout
      15
    • Bankrupt
      35


Recommended Posts

So the vultures are circling, and GM will be bankrupt in a matter of a few months. They are throwing themselves on the mercy of the federal government for a bailout.

Curious as to what people think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not in favor of another bailout. Where does it stop? HAIF has less money than GM, can HAIF get a bailout?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only reason I'm for the bailout is b/c I'd hate to see what happens to Detroit and it's surrounding ares if GM goes Bankrupt....It could possibly turn into a post Katrina New Orleans..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that we are spending $2 Trillion on propping up banks and AIG, it seems almost cheap in comparison to pump $50 Billion into GM. The collapse of GM would cause calamity in far more places than just Detroit, and as far as useful government spending during a recession, this seems a better investment in terms of saving jobs. That said, it disgusts me to spend tax dollars on a management team that ignored so many warning signs that they were heading for disaster. You can only heap so much blame on the unions. Unions did not make the poor decisions that management has.

Then again, I suppose it also disgusts me that we are giving money to financial management teams that ignored the warnings as well. I guess I am just a disgusted taxpayer all around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We bailed out Chrysler before... and it paid off. We cannot let GM or Ford go under. We either help them stay in business... and give them the cash (a loan) they need... OR... we payout that same money in unemployment checks for all those people. Either way, we're paying. One other option may be bankruptcy whereby they can restructure their company (chapter 13). Basically, that is the airline approach. So I guess that would be my approach: bankruptcy reorganization first, then federal bailout, if needed. Under no circumstances should any American car company stop making cars (chapter 7) - because even if you do not like American cars - people still buy them, especially American trucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We bailed out Chrysler before... and it paid off.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I only have a very general knowledge of the automotive business), but my recollection is...

  1. American taxpayers bail out Chrysler.
  2. Chrysler continues making sucky cars that can't go uphill.
  3. Chrysler continues losing money.
  4. Chrysler gets bought out by DaimerBenz.
  5. Chrysler becomes a burden on DaimlerBenz.
  6. DaimlerBenz jettisons its dysfunctional stepchild.
  7. Chrysler continues making sucky cars.
  8. Chrysler hints that it will ask for another bailout if GM gets one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If GM made better cars I'd be more willing to bail them out. I can't justify propping up a company that has shown that it can't compete in the world market just because it's a US company.

Are any other car makers interested in buying GM? Tata, maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd bail out the Chevrolet Corvette and the GMC Sierra.

No to the Malibu, Camero, Cobalt, Impala, etc etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If GM made better cars I'd be more willing to bail them out. I can't justify propping up a company that has shown that it can't compete in the world market just because it's a US company.

Which brings up an interesting point -- if it was the French government bailing out Peugot or South Korea bailing out Hyundai, you know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would be lodging a complaint over unfair trade practices or something; similar to the Airbus complaints.

I think like you in this regard. If GM was making fantastic cars that everyone wanted, I'd feel a bit sentimental and lean towards bailout. But the fact is that we don't need GM or Ford or Chrysler anymore. 95% of what we have in our houses is manufactured overseas because it's either better, cheaper, or both. Why should our driveways be any different? Sentiment?

Take the money requested for the bailout and put it into retraining programs for the workers and let them built windmills or something that American companies actually excel at that there's a real demand for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which brings up an interesting point -- if it was the French government bailing out Peugot or South Korea bailing out Hyundai, you know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would be lodging a complaint over unfair trade practices or something; similar to the Airbus complaints.

I think like you in this regard. If GM was making fantastic cars that everyone wanted, I'd feel a bit sentimental and lean towards bailout. But the fact is that we don't need GM or Ford or Chrysler anymore. 95% of what we have in our houses is manufactured overseas because it's either better, cheaper, or both. Why should our driveways be any different? Sentiment?

Take the money requested for the bailout and put it into retraining programs for the workers and let them built windmills or something that American companies actually excel at that there's a real demand for.

Therein lies the rub. If GM was making cars that everyone wanted, they would not NEED a bailout.

This very issue was brought up at the HAIF Happy Hour (and you thought all we did was drink). The US very much needs to come to grips with the fact that not everyone is cut out for college. Vocational training is important, and should be encouraged. However, if put money into vocational training and retraining autoworkers, while at the same time giving tax breaks to companies that send manufacturing jobs overseas, where will the retrained workers work? And, frankly, it is in our national security interest to have heavy manufacturing and auto and truck assembly plants within our borders. A nation of accountants, lawyers, bankers and computer programmers is defenseless if it has no capacity for building military hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therein lies the rub. If GM was making cars that everyone wanted, they would not NEED a bailout.

This very issue was brought up at the HAIF Happy Hour (and you thought all we did was drink). The US very much needs to come to grips with the fact that not everyone is cut out for college. Vocational training is important, and should be encouraged. However, if put money into vocational training and retraining autoworkers, while at the same time giving tax breaks to companies that send manufacturing jobs overseas, where will the retrained workers work? And, frankly, it is in our national security interest to have heavy manufacturing and auto and truck assembly plants within our borders. A nation of accountants, lawyers, bankers and computer programmers is defenseless if it has no capacity for building military hardware.

So retrain them to build military hardware. Or something else. Anything other than bad cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So retrain them to build military hardware. Or something else. Anything other than bad cars.

That is such a 1980's type of "buy Japanese" mindset... I would argue that back then, a Japanese car was superior to any make around the world. I don't think that's true today; many car manufactures have caught up to the Japanese.

From a 2005 survey...

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/23/Autos/american_cars/

Lincoln, Buick, and Cadillac beat Toyota.

In fact, Lincoln, Cadillac and Buick all out-scored Toyota's Toyota-branded and Honda's Honda-branded vehicles in the same 2005 J.D. Powers survey.

The nature of the problems reported has also changed markedly over the years, said John Tews, a spokesman for J.D. Power. Major problems, things that would actually make a vehicle not drivable, are rare today, he said. "Problem" now usually means a squeak, a rattle or a stuck knob or switch.

...and in 2000 I had the privilege... err... slight misfortune... of owning a Honda Accord that was nothing but a nightmare in terms of trying to get the thing to pass inspection, due to flawed emission controls.

Lack of producing quality vehicles is not the problem. Even in 1970's - the pinnacle of the US auto industry's worst years in terms of producing junk - people were still buying crappy American cars, and have been for decades.

There are probably a good number of people out there would like to buy a new GM or Ford pickup, or economy car, but can't get a loan. Or maybe they lost their job and can't afford to buy a car or truck. That's not GM's fault. In terms of their efficiency and quality control on their products... it is probably as good as any global car manufacture; however, the weight of their pension obligations and benefits to retirees is just killing them. If GM and Ford could jettison those obligations in bankruptcy - the way virtually every airline has done - they would be competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me if I'm wrong (I only have a very general knowledge of the automotive business), but my recollection is...

  1. American taxpayers bail out Chrysler.
  2. Chrysler continues making sucky cars that can't go uphill.
  3. Chrysler continues losing money.
  4. Chrysler gets bought out by DaimerBenz.
  5. Chrysler becomes a burden on DaimlerBenz.
  6. DaimlerBenz jettisons its dysfunctional stepchild.
  7. Chrysler continues making sucky cars.
  8. Chrysler hints that it will ask for another bailout if GM gets one.

The late 1970's/early 80's Chrysler bailout (loan program) was a huge success. American tax payers didn't lose a dime in that deal.

You could argue that those K cars were crap. But boy, did Americans buy a lot of them. Not the best car, but it was better than what produced in the 1970's, and allowed Chrysler to climb its way out of a deep hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pension obligations did not cause GM sales to drop 45% in October over October 2007. And, if people cannot get a loan to buy a GM product, shouldn't GM management...you know, the same people who run GMAC...share some of that blame, too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pension obligations did not cause GM sales to drop 45% in October over October 2007. And, if people cannot get a loan to buy a GM product, shouldn't GM management...you know, the same people who run GMAC...share some of that blame, too?

Foreign and domestic car companies have both been hammered. It's not just GM. The reason: the downturn in the economy. That, on top of the pension/retiree obligations, just makes them burn through cash faster, hastening their decline. To me, it is tragic, almost near criminal, that the only way for American companies to stay competitive nowadays is dump their pension/health care/retirement obligations/benefits. I would, in a heartbeat, trade my stock market retirement account for a guaranteed pension, indexed to inflation. It used to be that way. But that is not the America we live in anymore. Which sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2007 overall JD Powers ratings:

  1. Porsche
  2. Lexus
  3. Lincoln

  • .Best subcompact: Kia Rio
  • .Best compact: Honda Civic
  • .Midsize: Mercury Milan (based on the Mazda 6)
  • .Large: Pontiac Grand Prix
  • .Entry-level premium: Lincoln
  • .Mid-size premium: Mercedes E-class
  • .Large premium: Audi A8 and Mercedes S-class (tie)
  • .Sport compact: Mazda MX5
  • Sport compact premium: Porsche Boxter
  • .Sport mid-size premium: Ford Mustang
  • .Sport premium: Mercedes SL
  • .Midsize premium MAV: Lexus RX
  • .Large premium MAV: Lincoln Mark LT
  • .Midsize pickup: Toyota Tacoma
  • .Large pickup: Chevrolet Silverado

Score:

  • South Korea: 1
  • Japan: 4
  • Germany: 5
  • USA: 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is such a 1980's type of "buy Japanese" mindset... I would argue that back then, a Japanese car was superior to any make around the world. I don't think that's true today; many car manufactures have caught up to the Japanese.

And I'll argue that Japanese cars are still a better value.

There are probably a good number of people out there would like to buy a new GM or Ford pickup, or economy car, but can't get a loan. Or maybe they lost their job and can't afford to buy a car or truck. That's not GM's fault. In terms of their efficiency and quality control on their products... it is probably as good as any global car manufacture; however, the weight of their pension obligations and benefits to retirees is just killing them.

Sorry, job losses and the credit squeeze hit foreign car makers, too. GM is hurting more than those companies because it never figured out how to make cars people around the world want to buy at a price they are willing to pay. It's a failure. Let it fail.

If GM and Ford could jettison those obligations in bankruptcy - the way virtually every airline has done - they would be competitive.

If a company is competitive only if it doesn't have to pay its bills, is that really what we mean by "competitive"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a company is competitive only if it doesn't have to pay its bills, is that really what we mean by "competitive"?

That is what American chief executives say when they have screwed up, that it is nothing that they did wrong, but that something out of their control caused it. Recently, Wall Street execs testified on Capitol Hill that the financial crisis wasn't their fault, either. The fact is, GM builds the best trucks, and ignored autos, because trucks were more profitable. You never heard Toyota complain about a competitive disadvantage in trucks. When they finally decided to compete, they designed and built the Tundra. When gasoline prices spiked, GM and Ford were caught flatfooted. That is not a competitive disadvantage. That is a lack of foresight, foresight that the Japenese and Europeans had.

One could argue that the artificially high gasoline prices in Europe in Japan forced those automakers to adapt by building more fuel efficient vehicles, giving them an advantage today. This is true. However, who fought the issue tooth and nail here in the US? GM and Ford. They lobbied aggressively, not only against gas taxes, but also against increased CAFE standards, and FOR tax breaks for those who purchased oversized vehicles. GM and Ford CREATED their own competitive disadvantage.

How about labor costs? GM has said in private that it would like national health care. But, in public, GM, Ford and other corporate execs supported those politicians who opposed national health care. It is US policy that is creating this competitive disadvantage, if there is one. However, considering that virtually all of the big foreign manufacturers now have plants in the US, and play by US rules, even that is a weak argument.

Frankly, there are no free rides, contrary to US thinking of the last 20 years. Every policy has a consequence. If we want to be the ultimate "free market", GM and Ford are going to go under, as well as much of Wall Street. Every mountain has a valley on either side. Social policies smooth out the bumps, but they are not free. The only unsustainable policy is the one that we are on now, that privatizes profit and socializes loss. We can save GM, but if the citizens are going to give GM their tax dollars, GM should be expected to give the taxpayers something in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can save GM, but if the citizens are going to give GM their tax dollars, GM should be expected to give the taxpayers something in return.

I just hope it's not a Malibu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can save GM, but if the citizens are going to give GM their tax dollars, GM should be expected to give the taxpayers something in return.

Exactly. And that's why the Chrysler bailout was successful in the 1980's. Lee Iacocca knew that he had to fundamentally change Chrysler and put out a product that meet customer needs/expectations, acknowledging that he/Chrysler had been "kicked in the head." Thus, the mini-van was born... and they "couldn't build enough of them."

Same thing now with GM, Ford... it's about making not so many trucks/SUVs any more. They have to fundamentally change their focus/management behavior. In the past, their lobbying efforts don't surprise me (that is the "American way"). They were just "working the system" to keep the train going. Now the system is broke, and they have no choice but to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only reason I'm for the bailout is b/c I'd hate to see what happens to Detroit and it's surrounding ares if GM goes Bankrupt....It could possibly turn into a post Katrina New Orleans..

I see that as an unlikely scenario. Detroit is neither hurricane-prone, below sea level, surrounded by crappy levees, or within the State of Louisiana (which in and of itself is a disaster). New Orleans is also growing again.

Realistically, a bankruptcy of one of the big three is probably what is needed to preserve the other manufacturers. Allow other companies, including Ford and Chrysler, to pick apart GM's carcass, buying the successful divisions free of GM's financial legacy. Everyone's market share gets bigger. The crappiest product lines go away, their labor laid off, their plant, property, and equipment divested. Duplications of effort get eliminated.

Btw, divestment means that it gets sold to some other entrepreneur that puts it to a better use. Capital doesn't just vanish when there's a bankruptcy or a collapse of an industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To let the domestic auto manufacturers fail would be tragic. These companies have pension obligations that the foreign manufacturers do not. That in itself is a reason to bail them out. How insensitive and criminal it would be to tell these retirees, "tuff luck buddy, hope you enjoy cat food".

ERISA would only pick up about 1/3rd of the pension obligations.

People claim US cars are not as good as foreign. I have 4 domestic vehicles, 00 Blazer, 02 F-150, 04 Cavalier, 06 Ford Freestyle. All are reliable and driven every day by family members.

I think it's more than reliablity that keeps buyers away. I think it's just people feel like they are making a wise decision by buying something foreign. They perceive the foreign product to be better made. Advertising and product image has made domestic autos seem old fashioned and out of step, or something our parents drove. It's an image thing.

It doesn't really matter what the domestic automakers produce, some people just won't even consider it because it is a Ford, or a Chrysler, or a Chevrolet. One brand that is the exception is "Jeep". I'm surprised Diamler let it go.

Studebaker was the last major automaker to quick producing automobiles in the United States. AMC, which purchased Kaiser Jeep in 1970 was absorbed by Chrysler in 1987. All retired auto workers, other than Studebaker retirees, are getting retirement funded by purchases made by us, every time we buy a domestic car. I myself see nothing wrong with keeping this cycle going. It makes economic sense. Plus it's patriotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To let the domestic auto manufacturers fail would be tragic. These companies have pension obligations that the foreign manufacturers do not. That in itself is a reason to bail them out. How insensitive and criminal it would be to tell these retirees, "tuff luck buddy, hope you enjoy cat food".

ERISA would only pick up about 1/3rd of the pension obligations.

Nope. There are already bailout programs in place to cover that. You hit on one. The other is called social security. We don't need a third.

Besides which, from the perspective of someone who is going to be forced to sacrifice a left testicle for the retirement of my parents' generation, the bailout programs that we have in place seem criminal. A whole generation was basically discouraged from saving adequately for retirement, and I'm the one getting robbed.

People claim US cars are not as good as foreign. I have 4 domestic vehicles, 00 Blazer, 02 F-150, 04 Cavalier, 06 Ford Freestyle. All are reliable and driven every day by family members.

Who cares?

I think it's more than reliablity that keeps buyers away. I think it's just people feel like they are making a wise decision by buying something foreign. They perceive the foreign product to be better made. Advertising and product image has made domestic autos seem old fashioned and out of step, or something our parents drove. It's an image thing.

It doesn't really matter what the domestic automakers produce, some people just won't even consider it because it is a Ford, or a Chrysler, or a Chevrolet. One brand that is the exception is "Jeep". I'm surprised Diamler let it go.

Studebaker was the last major automaker to quick producing automobiles in the United States. AMC, which purchased Kaiser Jeep in 1970 was absorbed by Chrysler in 1987. All retired auto workers, other than Studebaker retirees, are getting retirement funded by purchases made by us, every time we buy a domestic car. I myself see nothing wrong with keeping this cycle going. It makes economic sense. Plus it's patriotic.

Your sentimentalism-based economic policy proposal has made me reconsider my earlier comments.

I now advocate letting GM fail, but not allowing Ford or Chrysler to purchase any part of it. By allowing only Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and other foreign manufacturers to buy GM's assets, we keep populist sentimentalists from pressuring elected officials to throw good money after bad in the future. We need to put an end to this cycle, and do it in this year or the next! It doesn't make any sense. It is an unpatriotic ploy by one greedy generation to rob their children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To let the domestic auto manufacturers fail would be tragic. These companies have pension obligations that the foreign manufacturers do not. That in itself is a reason to bail them out. How insensitive and criminal it would be to tell these retirees, "tuff luck buddy, hope you enjoy cat food".

Insensitive and criminal? Hardly. These retirees have a contract with a company. If there are no provisions for taking care of them when that company fails (and all companies eventually fail), why is that anyone else's responsibility? What crime are you talking about?

People claim US cars are not as good as foreign. I have 4 domestic vehicles, 00 Blazer, 02 F-150, 04 Cavalier, 06 Ford Freestyle. All are reliable and driven every day by family members.

I think it's more than reliablity that keeps buyers away. I think it's just people feel like they are making a wise decision by buying something foreign. They perceive the foreign product to be better made. Advertising and product image has made domestic autos seem old fashioned and out of step, or something our parents drove. It's an image thing.

It's also a numbers and facts thing. Study after study rank Honda and Toyota as the most reliable cars, not just vs US car makers, but in the world. Resale values reflect that. Why would you buy a domestic car when you can get an import that costs about the same, lasts longer and holds its value better?

It doesn't really matter what the domestic automakers produce, some people just won't even consider it because it is a Ford, or a Chrysler, or a Chevrolet.
Studebaker was the last major automaker to quick producing automobiles in the United States. AMC, which purchased Kaiser Jeep in 1970 was absorbed by Chrysler in 1987. All retired auto workers, other than Studebaker retirees, are getting retirement funded by purchases made by us, every time we buy a domestic car. I myself see nothing wrong with keeping this cycle going. It makes economic sense. Plus it's patriotic.

So you're saying we should individually bail them out. I remain unconvinced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We bail out financial instituitions and Las Vegas (oops I mean Wall Street). Why is it not reasonable to bail out our manufacturing sector. To borrow a phrase from the Republicans. "manufacture here, manufacture now."

It just seems ironic that most conservatives want the U.S. to be energy independent. How silly it will be, if we finally reach that point, only to be able to pump that domestic gasoline into the tanks of our foriegn made automobiles.

And why is it that when "Hollywood" is trying to portray a young independent rebel type in one of their recent movies, he's shown driving some hot 60's muscle car. Is it that you just can't look cool in a Honda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We bail out financial instituitions and Las Vegas (oops I mean Wall Street). Why is it not reasonable to bail out our manufacturing sector.

If the banks fail, there's no way to borrow money and everything else falls apart. If GM fails, it's huge, but it's just a car maker. There are plenty more where those came from.

GM and the other domestic car companies have been exporting jobs from the US for decades. Why should US taxpayers bail out Mexico's manufacturing sector?

Do you have some personal connection to US auto makers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the banks fail, there's no way to borrow money and everything else falls apart. If GM fails, it's huge, but it's just a car maker. There are plenty more where those came from.

GM and the other domestic car companies have been exporting jobs from the US for decades. Why should US taxpayers bail out Mexico's manufacturing sector?

Do you have some personal connection to US auto makers?

No, just a consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We bail out financial instituitions and Las Vegas (oops I mean Wall Street). Why is it not reasonable to bail out our manufacturing sector.

Because a total failure of the financial sector would've wiped out our manufacturing sector--and more importantly, just about everything else.

Also, the financial sector seems to be much better at self-regulating, for instance by not continuing to insanely issue the same kinds of securities that got it into this mess; in contrast, the automotive manufacturing sector can't seem to get its act together and put out attractive products. And if we're no good at something, we should commit our resources to something we actually are good at.

To borrow a phrase from the Republicans. "manufacture here, manufacture now."

It just seems ironic that most conservatives want the U.S. to be energy independent. How silly it will be, if we finally reach that point, only to be able to pump that domestic gasoline into the tanks of our foriegn made automobiles.

And why is it that when "Hollywood" is trying to portray a young independent rebel type in one of their recent movies, he's shown driving some hot 60's muscle car. Is it that you just can't look cool in a Honda?

Judging from box office sales, I'm not sure that Hollywood is a particularly good arbiter of cool.

Similarly, now is probably not a very good time to be quoting Republicans. Even they don't like themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, the financial sector seems to be much better at self-regulating, for instance by not continuing to insanely issue the same kinds of securities that got it into this mess;

I'm not sure you would get much agreement on this statement right now.

Similarly, now is probably not a very good time to be quoting Republicans. Even they don't like themselves.

On this, though, we can probably all agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure you would get much agreement on this statement right now.

Case in point: CMBS issuance. It fell off a cliff.

I'm not saying that Wall Street doesn't make mistakes. But once it knows the consequences, it doesn't repeat them. ...it creates whole different ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking Aveo....or maybe a t-shirt.

" GM went tits-up and all I got was this stupid t-shirt! "

:lol:

Pension? WTF is a pension? I will be the first generation in a while to enjoy a significantly lower standard of living in old age than my parents. I've worked in the same business for 20 years, and I don't have a pension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing to push CDOs and CDSs for years after the extraorinary riskiness of them is known sounds suspiciously similar to pumping out Tahoes and Suburbans even as the price of gas skyrockets. The only time Wall Street reins itself in is during bankruptcy and perp walks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Continuing to push CDOs and CDSs for years after the extraorinary riskiness of them is known sounds suspiciously similar to pumping out Tahoes and Suburbans even as the price of gas skyrockets.

Hey, that wasn't me, or even my company. We're just shilling life insurance and annuities, despite the new zero-interest economics. Our parent, that's another issue.

There's no buyer on the horizon, so I reckon I'm toast by the end of Q1, latest. No buyer, no severance. The good thing is, it's giving me time to get a few things in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, that wasn't me, or even my company. We're just shilling life insurance and annuities, despite the new zero-interest economics. Our parent, that's another issue.

There's no buyer on the horizon, so I reckon I'm toast by the end of Q1, latest. No buyer, no severance. The good thing is, it's giving me time to get a few things in order.

As of this moment, CNBC is reporting that you get to keep your job.

AIG got bailed out again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only reason I'm for the bailout is b/c I'd hate to see what happens to Detroit and it's surrounding ares if GM goes Bankrupt....It could possibly turn into a post Katrina New Orleans..

You haven't seen Detroit lately have you ? It is more post-APOCALYPTIC than post-Katrina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pension obligations did not cause GM sales to drop 45% in October over October 2007. And, if people cannot get a loan to buy a GM product, shouldn't GM management...you know, the same people who run GMAC...share some of that blame, too?

What? Cerberus manages GM? 51% of GMAC is owned by Cerberus....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You haven't seen Detroit lately have you ? It is more post-APOCALYPTIC than post-Katrina.

I have a friend who visited family in Detroit over the summer. That is exactly how he described it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Feds seem determined to keep AIG up and running at all costs; any speculation on why this company deserves repeated bailouts and not others such as say, Lehman Brothers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Feds seem determined to keep AIG up and running at all costs; any speculation on why this company deserves repeated bailouts and not others such as say, Lehman Brothers?

Not sure. I suspect that it may have to do with differences between banking and insurance industries and also size, such that there is not a suitable buyer with the capacity to digest it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You haven't seen Detroit lately have you ? It is more post-APOCALYPTIC than post-Katrina.

And it has been for over 20 years now. I went there for a seminar in '83 and all I can think was "well Cleveland isn't so bad".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure. I suspect that it may have to do with differences between banking and insurance industries and also size, such that there is not a suitable buyer with the capacity to digest it.

Lehman had their hands in a lot of deals, but was, relatively speaking, small potatoes. The failure of AIG's commerical and industrial insurance lines would affect all types of industrial production, construction, and shipping. That includes every corner of the oil, gas and military contracting world. The plan is to sell everything that is not global industrial, commerical, maritime, etc. Think of it this way-- part of AIG can't be allowed to fail. Knowing what part that is, the dots are easy to connect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pelosi, Reid and Frank have petitioned the FED for another $50 billion to Bail out the big three

At least we'll know where that money goes. So far, the FED has lent 2 trillion $$$ to the "banking industry" ... yet, we have no idea, and the FED won't tell us... where that money went. I can't wait until the lying liars are GONE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least we'll know where that money goes. So far, the FED has lent 2 trillion $$$ to the "banking industry" ... yet, we have no idea, and the FED won't tell us... where that money went. I can't wait until the lying liars are GONE.

I still say there is something fishy about all of this. Not only that but do the American people get to share in the equity or ownership positions of these companies?

It's our money, but what are WE actually getting for its use to save these companies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least we'll know where that money goes. So far, the FED has lent 2 trillion $$$ to the "banking industry" ... yet, we have no idea, and the FED won't tell us... where that money went. I can't wait until the lying liars are GONE.

Who is lying? How can they be lying if they're not telling you anything? There's a point to be made that they should be more transparent. But it isn't the least bit evident (yet) that anybody is lying.

You need to cool it. Angry ranting isn't very productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's our money, but what are WE actually getting for its use to save these companies?

We get to avoid the total collapse and dissolution of our financial institutions, a halt to all lending and most kinds of investment, and basically would have to either endure a second great depression or a state-run economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...