NationStates Jolt Archive

The American Senate says ‘NO’ to the big three, which is a real cold turkey at Christmas.

In a way I understand the Senate, if some business can’t survive it should be closed.
It’s true, the car industry really fucked it up.

Of course, there are exceptions on this rule: big banks by instance. If you would allow that a real big bank would collapse, millions of people would lose their money. The result would be obvious: revolution.

But what about the car industry and the American car industry in particular?

With the current decision of the Senate millions of people will lose their job. All those people do take part in the economy and their expenditures will drop as hell. This will have an enormous impact for the entire economy.

And fellow Europeans, this is bad news for us as well:

1) GM and Ford have several big plants in Europe as well. What will happen with them?
2) If the economy in USA is falling in parts, then we will get wet as well.

I don’t know what’s playing behind the scenes. Is it just the false conservative (republican) mantra “We hate communism!”?

Or is due the wars, in Afghanistan and particular in Iraq, the state money gone forever?

One thing is for sure, the world will change dramatically now.
The Asian stock markets are dropping with 5% - 6% in a half day…

And this is just the appetizer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7778830.stm

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/12/11/auto.bailout/index.html

Yea no more cars? Great I say.

The company's themselves were grossly inflated in the first place. GM was spending what.. 7 Billion a month in running expenses? It was inevitable that they would fold. Greedy employees on all levels (I heard they were paying $35 an hour to the average employee but I can't confirm it, and the executives were making ridiculous amounts obviously.)

They were pumping out too many types of car that nobody wanted. They continued to produce the same numbers of cars as they projected they should, even after demand ceased to exist and all the new vehicles were being stockpiled. Poor business practices make poor businesses. They should have seen it coming from a mile away when the credit crunch hit, and done something to stop it. I don't have any pity for the companies. Its too bad about all the jobs though.

The company's themselves were grossly inflated in the first place. GM was spending what.. 7 Billion a month in running expenses? It was inevitable that they would fold. Greedy employees on all levels (I heard they were paying $35 an hour to the average employee but I can't confirm it, and the executives were making ridiculous amounts obviously.)

They were pumping out too many types of car that nobody wanted. They continued to produce the same numbers of cars as they projected they should, even after demand ceased to exist and all the new vehicles were being stockpiled. Poor business practices make poor businesses. They should have seen it coming from a mile away when the credit crunch hit, and done something to stop it. I don't have any pity for the companies. Its too bad about all the jobs though.

I don't feel any pity with the arrogant management of the car industry.

If you like it or not, this explosion will cause lots of collateral damage to many other and healthy companies.

And you know what? The same arrogant management, which is responsible for this drama, will soon sit down in the sun on a Bahamas beach, counting their money.

Mm, no pity for the companies or the people who ran them - pity for all the jobs though... as has already been said - poor business practice makes for a poor business.

Im pretty sure GM has been technically bankrupt for years anyway.

Welcome to Capitalism folks. Suck it up.

Im pretty sure GM has been technically bankrupt for years anyway.

Welcome to Capitalism folks. Suck it up.

Thank you United Auto Workers, I think they're making with benefits, about $73 an hour. Good work if you can get it.

Thank you United Auto Workers, I think they're making with benefits, about $73 an hour. Good work if you can get it.

They aint making anything now.

They aint making anything now.
Sweet karma, I love it so.

They aint making anything now.

Fuck 'em. Detroit ought fire 'em all and hire Mexicans.

there will likely be another bail package proposed and debated on. welcome to bureaucracy.

1) GM and Ford have several big plants in Europe as well. What will happen with them?
European subsidiaries of GM and Ford (Opel comes to my mind) will get state funds from the local countries.

Then, FIAT buys GM and the americans begin driving 500s. The old ones.

its not a matter of should or shouldn't, its the deffinician of capitolism. hopefully this (sort of thing) might wake people up to how idiotic it is to be so fanatical about it.

its not that there's anything wrong with tecnology, transportation or energy infrastructure, but there is absolutely no need to remain emotionally attatched to the destructive ways we are most familiar with going about them.

the very root of america's shame is its idiological and economic chauvanism, and the ignorance and stupidity they represent. the bouncing of capitolism's reality check is the price we're paying for it.

Thank you United Auto Workers, I think they're making with benefits, about $73 an hour. Good work if you can get it.

Interesting that you blame the union, but only have a figure you 'think' might be right.

Labour is less than 10% of the cost of a GM car. The Union didn't bankrupt GM.

Interesting that you blame the union, but only have a figure you 'think' might be right.

Labour is less than 10% of the cost of a GM car. The Union didn't bankrupt GM.
its more interesting that he blames the union with a figure that has been revealed to be bullshit many times.

In a way I understand the Senate, if some business can’t survive it should be closed.
It’s true, the car industry really fucked it up.

Of course, there are exceptions on this rule: big banks by instance. If you would allow that a real big bank would collapse, millions of people would lose their money. The result would be obvious: revolution.
So, the free market should trump all until it highlights its inherent problems, then said problems should be covered up/bailed out?

penny wise and dollar foolish: refusing a few million to an actual industry that actually did something, even if it was wrong, while having given billions, almost no strings attatched, to what is basically a glorrified shuck and jive con game.

but i guess i already said that. if it really were the end of the car as we've known it, i'm sorry but i really wouldn't miss that a bit.

those factorys could be making windmills, solar cells, and little people sized multiple unit narrowgauge trains powered by batteries, flywheels and so on, even hydrogen if you want someplace it would make sense to use that, if it ever becomes practical to do so at all.

even robotic electric lawn mowers to ride to the nearest trolly stop if you really live THAT far from the nearest place it would be practical to put one.

every time something we're familiar with collapses, its an opportunity to do something right instead.
that's why this current economic melt down is something i don't feel bad about at all.

The American Senate says ‘NO’ to the big three, which is a real cold turkey at Christmas.

In a way I understand the Senate, if some business can’t survive it should be closed.
It’s true, the car industry really fucked it up.

Of course, there are exceptions on this rule: big banks by instance. If you would allow that a real big bank would collapse, millions of people would lose their money. The result would be obvious: revolution.

But what about the car industry and the American car industry in particular?

With the current decision of the Senate millions of people will lose their job. All those people do take part in the economy and their expenditures will drop as hell. This will have an enormous impact for the entire economy.

And fellow Europeans, this is bad news for us as well:

1) GM and Ford have several big plants in Europe as well. What will happen with them?
2) If the economy in USA is falling in parts, then we will get wet as well.

I don’t know what’s playing behind the scenes. Is it just the false conservative (republican) mantra “We hate communism!”?

Or is due the wars, in Afghanistan and particular in Iraq, the state money gone forever?

One thing is for sure, the world will change dramatically now.
The Asian stock markets are dropping with 5% - 6% in a half day…

And this is just the appetizer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7778830.stm

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/12/11/auto.bailout/index.html

If you look at the people holding out hardest against the auto bailout, they tend to be (coincidentally?) from states with large foreign auto presence:

South Carolina: 2 BMW plants
Kentucky: Toyota
Alabama: Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes
Tennessee: Nissan

Politicians in our government will let the Big 3 die, to protect the local interests of senators in states with big foreign manufacture presence.

Interesting that you blame the union, but only have a figure you 'think' might be right.

Labour is less than 10% of the cost of a GM car. The Union didn't bankrupt GM.

The union played more than a small part. As did the greed executives. As did whatever moron thought that Americans would never wake up and start expecting better cars. As did whatever moron thought you should completely reengineer a car ever model.

The union element usually gets exaggerated in one direction or another, but I can tell you that Detroit automakers tried to hire me several times. They wouldn't pay competitive wages to the market because of various problems it created with the unions. This, of course, made the plants less safe and less efficient, drove up their asset management costs and made those costs a larger part of the cost of the lines.

I can also tell you while it is rare, I have heard first-hand about stuff "falling" when consultants got on the wrong side of the union. Now, is that the union's fault directly? No, of course not. It is their fault indirectly, however. It's a side effect of the mentality of entitlement that is pretty rampant among American union workers.

In fact, the only place that kind of entitlement is even remotely rivaled is among the CEO's of most of the companies I encounter. :(

its more interesting that he blames the union with a figure that has been revealed to be bullshit many times.

No, it's not very interesting. It's boring.

What I don't understand is why these people are attacking the middle class getting paid a wage you might be able to support a family on.

Thank you United Auto Workers, I think they're making with benefits, about $73 an hour. Good work if you can get it.

that's only if you count the benefits that go to existing retirees. which makes no fucking sense. in reality, pay is pretty close to the non-union average.

or, to put it another way (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=14260):


THE TRAGEDY OF THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY:A Play in Three Acts

Dramatis Personae

BIG THREE, a manufacturer of automobiles
UAW, Big Three’s employee
MITT ROMNEY, an idiot

ACT ONE

BIG THREE: I have plans to build automobiles, but I need labor to do so!


UAW: I will labor for you if you will pay me $40 per hour.


BIG THREE: I will not pay you $40 per hour.


UAW: But I need to save for my inevitible retirement, and any health concerns that may arise.


BIG THREE: I will pay you $30 per hour, plus a generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care upon your retirement.


UAW: Then I agree to work for you!

ACT TWO

UAW: I am building cars for you, as I have promised to do!


BIG THREE: I am designing terrible cars that few people want to buy! Also, rather than save for UAW’s inevitible retirement when I will have to pay him the generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care that I promised, I am spending that money under the dubious assumption that my future revenues will be sufficient to meet those obligations.

ACT THREE

UAW: I have fulfilled my end of the deal by building the automobiles that you have asked me to build.


BIG THREE: Oh no! I am undone! My automobiles are no longer competitive due to my years of poor planning and poor judgment!


MITT ROMNEY: This is all UAW’s fault!

No, it's not very interesting. It's boring.

What I don't understand is why these people are attacking the middle class getting paid a wage you might be able to support a family on.

The issue isn't the wage that (which is pretty high for what is basically an unskilled job), but it's the benefits.

A great example is the benefits given when people are severed. People lose jobs. There is not rational reason why people would continue to be paid by the company for years after losing said job. The rules establish by the union protect employees pretty well from wrongful termination. Losing one's job basically only happens if you've done something grieviously wrong or the company can't afford you. If it's the former, you don't deserve a phony nickle. And if it's the latter, then how is it not going to simply cause more people to lose jobs when the company has no actual means to stop paying you.

And, yes, you could say the same thing about golden parachutes for executives, which is why I also oppose them.

What I don't understand is why these people are attacking the middle class getting paid a wage you might be able to support a family on.
well that's the brainwashing the're getting from corporate media. something pt barnum said, about one being born every minuete. today's rnc would never have become what its been the past 30 years otherwise, and i'm not too sure about the dems either.

i don't think a mojority stay ignorant forever, at least not entirly. it just takes a lot for people to wake up, and perhapse we ever only do partially.

i just hope more people will also realize that just electing obama isn't the only thing we're going to have to do about it.

that's only if you count the benefits that go to existing retirees. which makes no fucking sense. in reality, pay is pretty close to the non-union average.

or, to put it another way (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=14260):


THE TRAGEDY OF THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY:A Play in Three Acts

Dramatis Personae

BIG THREE, a manufacturer of automobiles
UAW, Big Three’s employee
MITT ROMNEY, an idiot

ACT ONE

BIG THREE: I have plans to build automobiles, but I need labor to do so!


UAW: I will labor for you if you will pay me $40 per hour.


BIG THREE: I will not pay you $40 per hour.


UAW: But I need to save for my inevitible retirement, and any health concerns that may arise.


BIG THREE: I will pay you $30 per hour, plus a generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care upon your retirement.


UAW: Then I agree to work for you!

ACT TWO

UAW: I am building cars for you, as I have promised to do!


BIG THREE: I am designing terrible cars that few people want to buy! Also, rather than save for UAW’s inevitible retirement when I will have to pay him the generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care that I promised, I am spending that money under the dubious assumption that my future revenues will be sufficient to meet those obligations.

ACT THREE

UAW: I have fulfilled my end of the deal by building the automobiles that you have asked me to build.


BIG THREE: Oh no! I am undone! My automobiles are no longer competitive due to my years of poor planning and poor judgment!


MITT ROMNEY: This is all UAW’s fault!

So your argument is that 40/hr is enough to retire on, but 30/hr doesn't give them enough extra room to save for retirement? You realize that a vast majority of families in the US don't ever make 60 grand a year with good benefits, right? In fact, you know about 90% of Americans skilled and unskilled make less than that, right? Pretending like they were just getting the necessary compensation and unskilled employee earns isn't accurate.

The issue isn't the wage that (which is pretty high for what is basically an unskilled job), but it's the benefits.

A great example is the benefits given when people are severed. People lose jobs. There is not rational reason why people would continue to be paid by the company for years after losing said job. The rules establish by the union protect employees pretty well from wrongful termination. Losing one's job basically only happens if you've done something grieviously wrong or the company can't afford you. If it's the former, you don't deserve a phony nickle. And if it's the latter, then how is it not going to simply cause more people to lose jobs when the company has no actual means to stop paying you.

And, yes, you could say the same thing about golden parachutes for executives, which is why I also oppose them.

That is a 'great example' - but it's also a bit of a 'partial-birth-abortion' argument, because the benefit package isn't comprised of severance protection as the 31 dollar difference between union and non-union manufacturers. That 31 dollars is made up of a lot of things, not least being the pensions that were negotiated.

Golden parachutes are a bad thing. No argument there. A deal that allows you to get a good deal out of getting fired with good cause, is a bad thing. No argument there either.

But why are we blaming the unions, when the big three have been failing to meet the market?

So your argument is that 40/hr is enough to retire on, but 30/hr doesn't give them enough extra room to save for retirement? You realize that a vast majority of families in the US don't ever make 60 grand a year with good benefits, right? In fact, you know about 90% of Americans skilled and unskilled make less than that, right? Pretending like they were just getting the necessary compensation and unskilled employee earns isn't accurate.

no, my argument is that uaw agreed to make cars for a particular price. and the car companies agreed. why, exactly, should workers not attempt to get the best deal for themselves that they possibly can? and why is it in any way shape or form the fault of the workers when the company, through years and years of idiocy, is unable to meet their agreed to obligations?

taking money away from the workers will not result in a more just and egalitarian society.

That is a 'great example' - but it's also a bit of a 'partial-birth-abortion' argument, because the benefit package isn't comprised of severance protection as the 31 dollar difference between union and non-union manufacturers. That 31 dollars is made up of a lot of things, not least being the pensions that were negotiated.

No doubt. But the point is the UAW and unions like it set out to fight against the widespread corporate corruption that left the average worker holding the bag. Instead, of correcting it, they became part of it. Great for those in unions, but it still leaves everyone else holding the back.

Any job that one can learn in days shouldn't pay more than a job that requires four years of education and nationalized test demonstrating competence to perform. You of all people aren't going to tell me that 30/hr is not a wage on which someone can plan for the future.

Autoworkers for non-American companies make considerably less and it's still a highly sought after job. Hell, I'd consider it. At least I'd never sit at home thinking, dammit, I really need to turn on my press and pull that lever a few more times to catch up.

Golden parachutes are a bad thing. No argument there. A deal that allows you to get a good deal out of getting fired with good cause, is a bad thing. No argument there either.

But why are we blaming the unions, when the big three have been failing to meet the market?

There is plenty of blame to go around here. The unions deserve some. They can say well we're only 10% to blame or whatever percentage they want, but I don't exactly buy the "well, I was only kicking the bum, Johnny is the one who stabbed him" argument.

There is plenty of blame to go around here. The unions deserve some. They can say well we're only 10% to blame or whatever percentage they want, but I don't exactly buy the "well, I was only kicking the bum, Johnny is the one who stabbed him" argument.

I'm just enjoying the show. The unions fucked themselves by pricing themselves out of business. The execs fucked their employees by producing massive amounts of products no one wants. If only there was some justice, like say the whole thing going out of business.

Oh.. wait.

no, my argument is that uaw agreed to make cars for a particular price. and the car companies agreed. why, exactly, should workers not attempt to get the best deal for themselves that they possibly can? and why is it in any way shape or form the fault of the workers when the company, through years and years of idiocy, is unable to meet their agreed to obligations?

taking money away from the workers will not result in a more just and egalitarian society.

The problem is that it wasn't just the workers. The government has brokered deals on behalf of unions. The government has protected practices in unions that would be illegal elsewhere (like giving out the home addresses of executives and consultants who won't play ball). This isn't just negotiations.

And again, I'm not saying executives haven't used similar tactics. They have. They're wrong too. The solution isn't to become as corrupt as the other guy because not everyone will. So in the end it's the consumer who is getting fucked. The majority of them are not executives nor are they having government get involved in negotiating their salaries and benefits nor are they threatening and harrassing people till they get their way. The people getting screwed are the guys flying around in jets. It's the guys that are working at grocery stores and restaurants.

The problem is that it wasn't just the workers. The government has brokered deals on behalf of unions. The government has protected practices in unions that would be illegal elsewhere (like giving out the home addresses of executives and consultants who won't play ball). This isn't just negotiations.

And again, I'm not saying executives haven't used similar tactics. They have. They're wrong too. The solution isn't to become as corrupt as the other guy because not everyone will. So in the end it's the consumer who is getting fucked. The majority of them are not executives nor are they having government get involved in negotiating their salaries and benefits nor are they threatening and harrassing people till they get their way. The people getting screwed are the guys flying around in jets. It's the guys that are working at grocery stores and restaurants.

The solution I believe is to let the problems come home to roost and watch it annihilate itself. Which seems to be happening.

I'm just enjoying the show. The unions fucked themselves by pricing themselves out of business. The execs fucked their employees by producing massive amounts of products no one wants. If only there was some justice, like say the whole thing going out of business.

Oh.. wait.

Exactly. There was a ton of unethical or inefficient practices.

I'm not one of those free market at all costs guys. I am however not in support of continuing this kind of nonsense.

I say, for both bailouts, that they make the terms the government has purchased shares. The goal of the companies is to buy those shares back before someone else buys it. The shares are purchased at current market value by government loan and offered at that same value.

That way consumers can choose to buy in, if they like. It also means that if other car companies are doing it better, here is an easy way to bulk buy shares and initiate a buyout that it virtually impossible to block. It leaves the bailout companies in the position where they get more time but they are forced to drive up their share prices to get consumers to purchase them (or buy them back themselves) through demonstrating an improved business model or to remain open to buyout for years.

Exactly. There was a ton of unethical or inefficient practices.

I'm not one of those free market at all costs guys. I am however not in support of continuing this kind of nonsense.

I say, for both bailouts, that they make the terms the government has purchased shares. The goal of the companies is to buy those shares back before someone else buys it. The shares are purchased at current market value by government loan and offered at that same value.

That way consumers can choose to buy in, if they like. It also means that if other car companies are doing it better, here is an easy way to bulk buy shares and initiate a buyout that it virtually impossible to block. It leaves the bailout companies in the position where they get more time but they are forced to drive up their share prices to get consumers to purchase them (or buy them back themselves) through demonstrating an improved business model or to remain open to buyout for years.

That is, iirc, essentially what AIG did. The government's actually making a pretty sweet profit off of their bailout package. I'll get some numbers later.

The solution I believe is to let the problems come home to roost and watch it annihilate itself. Which seems to be happening.

There are ways to prevent a complete collapse while continuing to leave them appropriately vulnerable. It keeps away those companies looking for a handout (this is a reference to overall bailout). It would also prevent stupid things like corporate retreats. AIG, I'm looking at you.

That is, iirc, essentially what AIG did. The government's actually making a pretty sweet profit off of their bailout package. I'll get some numbers later.

What is essentially what AIG did? AIG demonstrated that they don't actually know how to tighten the purse strings during a crisis. One would think this wouldn't inspire consumer confidence.

New ad from the Big Three (http://buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg)

It's time to let these corrupt corporations die.

But, give them the bailout, just make sure in order to get that bailout they have to fire their management, and sign all their assets over to the government.

New ad from the Big Three (http://buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg)

And there is another heaping pile of blame hitting right square where it belongs. Oil companies and car companies have been receiving incentives for years to keep up with changing energy needs and it is not coincidence that while other companies were adjusting to the market, American companies remained decidedly loyal to the oil companies. Not only is that not coincidence, but it's not coincidence that all three of them also didn't do anything to take marketshare away from the other two.

These companies aren't competing for workers (since their workers are all part of one union) and they aren't competing for marketshare. They are essentially one big company that has been following similar technologies and similar business moves for decades. Now they're burning for it and so are the oil companies. Unfortunately, the executives who caused it will still be living high on the hog, no matter how this turns out.

I think there is room to move on both side. Not quite dead yet.

He would not rule out wage cuts but said there are other ways within the UAW contract with the automakers to help make them more competitive.

"It's just easy to take the union and blame us for everything," he said.

Gettelfinger and other UAW officials accused Republican senators from the South who blocked passage of the auto loan bill of doing the bidding of foreign automakers who have located factories in their states.

"They thought perhaps they could have a twofer here maybe: Pierce the heart of organized labor while representing the foreign brands," Gettelfinger said

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=AP&Date=20081212&ID=9447192&Symbol=GM

I think it is just a delay

I think there is room to move on both side. Not quite dead yet.

He would not rule out wage cuts but said there are other ways within the UAW contract with the automakers to help make them more competitive.

"It's just easy to take the union and blame us for everything," he said.

Gettelfinger and other UAW officials accused Republican senators from the South who blocked passage of the auto loan bill of doing the bidding of foreign automakers who have located factories in their states.

"They thought perhaps they could have a twofer here maybe: Pierce the heart of organized labor while representing the foreign brands," Gettelfinger said

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=AP&Date=20081212&ID=9447192&Symbol=GM

I think it is just a delay

I don't get it. Why SHOULDN'T they be representing companies who have better business models? Why shouldn't they encourage companies that employ our workers and are actually addressing the market properly to prosper within our borders?

I'm just enjoying the show. The unions fucked themselves by pricing themselves out of business. The execs fucked their employees by producing massive amounts of products no one wants. If only there was some justice, like say the whole thing going out of business.

Oh.. wait.

except those that really pay for it are the workers who have no control over Product design, business models and steering the company.

I don't get it. Why SHOULDN'T they be representing companies who have better business models? Why shouldn't they encourage companies that employ our workers and are actually addressing the market properly to prosper within our borders?

Because no matter what, the money from buying said cars is still going over to other countries.

I don't get you guys that are saying "Good let them die". Aren't you the least bit concerned what will happen to the economy if these car companies go out of business?

Because no matter what, the money from buying said cars is still going over to other countries.

I don't get you guys that are saying "Good let them die". Aren't you the least bit concerned what will happen to the economy if these car companies go out of business?

Right. Money going overseas. Like to all those workers who currently have jobs in the United States thanks to foreign auto manufacturers.

...oh wait.

Because no matter what, the money from buying said cars is still going over to other countries.

I don't get you guys that are saying "Good let them die". Aren't you the least bit concerned what will happen to the economy if these car companies go out of business?

I didn't say that. You should probably read what I actually said.

As far as foreign cars, I could give a fuck. American companies need to learn to make competitive products or fail. Trust me that investors are not going to keep throwing good money after bad if American companies don't learn that lesson.

And despite what you might think, companies have an interest in coming here for the same reason they travel to the caustic environment of the Chinese market, consumers. The difference is that if our own market caustic to failed business models then we will continue to have the status quo. Look around. This is what happens when people "buy American" with added subtext of "even if it's wildly inferior".

Right. Money going overseas. Like to all those workers who currently have jobs in the United States thanks to foreign auto manufacturers.

...oh wait.

So you believe that if I were to buy a Mercedes-Benz, some of that money from the purchase of the car won't go to the German headquarters and into that country? Right.

So you believe that if I were to buy a Mercedes-Benz, some of that money from the purchase of the car won't go to the German headquarters and into that country? Right.

Money which is then spent in Germany, the US and elsewhere. It's not as if the money flows unilaterally in one direction.

I didn't say that. You should probably read what I actually said.

As far as foreign cars, I could give a fuck. American companies need to learn to make competitive products or fail. Trust me that investors are not going to keep throwing good money after bad if American companies don't learn that lesson.

And despite what you might think, companies have an interest in coming here for the same reason they travel to the caustic environment of the Chinese market, consumers. The difference is that if our own market caustic to failed business models then we will continue to have the status quo. Look around. This is what happens when people "buy American" with added subtext of "even if it's wildly inferior".

I wasn't pointing the finger at you, I'm saying in general. I know exactly what you're saying.

Still, the companies should be propped up for now, no matter how shitty they are. They're still responsible for millions of jobs whether directly or indirectly, and that's what I don't understand about these people saying let them fail. I say yes, they are shitty companies, but don't let them fail right now at the worst possible time. Keep them propped and maybe they could redeem themselves. Doubtful, but you never know. In the mean time, maybe they could get their shit together and prepare for worse times.

Money which is then spent in Germany, the US and elsewhere. It's not as if the money flows unilaterally in one direction.

Yeah, you're right. But common sense would tell me that in bad financial times money should be kept and spent in our own country.

I wasn't pointing the finger at you, I'm saying in general. I know exactly what you're saying.

Still, the companies should be propped up for now, no matter how shitty they are. They're still responsible for millions of jobs whether directly or indirectly, and that's what I don't understand about these people saying let them fail. I say yes, they are shitty companies, but don't let them fail right now at the worst possible time. Keep them propped and maybe they could redeem themselves. Doubtful, but you never know. In the mean time, maybe they could get their shit together and prepare for worse times.

Huh? You belive that a shitty company should be bailed out because of the job loses otherwise?

I remember when that Thatcher woman *spit* closed down the coal mines over here, loads of people lost their jobs. Man how things change, how opinions on what the right thing to do is, changes.

The thing about jobs though, is you can always find another one. Let these companies go down the drain, let the workers get out now and find other employment, get out while the ship is still afloat, so to speak.

That's what I would do.

The thing about jobs though, is you can always find another one. Let these companies go down the drain, let the workers get out now and find other employment, get out while the ship is still afloat, so to speak.

That's what I would do.

Where are 3 million mostly uneducated people going to find a job in a recession?

Yeah, you're right. But common sense would tell me that in bad financial times money should be kept and spent in our own country.

Except you can't just magically keep the money. Americans are buying foreign cars and will for the near future. The bailout won't change that.

Cashflow isn't a zero sum game, but you're treating it like it is. The economy is about movement and ignoring that the consumers are tightening up and are showing their displeasure with shitty projects even if they say "made in the USA" on them isn't going to increase movement nor help in the long run or even in the short run.

Now, do we want to avoid huge increases in unemployment? Yup. But you're talking about one kind of employment being better than another because of who owns the company and that's ludicrous.

I have news for you, bub, a portion of profit from American cars is going overseas as well.

Where are 3 million mostly uneducated people going to find a job in a recession?

Other car plants. The bailout isn't going to increase automobile purchases so in the long run the same number of cars are going to need to be manufactured and the same number of people are going to need to be employed manufacturing them.

VW is currently tooling up a plant in Chattanooga, TN. Other companies are building elsewhere. Again, you're oversimplifying this.

The thing about jobs though, is you can always find another one.

not in this economy

Other car plants. The bailout isn't going to increase automobile purchases so in the long run the same number of cars are going to need to be manufactured and the same number of people are going to need to be employed manufacturing them.

VW is currently tooling up a plant in Chattanooga, TN. Other companies are building elsewhere. Again, you're oversimplifying this.

About the cash flow, that's neither here nor there, I'm just stating an opinion.

But what you said; right now all car manufacturers are suffering because people aren't buying cars. It's a fact. Consumers aren't even trying to get credit and most people don't have money to buy cars out right.

If the demand for cars stays low for the next few years, why would other manufacturers take on more employees?

Just because one plant is opening doesn't mean people are going to just up and move to go work at that plant.

If a manufacturing plant closes and is the major employer of the area, the area is going to suffer huge economic losses because the people who were spending in their area have nothing to spend now.

Just because one plant is opening doesn't mean people are going to just up and move to go work at that plant.

especially not from michigan, unless they can find some poor sap to buy their house from them

About the cash flow, that's neither here nor there, I'm just stating an opinion.

But what you said; right now all car manufacturers are suffering because people aren't buying cars. It's a fact. Consumers aren't even trying to get credit and most people don't have money to buy cars out right.

If the demand for cars stays low for the next few years, why would other manufacturers take on more employees?

Just because one plant is opening doesn't mean people are going to just up and move to go work at that plant.

If a manufacturing plant closes and is the major employer of the area, the area is going to suffer huge economic losses because the people who were spending in their area have nothing to spend now.

What do you think this bailout does? You think they're just going to keep churning out cars and putting them in a pile in the parking lot? If they produce more cars and manage to sell them, then someone else is not selling them. If they don't manage to sell cars, then the bailout is not going to change anything. Their doors will close anyway and very, very soon. Like maybe a couple months at most. They'd be better off just giving the money to the employees for unemployment.

Nothing your describing makes the first lick of sense.

What do you think this bailout does? You think they're just going to keep churning out cars and putting them in a pile in the parking lot? If they produce more cars and manage to sell them, then someone else is not selling them. If they don't manage to sell cars, then the bailout is not going to change anything. Their doors will close anyway and very, very soon. Like maybe a couple months at most. They'd be better off just giving the money to the employees for unemployment.

Nothing your describing makes the first lick of sense.

The bailout will allow the companies to weather through the 2009 fiscal year to 2010 when new models are hitting the dealers, and most likely selling. In the meantime the employees will be paid their salaries and benefits even if they aren't working. That's much better then putting them out of a job because the company can't even pay them, and a better option than putting them on welfare.

If you actually read or knew anything about this bailout then you would know this.

The bailout will allow the companies to weather through the 2009 fiscal year to 2010 when new models are hitting the dealers, and most likely selling. In the meantime the employees will be paid their salaries and benefits even if they aren't working. That's much better then putting them out of a job because the company can't even pay them, and a better option than putting them on welfare.

If you actually read or knew anything about this bailout then you would know this.

You're joking. You must be joking. It isn't intended for them not to make cars. And it's not intended for them not to sell those cars. It's a loan to help them maintain while they retool for the market shifts they haven't yet planned for, but it's not so they can completely stop manufacturing.

And if they're manufacturing and they're selling cars, then those cars are being purchased. That seems blindingly obvious, but it appears it's actually necessary to explain that in order to sell a car, someone has to purchase that car.

The money is to cover what they expect to be short in the interim. That's considering the FACT that they'll be making and selling cars (and, gasp, people will be purchasing them).

But since you're so versed in the bailout can you please link me to the part where they are expected to not produce and sell cars for the next year. Go ahead. I'll wait.

No doubt. But the point is the UAW and unions like it set out to fight against the widespread corporate corruption that left the average worker holding the bag. Instead, of correcting it, they became part of it. Great for those in unions, but it still leaves everyone else holding the back.


Which, one could argue, is evidence that there aren't enough unions.


Any job that one can learn in days shouldn't pay more than a job that requires four years of education and nationalized test demonstrating competence to perform. You of all people aren't going to tell me that 30/hr is not a wage on which someone can plan for the future.


Absolutely. I wouldn't complain about $30 an hour, myself. I'm not saying the payscale is right, I'm not saying it should conform to some kind of universal payscale that covers every position in every industry. Clearly, such a situation doesn't exist, and isn't likely to - which means some people will get money pissed all over them while they sit around doing basically nothing, and some will knock their lungs out for minimum wage - and some people will take advantage of whatever leverage they can get to bargain themselves better deals.

And that's what happened - and the problem is that no balance was ever struck.


Autoworkers for non-American companies make considerably less and it's still a highly sought after job.


This is true, but they lack the protections that unionisation would bring.

Unions have been demonised, and while there may be good reason, there was good reason for unions to fight tooth-and-nail, too, and gain EVERY inch of advantage they could. Unions are the new (well, not really new) 'red menace', and this current problem with the Big Three is being used a political tool to break the unions.

You would have thought the US government would have collectively got it into it's head that this 'me government, me smash' mentality ALWAYS comes back and bites them in the ass.


There is plenty of blame to go around here. The unions deserve some. They can say well we're only 10% to blame or whatever percentage they want, but I don't exactly buy the "well, I was only kicking the bum, Johnny is the one who stabbed him" argument.

The problem for me - is that pathological fear of unions that some in the Republican party are demonstrating. It's not about the money, the people, the ailing auto industry, the poor economy... this is ALL about breaking the unions by whatever means necessary.

The unions are not 100% responsible for this situation. In the ladder of culpability, there are a whole load of factors MORE responsible for the current fiasco, than union bargaining. So I find it disingenuous that politicians are trying to make this a union issue.

Fuck 'em. Detroit ought fire 'em all and hire Mexicans.
During the election campaign, you had me convinced that you were a Democrat and a staunch Obama supporter, and now it appears that your true colours are showing.

Your callous disregard of the 3 million plus workers, directly affected by this situation, who could end up without a job is one thing, but your suggestion that those jobs should go to Mexicans is totally absurd.

The bailout will allow the companies to weather through the 2009 fiscal year to 2010 when new models are hitting the dealers, and most likely selling. In the meantime the employees will be paid their salaries and benefits even if they aren't working. That's much better then putting them out of a job because the company can't even pay them, and a better option than putting them on welfare.

Those models aren't going to sell enough to make a difference, and even if they do sell many, many more cars than they have in years the profit margin on them is so slim it will be almost irrelevant. Barring major improvements in fuel economy and electric vehicles, the SUV and truck will likely not ever again see the kind of popularity they did in the 1990's, and those two vehicles are the ones on which GM's current survival depends. Now that they're in decline, GM literally has nothing to turn to.

GM desperately needs to sell off its loser brands (basically everything but Cadillac and Chevrolet) and severely trim down its workforce and benefits to survive. There is literally no other option; they flat out need to go bankrupt to make those kinds of changes or else they will continue to deteriorate further and further with no chance of improvement. Furthermore, any idea of this money guaranteeing their survival is a sad joke that either reflects the sheer level of delusion in GM's management or worse deception aimed at keeping the company alive long enough for top management to get theirs and jump ship.

Now, Ford might be able to survive since their position is far stronger than either of the other two, but Chrysler and GM are utterly finished and need to go bankrupt if they want to have a chance of existing in the future.

So I find it disingenuous that politicians are trying to make this a union issue.

Disingenuous yes, but not unexpected.

Disingenuous yes, but not unexpected.

Realistically, the unions need to make concessions; they were greedy in their demands and have played a huge role in GM's demise by consistently fighting CAFE increases as well as the kind of technological advances needed to compete with Asian automakers solely on the basis of preserving jobs.

They repeatedly forgot that while those investments and new standards would cost some jobs, they would create others and keep American automakers productive and profitable enough to compete rather than just fail as they are smothered by high benefit costs. The unions and management collectively damned themselves to failure and there is nothing we can really do about it.

You're joking. You must be joking. It isn't intended for them not to make cars. And it's not intended for them not to sell those cars. It's a loan to help them maintain while they retool for the market shifts they haven't yet planned for, but it's not so they can completely stop manufacturing.

And if they're manufacturing and they're selling cars, then those cars are being purchased. That seems blindingly obvious, but it appears it's actually necessary to explain that in order to sell a car, someone has to purchase that car.

The money is to cover what they expect to be short in the interim. That's considering the FACT that they'll be making and selling cars (and, gasp, people will be purchasing them).

But since you're so versed in the bailout can you please link me to the part where they are expected to not produce and sell cars for the next year. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Are you even reading my posts? I think you're just skimming stuff and then getting on your high horse of disregard. Allow me to reiterate:

The bailout will allow the companies to weather through the 2009 fiscal year to 2010 when new models are hitting the dealers, and most likely selling.

Hey, wow, that really sounds like me saying they're completely stopping manufacturing. You're totally right!

In the meantime the employees will be paid their salaries and benefits even if they aren't working.

Now, let's see. There's an if in there, eh? IF. IF they aren't working. EVEN IF they aren't working. Which very well could happen.

That's much better then putting them out of a job because the company can't even pay them, and a better option than putting them on welfare.

Which in MY OPINION it is, because the workers will still have their health benefits.


Please read and understand my posts before attacking me. Thanks.

Meh. That's capitalism. Life's not fair, poor Johnny prole and all that.

Those models aren't going to sell enough to make a difference, and even if they do sell many, many more cars than they have in years the profit margin on them is so slim it will be almost irrelevant. Barring major improvements in fuel economy and electric vehicles, the SUV and truck will likely not ever again see the kind of popularity they did in the 1990's, and those two vehicles are the ones on which GM's current survival depends. Now that they're in decline, GM literally has nothing to turn to.

GM desperately needs to sell off its loser brands (basically everything but Cadillac and Chevrolet) and severely trim down its workforce and benefits to survive. There is literally no other option; they flat out need to go bankrupt to make those kinds of changes or else they will continue to deteriorate further and further with no chance of improvement. Furthermore, any idea of this money guaranteeing their survival is a sad joke that either reflects the sheer level of delusion in GM's management or worse deception aimed at keeping the company alive long enough for top management to get theirs and jump ship.

Now, Ford might be able to survive since their position is far stronger than either of the other two, but Chrysler and GM are utterly finished and need to go bankrupt if they want to have a chance of existing in the future.

Yeah they will go bankrupt, no doubt in my mind. But you know what, it's better to spend the meager (in relevant terms) amount to keep them alive while our economy is shit, than what the impact will be economically when all those jobs are lost. And the thing is, I wouldn't think that GM or Chrysler going bankrupt and the loss of jobs would be a drawn out thing, it would pretty much happen overnight. After all the just don't have money. Period.

Now if they were kept alive long enough for these workers to still make some type of wages while other jobs are being formed, it would work out much much better in the long run instead of having that initial shock of all these people hitting unemployment at once and having them not spend money in their areas.

its not a matter of should or shouldn't, its the deffinician of capitolism. hopefully this (sort of thing) might wake people up to how idiotic it is to be so fanatical about it.

its not that there's anything wrong with tecnology, transportation or energy infrastructure, but there is absolutely no need to remain emotionally attatched to the destructive ways we are most familiar with going about them.

the very root of america's shame is its idiological and economic chauvanism, and the ignorance and stupidity they represent. the bouncing of capitolism's reality check is the price we're paying for it.
*Applauds* Like with another post of yours I recently responded to, that was bold. You could do well to improve your spelling though. o.o

"the Big Three Killed my Baby!"-White Stripes


Meh, if theyd given them the money, theyd just blow it and ask for more later...

they need to be fundamentally restructured, after all, I heard that they sold the same amount of cars as Toyota and Honda, yet they lose money, and Toyota and Honda make profits...

They gotta make changes in management, and stop paying people to sit around and do nothing...

Because no matter what, the money from buying said cars is still going over to other countries.
I'd like to think that if not for such globalization-related problems as companies getting away with setting up wherever workers are protected less, the idea of making purchases across our arbitrary borders wouldn't be thought of as being as much of a bad thing...

well that's the brainwashing the're getting from corporate media. something pt barnum said, about one being born every minuete. today's rnc would never have become what its been the past 30 years otherwise, and i'm not too sure about the dems either.

i don't think a mojority stay ignorant forever, at least not entirly. it just takes a lot for people to wake up, and perhapse we ever only do partially.

i just hope more people will also realize that just electing obama isn't the only thing we're going to have to do about it.
The irony, It burns!


After reading more then a few of your posts/rants, I have to ask.. Are you for real?

I'd like to think that if not for such globalization-related problems as companies getting away with setting up wherever workers are protected less, the idea of making purchases across our arbitrary borders wouldn't be thought of as being as much of a bad thing...

Yeah good point. I don't know, I'm for the idea of keeping more money in the country and spend it in the country. I'm sure it would help with the economy a bit...

It doesn't help that I'm severely biased against globalization either:p. That's for another thread though...

"the Big Three Killed my Baby!"-White Stripes


Meh, if theyd given them the money, theyd just blow it and ask for more later...

they need to be fundamentally restructured, after all, I heard that they sold the same amount of cars as Toyota and Honda, yet they lose money, and Toyota and Honda make profits...

They gotta make changes in management, and stop paying people to sit around and do nothing...

See that's where the argument comes in about the unions, how they make too much money and takes away from profits, have contracts so they get paid to sit around, etc, etc.

I just wanted to bring that up, but no more bitching about the unions please.:)

I don't like four-wheeled vehicles, anyway. KHI, for the win. :D

Hmm, the trouble with the big three going down is not the people being put out directly by them going down but the collapse of the numerious businesses who's existance is to surport the big three's businesses in various ways. In where I live there was an 70 plus year old ford plant they closed down an few years ago. other than the few thousand people it put out to work, put an further few thousand people out of work when businesses which had grown up around to surport the plant no longer had any business.

I wonder if those in congress took into acount the impact which is likely to go beyond just the big three. Me I find it sort of ironic that just when GM was making an profit for the first time in years an recession hits. In fact if I recall correctly, for the frist and possiblely an second quarter of this year, it was the only US Car maker that posted an profit

See that's where the argument comes in about the unions, how they make too much money and takes away from profits, have contracts so they get paid to sit around, etc, etc.


I dont have a problem with Unions necessarily...But, they need to be realistic...

If your being paid $70 an hour, and another worker doing the same job at another company is making $40 an hour...

And both companies are selling the same numbers of the product...

How can you expect to compete?

Its no wonder they send out jobs overseas...I mean, its not like i want to screw them over, $40 an hour is good fuckin money...

I dont have a problem with Unions necessarily...But, they need to be realistic...

If your being paid $70 an hour, and another worker doing the same job at another company is making $40 an hour...

And both companies are selling the same numbers of the product...

How can you expect to compete?

Its no wonder they send out jobs overseas...I mean, its not like i want to screw them over, $40 an hour is good fuckin money...They aren't making $73 an hour. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?bl&ex=1229144400&en=402e6793db93da56&ei=5087)

Just some facts! (http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/26/news/companies/pluggedin_taylor_ford.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007012611)


The Big Three are hemorrhaging money, and struggling to stay competitive with foreign rivals. Fortune's Alex Taylor crunches the numbers.

By Alex Taylor III, Fortune senior editor
January 26 2007: 11:31 AM EST


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- An enormous gap still separates the performance of Detroit automakers from their foreign competitors - and it isn't all their fault.

The stupefying $12.7 billion loss that Ford Motor Co. reported Thursday for 2006 comes one year after General Motors' equally horrendous $10.6 billion loss for 2005.

But for all the bad decisions these companies have made by not listening to their customers, they aren't entirely to blame. Structural inequities between the U.S. and Japan - notably in labor costs and currency - account for a big chunk of Detroit's problems.

The evidence can be seen in a report prepared by the Detroit consulting firm Harbour-Felax, first released back in October and updated for Fortune. For anyone who makes a living from the domestic auto industry, it is depressing reading. An enormous and persistent gap separates the home team from the import companies - large enough to question the continued survival of the U.S. companies.

In the case of Ford (Charts), which recently hocked its corporate assets to help fund $17 billion in negative cash flow over the next 24 months, it raises questions whether the automaker can shrink the difference before its money runs out.

According to the latest calculations, the gap between Japanese and American carmakers' profits average out to about $2900 per vehicle, and the home team does not have the advantage.

Cost issues

A big reason is the cost of labor. As analyzed by Harbour-Felax, labor costs the Detroit Three substantially more per vehicle than it does the Japanese.

Health care is the biggest chunk. GM (Charts), for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota (Charts) pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones.

Other labor costs add to the bill. Contract issues like work rules, line relief and holiday pay amount to $630 per vehicle - costs that the Japanese don't have. And paying UAW members for not working when plants are shut costs another $350 per vehicle.

Here's one example of how knotty Detroit's labor problem can be:

If an assembly plant with 3,000 workers has no dealer orders, it has two options. One is to close the plant for a week and not build any cars. Then the company still has to give the idled workers 95 percent of their take-home pay plus all benefits for not working. So a one-week shutdown costs $7.7 million or $1,545 for each vehicle it didn't make.

If the company decides to go ahead and run the plant for a week without any dealer orders, it will have distressed merchandise on its hands. Then it has to sell the vehicles to daily rental companies like Hertz or Avis at discounts of $3,000 to $5,000 per vehicle, which creates a flood of used cars in three to six months and damages resale value. Or it can put the vehicles into storage and pay dealers up to $1,250 apiece to take them off its hands.

Chrysler experienced the vicissitudes of over-production last year when it built cars without dealer orders and was forced to store them in open-air lots all around Detroit while it frantically sought buyers. It damaged relations with its dealers and was eventually forced to cut production anyway.

the exchange rate is another uncontrollable factor that plays into the hands of the import brands. When the yen got cheaper in 2005, Harbour-Felax figures it was worth $1,054 per vehicle to Japanese manufacturers

On the revenue side, it is easier to apportion blame. The lack of pricing power by American producers, brought on by poor quality, unimaginative marketing and sales to rental fleets, cost them nearly $1,000 per car. When everything is added up, the average Japanese automaker reports revenue of $24,289 per vehicle - $2,692 more than the average domestic manufacturer.

All in all, the report paints a bleak picture. While Nissan (Charts) was making $1800 per vehicle during the first half of 2006, and Toyota and Honda (Charts) racked up $1,400 apiece, nine-month results for Ford saw them losing $1,400 per vehicle - a number that will go up when the fourth quarter's loss is tallied - while DaimlerChrysler (Charts) dropped $1100 and GM $333.

But cut Ford and the others a little slack. They have gotten themselves in a deep hole but they weren't the only ones doing the digging.

penny wise and dollar foolish: refusing a few million to an actual industry that actually did something, even if it was wrong, while having given billions, almost no strings attatched, to what is basically a glorrified shuck and jive con game.

but i guess i already said that. if it really were the end of the car as we've known it, i'm sorry but i really wouldn't miss that a bit.

those factorys could be making windmills, solar cells, and little people sized multiple unit narrowgauge trains powered by batteries, flywheels and so on, even hydrogen if you want someplace it would make sense to use that, if it ever becomes practical to do so at all.

even robotic electric lawn mowers to ride to the nearest trolly stop if you really live THAT far from the nearest place it would be practical to put one.

every time something we're familiar with collapses, its an opportunity to do something right instead.
that's why this current economic melt down is something i don't feel bad about at all.

Just because you can't understand the difference between a tangible and intangible product does not make the providers of such a product con men.

They aren't making $73 an hour. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?bl&ex=1229144400&en=402e6793db93da56&ei=5087)

Well...I actually said 70, lol...

But, its beside the point anyway...the article you cite still makes mention of the fact that its far more than the same worker at Toyota, Nissan, and Honda...

Not to mention...the New York Times is an unobjective rag anyway...


The point is, You cant give all your workers tons of benefits if you arent selling more product than your competitors...

Well...I actually said 70, lol...

But, its beside the point anyway...the article you cite still makes mention of the fact that its far more than the same worker at Toyota, Nissan, and Honda... $10 an hour is "far more"? o_0;

Well...I actually said 70, lol...

But, its beside the point anyway...the article you cite still makes mention of the fact that its far more than the same worker at Toyota, Nissan, and Honda...

Not to mention...the New York Times is an unobjective rag anyway...


The point is, You cant give all your workers tons of benefits if you arent selling more product than your competitors...

its still 70 an hour. the article just thinks that benefits that the vast majority of the rest of the work force pays for themselves should not count as pay.
Ford is paying their health insurance payments, their retirement plan payments. shoot the article even list payroll taxes as not counting.

$10 an hour is "far more"? o_0;

Per worker...Yeah, Think of How many employee's they have versus how much the company is making in comparison to its competitors...

It adds up...They have to slash these things if they want to compete, which is what its all about...

Either the Company is profitable, or its Not...Either it Floats or it sinks...regardless of what the Union thinks the workers deserve...

I think they deserve every bit of it...But, unfortunately, this is the real world...And making a little less in Benefits is better than losing your job entirely, i would think...

Are you even reading my posts? I think you're just skimming stuff and then getting on your high horse of disregard. Allow me to reiterate:



Hey, wow, that really sounds like me saying they're completely stopping manufacturing. You're totally right!

The problem here is that you forgot your argument. That's why I'm making fun of you.

I pointed out that workers get paid to produce cars that Americans will buy. The bailout will preserve their jobs by allowing them to continue to produce cars that Americans will buy. If the American companies stop producing cars, then other companies will have to produce the cars that Americans will buy. And when they do, they'll have to employ workers to make them, the same number of workers that are required for the American companies to make them.

I said this before and you objected to the idea that bailout will allow them to continue producing cars. I can't help it if you don't pay attention to either the actual structure of the bailout or your own arguments.

Now, let's see. There's an if in there, eh? IF. IF they aren't working. EVEN IF they aren't working. Which very well could happen.

Um, actually, the UAW as part of their concession agreed to stop paying workers who had been laid off. The bailout is going to leave people with no paycheck and that's a fact. Ignoring it doesn't help your argument. The people who continue to get paid will be doing so to create cars. Those that aren't creating cars will be laid off and they will cease to be paid, as per the new agreement by UAW.

Which in MY OPINION it is, because the workers will still have their health benefits.

Which is a seperate problem and wholly irrelevant to the issue.

They will be like millions of other Americans, Americans who have been screwed by those same workers and their employers for three decades.

The issue is the preservation of our economy. I give a fuck about the jobs of people (workers and management) who priced themselves out of the industry. I also don't cry when companies in the consulting business finally get bitten for corrupt practices and a 1000 jobs go poof overnight. It happens with some regularity in my industry. No one tries to save them because those companies and their employees rode the wave when the wave was high. There is a price to such a wave.

Please read and understand my posts before attacking me. Thanks.
I do and have. I can't help it if you're having a hard time keeping your argument straight. I'm trying to help you, but I can only point at the water.

You keep talking about individuals. The government is in it to look at the overall picture. Frankly, when whole towns have contributed to their own demise, and in the case of the auto industry the blame is really that widespread (even if the bulk of it is more centralized), then they get what they get. If the net is that a similar number of jobs move elsewhere to a place where they are sustainable, then I'm for it.

There are a number of solutions here that don't require signing a blank check to failed business models. I'm a strong proponent of the government offering a hand up in trying times, and these are, but what you're talking about is nonsense. Worse than nonsense, you're pretending to have a handle on something you obviously don't.

$10 an hour is "far more"? o_0;

Yes, it is. Some people live and raise families on salaries that are only slightly better than 10/hr.

For the record, I think unions were and are necessary. Unquestionably. I think they also do not carry the level of blame of the corporate interests and the investors do.

That said, they are also not blameless. This isn't the case of greedy lending companies doing innocent borrowers and guilty borrowers alike. This isn't the case of people who have done everything right being dragged down by a collapsing home market. When the workers unionized they became a collective on purpose. That collective in conjuction with the management of the Detroit automakers have making and pushing poor decisions for years, decisions that were obviously flightless to everyone paying attention. In this case the ramifications of bad decision-making is falling right square on the people who caused the problem. I can't say I feel bad for them.

I can say, however, there is an economic interest in making an effort. I only argue that said effort should be much more stringent with less concern for the outcome for current workers and management and more concern with creating a functioning American auto industry again.

The senate's refusal to bail out unimaginative dinosaurs that should have been designing fuel-efficient cars decades ago was a dangerous one. While you can't help feeling schadenfreude for those executives who each flew to Washington in their private jets to plead their pathetic cases, I do feel for the millions of workers who are about to receive a shit sandwich for their Xmas present.
The flow-on effects of the Big 3 going under will be catastrophic. Don't quit your day jobs guys, this ride could be bumpy!

The senate's refusal to bail out unimaginative dinosaurs that should have been designing fuel-efficient cars decades ago was a dangerous one. While you can't help feeling schadenfreude for those executives who each flew to Washington in their private jets to plead their pathetic cases, I do feel for the millions of workers who are about to receive a shit sandwich for their Xmas present.
The flow-on effects of the Big 3 going under will be catastrophic. Don't quit your day jobs guys, this ride could be bumpy!

Shit sandwich is the special for the next two or three years across the states. What we should be doing is focusing our efforts on industries who deserve it.

I can even get behind an effort to sets up those that take lones as having more or less pawned their stock. Then they either get competitive fast or their competitors will own them.

As a Michigander, I feel I must weigh in here. Everything revolves around making cars here. Everything. Beyond Ford, GM etc, you have all the suppliers, subcontractors, sub sub contractors, and dozens of support services. Without the Automobile industry, there is no Michigan economy. While Chapter 11 might be good for Ford and GM, it has no protections for all the other industries and services not owned by the Big 3.

Ford and GM are asking for loans. Not money giveaways, loans. These loans will get them through until newer, better cars hit the market. They have the people, but they just don't have the money.

I don't like this any more then alot of you guys do. I'm a free marketeer, but I'm more a pragmatist. We can rail on about how the ebul unions are to blame, or the greedy capitalist pigdogs, but the fact remains that if nothing drastic is done, you will have the 8th largest State lose a few million jobs.

I cannot stress this enough. If Ford or GM (Chrysler can suck my cock) goes under, the Michigan economy will collapse.

Let's do the math?

3,000,000 suddenly unemployed workers X $50,000 annual salary (low ball figure) = $150 Billion removed from the economy.

3,000,000 X 3.14 (average US family size) = 9,420,000 more people without health care

3,000,000 more people collecting unemployment benefits, whereas the employer used to cover that expense for layoffs.

Toss in the economic ripple effects of those 3,000,000 unemployed upon the communities in which they live and it is quite easy to picture the devestation.

I am probably missing some other important variables but I thought it was important to throw that out there.

That is, iirc, essentially what AIG did. The government's actually making a pretty sweet profit off of their bailout package. I'll get some numbers later.

The government will be lucky to get any money back from AIG. It's just a looting operation.

I appreciate the need to keep the balls in the air because the fall of AIG would have ended the banking system worldwide in about three days.

But the idea that there will be any sort of 'profit' from the AIG package is as wishful as thinking that one day all those fraudulently backed MBS are magically going to recover in value and there will be massive write ups and profits for everyone.

The thing about the big three (well big 2.5 really) is not that they are failing because of unions or management per se.

Yes, they have problematic legacy costs, and they are burdened in a way their competitors are not because the US lacks a national health care system, but that is not why they are going tits up now.

Basically there is an absolute lack of demand for automobiles, because for the past seven years crazy financing has been capturing forward demand to boost sales and revenues. It's not really to do with making cars that no-one wants (because people did in fact want those cars, hence millions of them being sold).

The foreign auto makers are seemingly not in the same boat, because they have their feet more firmly planted in foreign markets, and since the financing crunch and unemployment overseas is lagging the US by about half a year - more or less - the problems with toyota et al. have yet to be as severe. But the same thing will happen to them. In fact, I would imagine toyota is even more thoroughly stuffed because the prius (which is now no longer so desirable given that oil prices have collapsed owing to the collapse of the hedge fund industry) has no doubt swelled their profitability immensely over the past eighteen months.

It is only a matter of time before virtually every major car marque will face the same sort of problems.

That said, a bailout is a waste of time. They are going to die anyway.

Of course, once we are through the turn, there will be a massive shortage of new vehicles, and most people won't be able to afford a car. Doubtless that will make the vegetablists happy.

As a Michigander, I feel I must weigh in here. Everything revolves around making cars here. Everything. Beyond Ford, GM etc, you have all the suppliers, subcontractors, sub sub contractors, and dozens of support services. Without the Automobile industry, there is no Michigan economy. While Chapter 11 might be good for Ford and GM, it has no protections for all the other industries and services not owned by the Big 3.

Ford and GM are asking for loans. Not money giveaways, loans. These loans will get them through until newer, better cars hit the market. They have the people, but they just don't have the money.

I don't like this any more then alot of you guys do. I'm a free marketeer, but I'm more a pragmatist. We can rail on about how the ebul unions are to blame, or the greedy capitalist pigdogs, but the fact remains that if nothing drastic is done, you will have the 8th largest State lose a few million jobs.

I cannot stress this enough. If Ford or GM (Chrysler can suck my cock) goes under, the Michigan economy will collapse.
I thought it was just GM and Chrysler asking for the loan, and Ford opted out. I don't know, I haven't been able to follow this all that closely as of late.

Correction: a coalition of Republican Senators did it.

The farging bastages. :mad:

I thought it was just GM and Chrysler asking for the loan, and Ford opted out. I don't know, I haven't been able to follow this all that closely as of late.

Ford opted out. But it is taking money from Sweden thru Volvo. Ford has a theoretically stronger cash position, so it is not going to collapse by the end of January like the other two. That said, December sales are off 70% I have heard. Unless things turn around it will join the other two shortly.

The cynical part of me thinks that Chrysler will be the one that gets saved.

Ford is in a better position right now. While I am far from a car expert, their overseas sales are pretty strong when compared to GM. I heard they would not touch any money until at least March. But they're still going to need some taxpayer money to stay afloat. They're getting better. They have learned from their mistakes, and are making changes to become more profitable. They need time and money.

I'm curious, has anyone pitched the idea of Nationalization yet?

I'm curious, has anyone pitched the idea of Nationalization yet?

SOCIALISM IZ TEH EBIL!!

That's the American mentality on anything that smacks of government control of industry.

Ford is in a better position right now. While I am far from a car expert, their overseas sales are pretty strong when compared to GM. I heard they would not touch any money until at least March. But they're still going to need some taxpayer money to stay afloat. They're getting better. They have learned from their mistakes, and are making changes to become more profitable. They need time and money.

I'm curious, has anyone pitched the idea of Nationalization yet?

There will be falling demand overseas as well though.

Here is the thing. For the past eight years, it has been zero finance, no money down, roll debt into new car deals. This has gobbled up all the future demand for vehicles. There are just too many cars all over the world. And now everyone has lost their money (and soon their jobs) there is just nothing for these guys to do, no matter how efficiently they manufacture, or how good their cars are. This is the real problem with the auto industry. Not the UAW, or management. Not matter how bad both those respective parties are.

I agree that ford has done the most to address the problems. But this will not save them in the long run. Even if the other two go bankrupt, the collapse in demand for new vehicles coupled to the inability of most consumers in their customer base to obtain any kind of financing means that they will also have problems.

Maybe chrysler could struggle through if the other two (which are much larger) go, but that is only in the unlikely case that the supply chain survives. And it won't.

You have to look at the japanese auto companies' problems in the early nineties. And that was under conditions when the rest of the world was only in a mild recession - which quickly became a boom. This time is several orders of magnitude worse.

Nationalization is probably the only way they can survive. I doubt it will happen.

Again, the cynical part of me thinks it will be engineered to preserve only Chrysler.

The company's themselves were grossly inflated in the first place. GM was spending what.. 7 Billion a month in running expenses? It was inevitable that they would fold. Greedy employees on all levels (I heard they were paying $35 an hour to the average employee but I can't confirm it, and the executives were making ridiculous amounts obviously.)

The problem is, GM was producing a quality product. Their trucks were the best in the class, by everyone's account. You just couldn't beat a GMC truck.

They were also leaders in American automotive engineering. Their engineers were constantly improving and trying out difference technologies and had a knack for picking winners. General Motors was on the cutting edge of biofuels, and they were sending the first stock hydro-cell vehicles off the assembly lines here.

Now, with China stepping up to bail them out :mad:, all that innovation is going to go by the wayside because China wants two things from their product: cheap, and easily assembled. Hydro-cells are going to take, not just a back seat, it'll be in the 'waaback because internal combustion is less complicated and cheaper to produce. They don't care much about efficiency either. The truck'll cost four decimal places but it'll break down once a month and get really really lousy mileage.

Here's your king crab, America. Want any mercury with that?

All this blame the union shit is annoying. It's not the union's fault that the cars are gas guzzling pieces of shit nobody wants anymore.

All this blame the union shit is annoying. It's not the union's fault that the cars are gas guzzling pieces of shit nobody wants anymore.

The bad thing is: people still like the idea to have a car, but their old one suffice.

BTW: if some people here say that the car companies know their market if most of the cars are used by 1 person like 90% of the time yet still has 4 seats?

Yeah, you're right. But common sense would tell me that in bad financial times money should be kept and spent in our own country.

Your own.

Anyway, if you only spent stuff on domestic products, no one else would be able to export and neither would you, because people wouldn't have the money to buy your products.

The idea is to buy the products that can be produced cheaply and efficiently elsewhere and produce the products you can produce cheaply and efficiently where you are.

That's the greatest benefit to everyone involved, including yourself, and then borders really don't matter other than as transportation costs.

If, like these car manufacturers, you can neither produce it cheaply, nor efficiently nor even good quality, you deserve to go out of business really.

All this blame the union shit is annoying. It's not the union's fault that the cars are gas guzzling pieces of shit nobody wants anymore.

The Union can be blamed for there being no bail out. They refused to take a pay cut, a much needed pay cut. GM might be at fault for poor business practices, but in the end the Union is at fault for not wanting to save their own damn jobs. I would take a reasonable pay cut over having no job any day of the forever.

SOCIALISM IZ TEH EBIL!!

That's the American mentality on anything that smacks of government control of industry.

Well in this case I'd agree. Why buy up failing companies? If they leave the same buffoons in charge they'll just continue to fail and then we'll be stuck with the bill.

If GM is going to fold in months, why is it they're just now noticing?

Per worker...Yeah, Think of How many employee's they have versus how much the company is making in comparison to its competitors...

It adds up...They have to slash these things if they want to compete, which is what its all about...

Either the Company is profitable, or its Not...Either it Floats or it sinks...regardless of what the Union thinks the workers deserve...

I think they deserve every bit of it...But, unfortunately, this is the real world...And making a little less in Benefits is better than losing your job entirely, i would think...

I'm reminded of John Rockefeller, who decided to see if oil cans could be held together with 38 beads of solder rather than 40. It didn't work and the cans leaked, so they used 39. A small savings, but when you spread it out over thousands and thousands of items pretty soon you're talking real money. American companies are inefficient, probably because they're of the opinion that there's no penalty for failure, Uncle Sam will bail 'em out.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461607,00.html

Was this mentioned at all? Looks like the UAW did cave.

I had a dream last night, that with the auto companies about to fall apart, they dragged all the revolutionary technologies off the shelf and started making cleaner, advanced vehicles. Not quite hovercars yet, but on the cusp. It was a nice dream, even though the advance was born of "what have we got to lose?" mentality.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461607,00.html

Was this mentioned at all? Looks like the UAW did cave.

It was only a matter of time before the UAW caved in.

Its sad really.

The problem here is that you forgot your argument. That's why I'm making fun of you.

I pointed out that workers get paid to produce cars that Americans will buy. The bailout will preserve their jobs by allowing them to continue to produce cars that Americans will buy. If the American companies stop producing cars, then other companies will have to produce the cars that Americans will buy. And when they do, they'll have to employ workers to make them, the same number of workers that are required for the American companies to make them.

And I said it before, fat chance you'll get the people losing their jobs now into those jobs within a few months. There's not going to be enough money to keep them on unemployment until new employment comes around, and poor people don't have the means to move near a new manufacturing plant that's being built across the country anyway. Common sense.

I said this before and you objected to the idea that bailout will allow them to continue producing cars. I can't help it if you don't pay attention to either the actual structure of the bailout or your own arguments.

What? Where? It's like you took one thing I said out of context, and that's my whole argument?



Um, actually, the UAW as part of their concession agreed to stop paying workers who had been laid off. The bailout is going to leave people with no paycheck and that's a fact. Ignoring it doesn't help your argument. The people who continue to get paid will be doing so to create cars. Those that aren't creating cars will be laid off and they will cease to be paid, as per the new agreement by UAW.

Source for this concession please. *EDIT: I just saw saintB's post, I never read about that before, sorry*And how the hell did I ignore that? Where am I saying this stuff?

Which is a seperate problem and wholly irrelevant to the issue.

Blahblahblah

They will be like millions of other Americans, Americans who have been screwed by those same workers and their employers for three decades.

The issue is the preservation of our economy. I give a fuck about the jobs of people (workers and management) who priced themselves out of the industry. I also don't cry when companies in the consulting business finally get bitten for corrupt practices and a 1000 jobs go poof overnight. It happens with some regularity in my industry. No one tries to save them because those companies and their employees rode the wave when the wave was high. There is a price to such a wave.

Ok so the issue IS the preservation of our economy. On that note, there's a lot of numbers between 3 million and 1000, and I think the higher number would have a bit of an impact on the economy.


I do and have. I can't help it if you're having a hard time keeping your argument straight. I'm trying to help you, but I can only point at the water.

You're trying to help me? Could have fooled me; it looks like you're trying to make me look like an asshole.:rolleyes:

You keep talking about individuals. The government is in it to look at the overall picture. Frankly, when whole towns have contributed to their own demise, and in the case of the auto industry the blame is really that widespread (even if the bulk of it is more centralized), then they get what they get. If the net is that a similar number of jobs move elsewhere to a place where they are sustainable, then I'm for it.

Yeah all those restaurants, grocery stores, retail stores, and all other businesses in manufacturing towns and parts suppliers for domestic vehicles and all the businesses around those manufacturing plants really deserve what they get! That'll teach them!

Wait, I thought this was an issue of preserving the economy... and I'm the one who doesn't have a handle on his argument.:rolleyes:

It's naive to think that the money the companies are asking for can be used for unemployment while new jobs are being formed. We're in a recession. It's going to take quite a while for jobs to come up, even government backed jobs. Things don't just happen overnight.

There are a number of solutions here that don't require signing a blank check to failed business models. I'm a strong proponent of the government offering a hand up in trying times, and these are, but what you're talking about is nonsense. Worse than nonsense, you're pretending to have a handle on something you obviously don't.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14298059&postcount=46

That's basically what I've been saying all along. It's not my fault if you take one thing I said out of context in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14298059&postcount=46) and base my whole argument off of that. Actually you're taking everything I say out of context.

The problem is, GM was producing a quality product. Their trucks were the best in the class, by everyone's account. You just couldn't beat a GMC truck.

They were also leaders in American automotive engineering. Their engineers were constantly improving and trying out difference technologies and had a knack for picking winners. General Motors was on the cutting edge of biofuels, and they were sending the first stock hydro-cell vehicles off the assembly lines here.

Now, with China stepping up to bail them out :mad:, all that innovation is going to go by the wayside because China wants two things from their product: cheap, and easily assembled. Hydro-cells are going to take, not just a back seat, it'll be in the 'waaback because internal combustion is less complicated and cheaper to produce. They don't care much about efficiency either. The truck'll cost four decimal places but it'll break down once a month and get really really lousy mileage.

Here's your king crab, America. Want any mercury with that?

Whaaaaaaaat? That's the first I heard of that.

Now, with China stepping up to bail them out

... isn't China going through their own economic crisis now?

Well in this case I'd agree. Why buy up failing companies? If they leave the same buffoons in charge they'll just continue to fail and then we'll be stuck with the bill.

If GM is going to fold in months, why is it they're just now noticing?


GM and Ford haven't always been failing, and will never be continually failing. Government assistance would give them the backing they need to continue their research (GM alone spent 7 Billion on R&D last year, just behind Toyota), and (most importantly) keep their suppliers from going belly up. When we talk of letting GM and Ford fail, we aren't just talking about UAW jobs. We are talking about tens of millions of jobs in all 50 states.

Ford and GM have made mistakes. They know this. Their management knows this, and will probably be forced out in the near future. Ford and GM are simply to big, to vital to the American economy to let fail to spite the poor managment.

The truth is out:

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/12/1713569.aspx

"This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it."

Blocking the bailout serves no other purpose than partisan politics and union-busting.

I thought the Republican party were just crooks.

Now I think they're crooks AND arseholes.

I thought the Republican party were just crooks.

Now I think they're crooks AND arseholes.You're considerably slower than I gave you credit for. You've just now figured out Republicans are arseholes?

You're considerably slower than I gave you credit for. You've just now figured out Republicans are arseholes?

I didn't figure the party was intrinsically more arseholish than anyone else.

But this revalation of an internal memo to bust the unions by blocking the bailout, in conjunction with the twat on Bill O'Reilly last night talking about Democrats and Christians are two different kinds of people...

Right at the moment, I've had about all I care to take from that corner.

I may be giving my age away but...

I remember in the 70's during the second oil shortage. US built cars had the big V-8 engines that averaged about 10-12 mpg going downhill. The public demanded better mileage cars,and Honda and Toyota were the first to offer a small car (about the same size as the Ford Mustang and Maverick) with incredible (at the time) mileage. Not only were they smaller than the 'Stang, but were also lighter; and they also had a 4 cylinder motor versus the 3k lb car with the V-8. The result was that the public made the decision to buy fuel economic cars, and that is how Honda and Toyota got their foothold in the US.

So, in the 30+ years since that first happened, the auto quality from Detroit has turned to crap, they have fought tooth and nail to improve mileage, and have not kept up with the market forces and the demands from the market. The best rated cars by JD Powers in the US for a long time has been the Japanese cars. http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&subject=iqs&story=iqsCar Also, keep in mind that the big 3 started talking about all the fuel efficient cars that they can have in the assembly lines in 3 or so years if they get the federal bailout.

They have maintained the same old US business model. They only think about how much profit they can make today, and do not think about the future. The foreign car makers in the US have shown that they can adapt to the current demand of the market a lot faster than Detroit, yet Detroit does not follow their lead. Just like the airlines in the US. SouthWest is the only airline making a profit, but none of the other will follow their lead. And Walmart, the only major retailer making a profit year after year, yet no one wants to follow their lead.

It's the end of the car world as we know it.
Nope, just a few crappy and obsolete cars that can't turn or brake will no longer be produced.

Good riddance, I say.


1) GM and Ford have several big plants in Europe as well. What will happen with them?
Get bought out at the liquidation sale by Honda or Porsche and start building Hondas or Volkswagens.

Nope, just a few crappy and obsolete cars that can't turn or brake will no longer be produced.

Good riddance, I say.



Get bought out at the liquidation sale by Honda or Porsche and start building Hondas or Volkswagens.

God no. Not more oriental, soulless shite to drive. VW would be fine, wonderful even, but I'm not sure I could quite survive the sight of more fucking Civics on British roads.

God no. Not more oriental, soulless shite to drive. VW would be fine, wonderful even, but I'm not sure I could quite survive the sight of more fucking Civics on British roads.

As opposed to soulless shit from GM? God, everything but Cadillac cars and Chevy trucks/SUVs are just depressing...

As opposed to soulless shit from GM? God, everything but Cadillac cars and Chevy trucks/SUVs are just depressing...

That is true, but, with all logic but quickly to one side, at least GM cars had the salvation of not actually being that good, and generally being absurdly powerful, whereas Honda, despite having all the soul of a 1960's housing estate, aren't badly built at all.

God no. Not more oriental, soulless shite to drive. VW would be fine, wonderful even, but I'm not sure I could quite survive the sight of more fucking Civics on British roads.Civics get decent gas mileage... Expect to see more and more. ;)

I'd still rather have something from KHI, or maybe Suzuki.

Civics get decent gas mileage... Expect to see more and more. ;)

I'd still rather have something from KHI, or maybe Suzuki.

How bout a Lancer or an Impreza?

That is true, but, with all logic but quickly to one side, at least GM cars had the salvation of not actually being that good, and generally being absurdly powerful, whereas Honda, despite having all the soul of a 1960's housing estate, aren't badly built at all.Yes, I want the V8 in my car that should be powered by a four-cylinder! :D

Civics get decent gas mileage... Expect to see more and more. ;)

I'd still rather have something from KHI, or maybe Suzuki.

Or an Alfa-Romeo. And no, not a Lancer. Very, very. very chav.

Yes, I want the V8 in my car that should be powered by a four-cylinder! :D

I'm well aware of the illogicality, but I quite like cars that are transparently stupid or flawed.

How bout a Lancer or an Impreza?KHI = Kawasaki Heavy Industries. They make motorcycles, not cars. :D
And Suzuki is better known for its bikes, too.
Having said that, I'd take an Evo X, just to piss people off. ;)

I'm well aware of the illogicality, but I quite like cars that are transparently stupid or flawed.http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2008/06/2010_dodge_hornet.jpg
...Like that? :)

Oh well. That's capitalism. I myself am planning on getting a Honda Civic for college.

And I said it before, fat chance you'll get the people losing their jobs now into those jobs within a few months. There's not going to be enough money to keep them on unemployment until new employment comes around, and poor people don't have the means to move near a new manufacturing plant that's being built across the country anyway. Common sense.

Again, you're talking about individuals. You don't have to move those individuals. Those individuals shot themselves in the face and are now asking for plastic surgery. I say they should get it if they can afford it. If they can't, fuck 'em.



What? Where? It's like you took one thing I said out of context, and that's my whole argument?

You don't know where you said it and what you said, but you can gather that it's out of context? Read the post I was replying to. You've never stopped making that stupid argument. The problem is you're trying to seperate it from the whole so parts of your arguments against me entirely ignore that you're saying it.

Source for this concession please. *EDIT: I just saw saintB's post, I never read about that before, sorry*And how the hell did I ignore that? Where am I saying this stuff?

You realize that the concession has been on the table for days. But, hey, you're the guy with your eye on the ball, right?


Blahblahblah

Excellent argument. I am completely unable to defeat it.


Ok so the issue IS the preservation of our economy. On that note, there's a lot of numbers between 3 million and 1000, and I think the higher number would have a bit of an impact on the economy.

See, here is where you begin ignoring the point again. If people continue to purchase cars and the American manufacturers aren't making them, where will they be bought from? You admitted people will continue to purchase cars already. That's new jobs at other manufacturers and that number drops dramatically. The factories that produce parts for Detroit starts producing them for the other manufacturers if they have a good model and if they don't, they go out of business. It's called capitalism.

You're trying to help me? Could have fooled me; it looks like you're trying to make me look like an asshole.:rolleyes:

Hey, people can read your posts and mine. If you think what you write makes you look like an asshole and that bothers you, fix your posts.


Yeah all those restaurants, grocery stores, retail stores, and all other businesses in manufacturing towns and parts suppliers for domestic vehicles and all the businesses around those manufacturing plants really deserve what they get! That'll teach them!

Which is true of every business. That's the nature of the beast. Again, if the jobs end up elsewhere, and they will, then so will the jobs supporting those jobs. Again, that's the nature of the beast. I can't help it if you're short-sighted. In the long run, we'll need the same number of cars and the same number of people to make them, and the same number of people to make the parts, and the same number of people to support those people and so on. I care about the jobs, and I know how to count. You want to help these individuals and don't know how to count. That's not my problem and it shouldn't be the role of the government.


Wait, I thought this was an issue of preserving the economy... and I'm the one who doesn't have a handle on his argument.:rolleyes:

Yup. Again, it's unfortunate that you keep adding two and two together and getting six, but that's not how things work. You keep acknowledging new jobs, and then subsequently ignoring them.


It's naive to think that the money the companies are asking for can be used for unemployment while new jobs are being formed. We're in a recession. It's going to take quite a while for jobs to come up, even government backed jobs. Things don't just happen overnight.

So the money exists if we give it to business with bad business models, but not to give to individuals to spend while they find new jobs. Yeah, you're argument's not stupid. Or at least, as long as one doesn't actually think about it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14298059&postcount=46

That's basically what I've been saying all along. It's not my fault if you take one thing I said out of context in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14298059&postcount=46) and base my whole argument off of that. Actually you're taking everything I say out of context.

How can I take everything you say out of context? Isn't what you say the context? Meanwhile, you linked the same post twice.

Regardless of your misunderstanding, the problem isn't only that you made a mistake in what you said. The problem is that EVERY SINGLE POST doesn't not take the new jobs into account after you've conceded that they exist (which took you several posts to do). Your number is ignoring those new jobs. You claim it's because people can't move, but someone is taking those jobs and those people are either unemployed now or leaving other jobs open. When looking at the economy, we look at the net, not what happens to individuals, even 3 million individuals. There will be roles for people to fill. If those 3 million don't fill them, someone else will, but the net will not be 3 million people on unemployment. Economics doesn't work that way.

I say they should just let the companies declare bankruptcy and try to restructure. If they need loans, the fed can provide them with the same terms a private bank would. If they refuse them, let them fail...

And I know its been posted before, but for emphasis:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3181/3099247596_f17a1b6eac_o.jpg

Or an Alfa-Romeo. And no, not a Lancer. Very, very. very chav.

Well, as I live in Finland I don't have the ''chav'' thing.

That is true, but, with all logic but quickly to one side, at least GM cars had the salvation of not actually being that good, and generally being absurdly powerful, whereas Honda, despite having all the soul of a 1960's housing estate, aren't badly built at all.
And being not well built is an argument for GM cars to you?

Well, there is such position, but as the market shows, most people disagree with it - and prefer actually good cars.



VW would be fine, wonderful even, but I'm not sure I could quite survive the sight of more fucking Civics on British roads.
What's wrong with Civic? :-\

http://www.autounleashed.com/images/honda_civic_type_r.jpg

Nope, just a few crappy and obsolete cars that can't turn or brake will no longer be produced.

Good riddance, I say.


( btw for those who didn't know yet, I sold my Civic SI and bought an 08 Impala SS, got it for about 5,000 under sticker as well. )

So all American cars are crappy? Well, check out an Impala SS.

Not my car, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOJeRPsDofU but you should get the idea.
As much as I loved my Honda, my chevy would smoke it, same with most Japanese cars.

Sorry, new American cars are great, why don't you go drive a few before you make some judgments?

ANYWAY.

We CANNOT allow Ford or GM to go under, the simple fact is millions of jobs would be lost, and we would NOT recover from it.

I love how Washington gives away 700 billion to the banks like nothing, but treats 15 billion like gold.

I love government, stupid as usual.

So all American cars are crappy?
Well, there might be some exceptions...
...Nope, can't drive in the rain.
...Nah, built worse than the Italians.
...No, 20 units does not a car make.
Nope, not in the higher-than-average segment.

Now in the budget segment of subcompacts and superminis some American cars are good, because they're cheaper and not really worse than others. Say Ford Fiesta.


Well, check out an Impala SS.
Not my car, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOJeRPsDofU but you should get the idea.
Yeah, stick a big engine into a faceless and soulless replica of Toyota Corolla, and have it do 0-60 in 5.7 seconds...

Wait.
It costs $30,000, like an Evo.
That being, it should be compared against the Evo, which does it in 4.5 seconds, looks better, is better in the dry, in the rain, on good roads and on poor roads, as it's AWD rather than FWD, and is known for excellent handling.


We CANNOT allow Ford or GM to go under, the simple fact is millions of jobs would be lost, and we would NOT recover from it.
They'll go under anyway. This bailout won't save them. They'll need another one, and another one, and another one. A whole special GM Support Tax.

Well, there might be some exceptions...
...Nope, can't drive in the rain.
...Nah, built worse than the Italians.
...No, 20 units does not a car make.
Nope, not in the higher-than-average segment.

Now in the budget segment of subcompacts and superminis some American cars are good, because they're cheaper and not really worse than others. Say Ford Fiesta.



Yeah, stick a big engine into a faceless and soulless replica of Toyota Corolla, and have it do 0-60 in 5.7 seconds...

Wait.
It costs $30,000, like an Evo.
That being, it should be compared against the Evo, which does it in 4.5 seconds, looks better, is better in the dry, in the rain, on good roads and on poor roads, as it's AWD rather than FWD, and is known for excellent handling.
They'll go under anyway. This bailout won't save them. They'll need another one, and another one, and another one. A whole special GM Support Tax.

Lets take my Impala ( which I should mention, the Impala has been around alot longer than a Camry, or an Avalon, which it competes with. )

My Impala has full time traction control, its great in the snow and in the rain. It was solid snow and ice last Thursday, and I never got stuck once.

As far as reliability goes, I have a 100,000 mile Power train Warranty, and a 36,000 mile Bumper to Bumper warranty ( cost a bit extra, but worth it. ).

Alot of the newer American cars are Great, Focus, Fusion, 500, Taurus, Mustang, Cobalt, Malibu ( which one car of the year by the way )


Lets compare my car to an EVO for a second. 1st off, I got my car fully loaded for 24, not 32k.

My car has full leather, power seats, its a whole lot bigger than an EVO. Its also an automatic, an EVO is not.

http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/jsp/build.do?modelId=100021&loc=en-us

30k huh? It cost 41K to get it to that 4.7 seconds.

You get a Puny 4 banger, sure it makes 300ish horsepower, but you get crazy turbo lag if you don't constantly change gears, believe me I test drove one when I looked for a new car ( the base model, not that 42k racer )

With the SS you get a very nice LS3 V8 ( http://www.chevrolet.com/pop/impala/2009/v8_engine_en.jsp ). Automatic Transmission, Full power, full leather, and TONS of room inside.

The EVO is much more of a hard racer, and is not as nice of a car.

BACK ON TOPIC:

I doubt that, I think with alot of downsizing, the breaking up of the UAW, GM can survive. GM and Ford employ FAR to many people, we would be looking at another great depression, simple as that.

( btw for those who didn't know yet, I sold my Civic SI and bought an 08 Impala SS, got it for about 5,000 under sticker as well. )

So all American cars are crappy? Well, check out an Impala SS.

Not my car, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOJeRPsDofU but you should get the idea.
As much as I loved my Honda, my chevy would smoke it, same with most Japanese cars.

Sorry, new American cars are great, why don't you go drive a few before you make some judgments?

ANYWAY.

We CANNOT allow Ford or GM to go under, the simple fact is millions of jobs would be lost, and we would NOT recover from it.

I love how Washington gives away 700 billion to the banks like nothing, but treats 15 billion like gold.

I love government, stupid as usual.

I've driven American. My current car is American.

It's also the last American car I will drive, bail-out or no.

I am surprised to see someone complaining about the government not wanting to throw away billions of dollars though. But then, you seem to think burying the needle in 5 seconds is important, so I can pretty much disregard your value system.

My Impala has full time traction control, its great in the snow and in the rain. Yeah, they can put TC on a front-wheeler, not that it changes the fact that they're FWD.

It will still be worse than AWD in the rain, and worse than both RWD and AWD in the dry.


My car has full leather, power seats, its a whole lot bigger than an EVO.
Evo has comfortable and steady leather bucket seats already. Not powered, because everyone would rip them out and install proper lightweight racing seats anyway. These cars are roughly the same width and height. Evo is somewhat shorter, mostly thanks to its shorter hood, and that's on purpose, to give it a shorter wheelbase. But it's still every bit as practical as one needs.


Its also an automatic, an EVO is not.
Of course it's not, automatics are for grannies.


30k huh? It cost 41K to get it to that 4.7 seconds.
What? These 4.7 seconds is the standard Evo. The MR FQ variants are between 3.5 and 4.2 seconds.

And don't forget that it's all a lot faster than the 5.7 Impala SS managed.


You get a Puny 4 banger, sure it makes 300ish horsepower,
It does, and it easily tunes up to more. So it's not "puny". There is some turbo lag, but it's faster even before the turbo "kicks in".

You don't need a V8 in a car that's not going to be raced or at least used in a "sporty" manner, and if it's going to, it should be a car that can handle a V8. Front-wheelers don't need a V8, they can't use more than 150-200 horsepower, the rest is wasted or even makes the car worse due to handling problems.

Take it out on a "track" (take any windy road) and see what that "Puny 4 banger" does to your "nice V8". In every single aspect. Acceleration, braking, cornering, precision, anything at all. In any conditions, from perfect track to rocky road. Without even trying.


However, it's not about racing. It's about the regular driving. Precise handling and glue-like grip make Evo a safer car. A safer, yet more fun to drive. Of course, Evo may lean towards the extreme, but the tendency is there with all of them. European and Japanese cars handle better, that's what makes driving even the most underpowered of imports so much more pleasant.

Yeah, they can put TC on a front-wheeler, not that it changes the fact that they're FWD.

It will still be worse than AWD in the rain, and worse than both RWD and AWD in the dry.



Evo has comfortable and steady leather bucket seats already. Not powered, because everyone would rip them out and install proper lightweight racing seats anyway. These cars are roughly the same width and height. Evo is somewhat shorter, mostly thanks to its shorter hood, and that's on purpose, to give it a shorter wheelbase. But it's still every bit as practical as one needs.



Of course it's not, automatics are for grannies.



What? These 4.7 seconds is the standard Evo. The MR FQ variants are between 3.5 and 4.2 seconds.

And don't forget that it's all a lot faster than the 5.7 Impala SS managed.



It does, and it easily tunes up to more. So it's not "puny". There is some turbo lag, but it's faster even before the turbo "kicks in".

You don't need a V8 in a car that's not going to be raced or at least used in a "sporty" manner, and if it's going to, it should be a car that can handle a V8. Front-wheelers don't need a V8, they can't use more than 150-200 horsepower, the rest is wasted or even makes the car worse due to handling problems.

Take it out on a "track" (take any windy road) and see what that "Puny 4 banger" does to your "nice V8". In every single aspect. Acceleration, braking, cornering, precision, anything at all. In any conditions, from perfect track to rocky road. Without even trying.


However, it's not about racing. It's about the regular driving. Precise handling and glue-like grip make Evo a safer car. A safer, yet more fun to drive. Of course, Evo may lean towards the extreme, but the tendency is there with all of them. European and Japanese cars handle better, that's what makes driving even the most underpowered of imports so much more pleasant.

I'm all on regular driving atm.

I did not buy my car for all out racing, what I wanted was a big automatic sofa that has balls. Unlike an EVO, I have 8 way power seats, both of which are heated, and the drivers side is also cooled. Dual zone climate control. XM Radio, 8 speaker surround sound, big big cushy leather seats. and a HUGE trunk.

The evo has none of these things. Its just a racer, I could NEVER use one every day.

That said, if I really wanted to, I could supercharge the LS3 in my SS and put out 450 horsepower, easily. Theres NO replacement for displacement.

If I wanted EVO, I'd get a Rousche Mustang.

Theres NO replacement for displacement.
Of course there is. It's called "weight-saving", and if US car manufacturers had stopped opposing it at any opportunity and feeding the world "sofas on wheels", they might still be around.

Seriously, if these companies had designed a car innovative and well-made enough to start turning around their reputation, they could have saved themselves quite easily. But they made SUVs or luke-warm remakes of "classics".

But then, you can understand that somewhat...show an American a small, light car that can use space, fuel and its power efficiently, and he'll call it a death trap because it weighs less than 2.5 tons.

And for the record, some of those comments regarding car design and especially weight have to go to the German manufacturers too. Even discounting the idiotic crash regulations that get tighter every year, there is no need for every new generation of a model to be larger and heavier than the old one.

I did not buy my car for all out racing, what I wanted was a big automatic sofa that has balls.
Well, as far as sofas on wheels go, can't say much about them, except that they don't have balls.
A bigger engine does not a fast car make. It has all the components of an old 100hp car, except for the engine. It doesn't have the suspension required to "have balls". It doesn't have proper brakes to be able to use the speed. It doesn't even have the seats to keep you in place at 1g, not that it could achieve it anyway.


and a HUGE trunk.
Duh. If I need a huge trunk, I'll take a truck. Now that's what I call a huge trunk.

That said, if I really wanted to, I could supercharge the LS3 in my SS and put out 450 horsepower, easily.
And all you'll get is wheelspin.

Well, and wasting a lot of fuel.


Theres NO replacement for displacement.
There is, even within the engine. Look at all these cars extracting 150hp per liter, 200hp per liter. At all the tuned Skylines and Supras who go to 300+ per liter. Your block can't take that amount of boost. Theirs can. And then there are their efficient manual transmissions and proper suspensions that keep the wheels on the road. Finally, in some, there's also all wheel drive, which puts the power to the ground in a way RWD can't, and FWD can't even dream about.

Edit: And, as Neu said, weight savings too. A lightweight (a bit over a tonne) Celica easily outruns expensive V8 sofas, at the same time being cheap and fuel-efficient.

30k huh? It cost 41K to get it to that 4.7 seconds.What is it with people on four-wheels and their obsessiveness about 0-60? o_0;

But then, you can understand that somewhat...show an American a small, light car that can use space, fuel and its power efficiently, and he'll call it a death trap because it weighs less than 2.5 tons.
o.o Sounds like a bit of a stereotype if you ask me; what's it based on?

Well, as far as sofas on wheels go, can't say much about them, except that they don't have balls.
A bigger engine does not a fast car make. It has all the components of an old 100hp car, except for the engine. It doesn't have the suspension required to "have balls". It doesn't have proper brakes to be able to use the speed. It doesn't even have the seats to keep you in place at 1g, not that it could achieve it anyway.



Duh. If I need a huge trunk, I'll take a truck. Now that's what I call a huge trunk.


And all you'll get is wheelspin.

Well, and wasting a lot of fuel.



There is, even within the engine. Look at all these cars extracting 150hp per liter, 200hp per liter. At all the tuned Skylines and Supras who go to 300+ per liter. Your block can't take that amount of boost. Theirs can. And then there are their efficient manual transmissions and proper suspensions that keep the wheels on the road. Finally, in some, there's also all wheel drive, which puts the power to the ground in a way RWD can't, and FWD can't even dream about.

Edit: And, as Neu said, weight savings too. A lightweight (a bit over a tonne) Celica easily outruns expensive V8 sofas, at the same time being cheap and fuel-efficient.

For Neu Leonstein: I sold my 07 Civic SI for my Chevy, and I loved my SI, great little car, but when you want more space, it won't do. Plus the SS has alot more aftermarket going for it. LS V8's are great. And sorry, a stock celica will NOT outrun a SS Impala of ANY generation.

Anyways:
Who the hell says I want to go sideways? If I REALLY wanted to, I could build the hell out of the engine then put a roots blower on it ( I would need a new hood though ), these are guys down at PRP ( Pittsburgh Raceway Park ), who are running high 10s with SS's with drag slicks on them, that's a really fast 1/4mile. New Head, New Cam, Free flowing exhaust, new inlets, new injectors, new headers, the full work up, and your looking at 500-600whp, and yes, the LSX ( LS engine series, the block you get in a Vette can take up to 1000whp ) blocks from GM can take that kind of power pretty easily. To bad it isn't RWD, which your right, would be nice.

And it has pretty big vented disc brakes all around, with nice ABS. I can stop from 100 pretty damn quick. It does not handle that well around corners, but I also like suspension that absorbs bumps. I don't care about going fast around a corner, I just like eating ricers on the highway.

As far as putting power down, you really need to spend more time at the drag strip, most of the cars are RWD. Those skylines you talk about would not do well at the drag strip, at all.

Those skylines you talk about would not do well at the drag strip, at all.Ahem. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFCUOqbzpiY)
Wanna try that again?

Ahem. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFCUOqbzpiY)
Wanna try that again?

Yeah, I know they can, the point is cost, and the fact that skylines like that are so rare its not even funny, its not the kinda thing your gonna do at home.

Do you have any clue how much it costs to do that? Also, a car like that is NOT streetable at ALL. Your looking at 30,000 dollars to do that. Or more.

You can find an old muscle car and do the same thing for under 10,000.

I've NEVER seen a japanese car that can run 9's, with a full interior, and still be able to be driven on the street.

Yeah, I know they can, the point is cost, and the fact that skylines like that are so rare its not even funny, its not the kinda thing your gonna do at home.

Do you have any clue how much it costs to do that? Also, a car like that is NOT streetable at ALL. Your looking at 30,000 dollars to do that. Or more. Doesn't matter about the cost. You just said that they couldn't do it, at all.

You can find an old muscle car and do the same thing for under 10,000.

I've NEVER seen a japanese car that can run 9's, with a full interior, and still be able to be driven on the street.Oh, so it has to be stock now? Give me a muscle car that runs stock 9s, then.

Who the hell says I want to go sideways?
You want to be in B instead of A. If you wanted to go for fun, whether forward or sideways, you'd have a RWD car.


And sorry, a stock celica will NOT outrun a SS Impala of ANY generation. On the track, and if it's one of the sportier versions, it will.

If I REALLY wanted to, I could build the hell out of the engine then put a roots blower on it ( I would need a new hood though ), these are guys down at PRP ( Pittsburgh Raceway Park ), who are running high 10s with SS's with drag slicks on them, that's a really fast 1/4mile.
High tens. With slicks. With cars that have blowers sticking out of their hoods.
Yes, that's quite the proof of the FWD's ability.


I don't care about going fast around a corner, I just like eating ricers on the highway.
Then you need another car. Some of these neomuscles, or a Corvette.
You're not going to scare a riced-up JDM with a FWD saloon. Not an Evo, not an Impreza WRX, not a Supra, heavens no a Skyline, not anything. Not even stock.

The only reason you can overtake most cars is because most people above 18 years old and 6" don't bother with highway overtaking games.


As far as putting power down, you really need to spend more time at the drag strip, most of the cars are RWD.
Actually, the only two reasons they're RWD are that:
1) It's difficult to enhance an AWD transmission to handle unreasonable amount of boost.
2) Most of the cars anywhere are 2WD.

Yeah, I know they can, the point is cost, and the fact that skylines like that are so rare its not even funny, its not the kinda thing your gonna do at home.
Well, obviously. Skyline GT-R is a no-compromise car. They're illegal to import, expensive to buy, expensive to tune. They're built for the track, not for the strip. It's on the track where AWD rips apart the torque-steering FWD toys and gives a run for their money to the RWD lightweights.


If you want to see a JDM fast on the strip, go for this 6 second Eclipse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6RiTu7OrhE

Yeah, I know they can, the point is cost, and the fact that skylines like that are so rare its not even funny, its not the kinda thing your gonna do at home.

Do you have any clue how much it costs to do that? Also, a car like that is NOT streetable at ALL. Your looking at 30,000 dollars to do that. Or more.

You can find an old muscle car and do the same thing for under 10,000.

I've NEVER seen a japanese car that can run 9's, with a full interior, and still be able to be driven on the street.

Spanked repeatedly, yet still yammering. I give you points for persistence, if nothing else.

Spanked repeatedly, yet still yammering. I give you points for persistence, if nothing else.If he seriously wanted a vehicle that ran stock 9s, I'd suggest he go out and buy the new Hayabusa. It runs stock 9s, and with just a little extra money, it can easily pass the 200 mph mark. Maybe $15,000/$17,000 total for 210+ mph, 0-60 2.6, and 0-180 in 15? Beats any (Street legal, affordable) car that I know of. :D

If he seriously wanted a vehicle that ran stock 9s, I'd suggest he go out and buy the new Hayabusa. It runs stock 9s, and with just a little extra money, it can easily pass the 200 mph mark. Maybe $15,000/$17,000 total for 210+ mph, 0-60 2.6, and 0-180 in 15? Beats any (Street legal, affordable) car that I know of. :D

Well see, ECF owns lots of cars, see, so that makes him an expert.

Well see, ECF owns lots of cars, see, so that makes him an expert.I suppose. :)

You want to be in B instead of A. If you wanted to go for fun, whether forward or sideways, you'd have a RWD car.


On the track, and if it's one of the sportier versions, it will.


High tens. With slicks. With cars that have blowers sticking out of their hoods.
Yes, that's quite the proof of the FWD's ability.



Then you need another car. Some of these neomuscles, or a Corvette.
You're not going to scare a riced-up JDM with a FWD saloon. Not an Evo, not an Impreza WRX, not a Supra, heavens no a Skyline, not anything. Not even stock.

The only reason you can overtake most cars is because most people above 18 years old and 6" don't bother with highway overtaking games.



Actually, the only two reasons they're RWD are that:
1) It's difficult to enhance an AWD transmission to handle unreasonable amount of boost.
2) Most of the cars anywhere are 2WD.

All I care about is fun in a straight line, if I wanted an EVO or an STi, it really would not have been a problem. I wanted a quick car that has all the creature comforts I want.

When is anyone driving a EVO or a Skyline a ricer? And I never said I didn't like them, but for I want to do, they're not for me.

Ricer= Any dumbass with a little eco car who thinks its fast.

Please, tell me how many average family cars have 300horsepower? ( The V6 accords and Maximas run about 260 if I remember correctly )

The only reason I did not go for a RWD GM is because I didn't feel like spending more ( though a G8 would have been better. )

Do I respect those fast ass Japanese cars? Sure I do. But I'd much rather have an american car with a roading rubmley V8 under the hood.

And do NOT tell me an EVO gets good gas milage, you are aware whenever your on it your mpg goes down to 4? I average 32mpg on the highway in my car.

If you want a real good track car, look at some of the Stangs and Vettes.

All I care about is fun in a straight line,And you're driving an Impala? :confused:

Well see, ECF owns lots of cars, see, so that makes him an expert.

Correction, Ive Owned alot of cars. I'm down to two now.

I had the 07 SI, which I got in late 06, which was sold to make way for the chevy.
I had a 95 Thunderbird LX, which was sold to make room for the chevy, and to get some cash for it.
I had a 10 second drag car, 1987 Couger, which had a built 460 in it ( carbed ). Which was also sold, due to me needing money and no place to keep it.

So now its down to the Impala SS and the Volvo 780 Beratone

Mostly, because I only have room for 2 cars at my apartment, and because having that many cars on insurance is a bitch, esp when the T-bird had a Modified title on it.

Correction, Ive Owned alot of cars. I'm down to two now.

I had the 07 SI, which I got in late 06, which was sold to make way for the chevy.
I had a 95 Thunderbird LX, which was sold to make room for the chevy, and to get some cash for it.
I had a 10 second drag car, 1987 Couger, which had a built 460 in it ( carbed ). Which was also sold, due to me needing money and no place to keep it.

So now its down to the Impala SS and the Volvo 780 Beratone

I knew it wouldn't take much to get you to trot out "the list". You amuse me.

If I was going to buy a new car now .. it would be a smart car (http://www.smart.com/-snm-0135035552-1228385067-0000000562-0000001116-1229297643-enm-is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/mpc-us-content-Site/en_US/-/EUR/Smart_CC-Line?modelCode=&engineCode=&lineCode=&cache=true). fortwo passion coupe.

Only downside imo is the amount of attention it would get me.. be it positive or negative.. I don't like attention. But it's an awesome little car. :wink:

If I was going to buy a new car now .. it would be a smart car (http://www.smart.com/-snm-0135035552-1228385029-0000000405-0000000980-1229294046-enm-is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/mpc-us-content-Site/en_US/-/EUR/Smart_CC-Overview)

Only downside imo is the amount of attention it would get me.. be it positive or negative.. I don't like attention. But it's an awesome little car. :wink:

It wouldn't be a bad golf kart.

How come every car that gets decent gas millage looks like it was designed by Gucci?

All I care about is fun in a straight line,
Then why are you driving a FWD car with an automatic transmission?

They have no feel, it's like sitting in a 747 - it a-a-a-accelerates, carefully and gently.
Try sitting in a rear-engined, rear wheel drive car for a change. Now that's a lot more fun off the line. And with a manual you at least change gears, not just sit there.


When is anyone driving a EVO or a Skyline a ricer? And I never said I didn't like them, but for I want to do, they're not for me.
Ricer = someone going wild mods for a Japanese performance car. Evos and Imprezas are their staples.

They may be too sporty for getting from A to B, but definitely not lacking in performance.


And do NOT tell me an EVO gets good gas milage, you are aware whenever your on it your mpg goes down to 4? When you're standing on the throttle? For that short while, all "mpgs" go down, except you don't do it for a mile.
Otherwise, it's a steady 20 mpg city driver and 25 mpg highway.
And yes, I can give a prooflink - http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2006.pdf


If you want a real good track car, look at some of the Stangs and Vettes.
If you want a real good track car, look at Ariel Atom, Radical, or one of the less famous track day cars.

Don't look at the Mustang for any reason, it's got lousy handling and an engine no more powerful than the JDMs.

Truly, out of road/track cars, Corvette and Viper (but not Mustang) are good. But there's a problem. They're worthless when it's not dry and warm, and the ride is terrible. Corvette is not a design masterpiece, it's simply track-tuned and as usually fitted with a massive engine. The engine works very well for such an outdated and cheap design though, have to give credit for that. But its performance is mostly due to the engine, not the car itself.

If you want a real good sports car, shining both on the road and on the track, better look at some of the Porsches.

Then why are you driving a FWD car with an automatic transmission?

They have no feel, it's like sitting in a 747 - it a-a-a-accelerates, carefully and gently.
Try sitting in a rear-engined, rear wheel drive car for a change. Now that's a lot more fun off the line. And with a manual you at least change gears, not just sit there.



Ricer = someone going wild mods for a Japanese performance car. Evos and Imprezas are their staples.

They may be too sporty for getting from A to B, but definitely not lacking in performance.


When you're standing on the throttle? For that short while, all "mpgs" go down, except you don't do it for a mile.
Otherwise, it's a steady 20 mpg city driver and 25 mpg highway.
And yes, I can give a prooflink - http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2006.pdf



If you want a real good track car, look at Ariel Atom, Radical, or one of the less famous track day cars.

Don't look at the Mustang for any reason, it's got lousy handling and an engine no more powerful than the JDMs.

Truly, out of road/track cars, Corvette and Viper (but not Mustang) are good. But there's a problem. They're worthless when it's not dry and warm, and the ride is terrible. Corvette is not a design masterpiece, it's simply track-tuned and as usually fitted with a massive engine. The engine works very well for such an outdated and cheap design though, have to give credit for that. But its performance is mostly due to the engine, not the car itself.

If you want a real good sports car, shining both on the road and on the track, better look at some of the Porsches.

Would be nice, but keep in mind, whenever I actually do go to the track, its a Drag Strip, where automatics are the king ( once I find a place to keep it, I'll be getting another Drag car )

Wrong, I see a ricer as anyone who goes to pep boys, buys a fart can, puts it on something like a Celica, Civic or a 3000GT, and then thinks its the fastest car in the world.

Corvette not a masterpeice? The Z06 and ZR1 are some of the best sports cars you can buy.

ZR1- 7:26.4
Z06- 7:49
CTS-V- 7:59

Not bad for plastic American shitboxes huh? Lets not forget, the CTS-V is an automatic, has 4 doors, weighs 4000 pounds and has every luxury you could possibly think of. So you would think it would NEVER be NEARLY as far as a Skyline R33 VSpec.

Or is it?

R33 VSPEC- 7:59

So, a track ready Nissian skyline can keep up with a 4 door automatic sedan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_lap_times#Timing_by_media

Sorry, Corvette me please.

Primitive engine to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxwZhWQYWcQ&feature=related

So, the free market should trump all until it highlights its inherent problems, then said problems should be covered up/bailed out?

No business needs more regulation. Else we have to eat soylent green.

Just had a think about this whole thing, and isn't it all a bit unconstitutional? Article I, Section 8 and all that.

Just had a think about this whole thing, and isn't it all a bit unconstitutional? Article I, Section 8 and all that.

Papers and rules can be changed. Maybe the constitution isn't up to date anymore. It's written ages ago, for a world entirely different as the world of today.

Will we allow that millions of people (around the globe and NOT only in USA) will lose their job soon, just because solutions can’t be activated due some ancient document?

Would be nice, but keep in mind, whenever I actually do go to the track, its a Drag Strip, where automatics are the king ( once I find a place to keep it, I'll be getting another Drag car )

Wrong, I see a ricer as anyone who goes to pep boys, buys a fart can, puts it on something like a Celica, Civic or a 3000GT, and then thinks its the fastest car in the world.

Corvette not a masterpeice? The Z06 and ZR1 are some of the best sports cars you can buy.
ZR1- 7:26.4
Z06- 7:49
Yes, yes, yes. It's fast.
I've already explained above why it's not a sign of a masterpiece:
it's simply track-tuned and as usually fitted with a massive engine.
The engine is very good for such an outdated design, and it's the engine which is responsible for the achieved performance, the rest of the car is rather unimpressive.


CTS-V- 7:59
Another GTR-style run with an unreleased car.

R33 VSPEC- 7:59
So, a track ready Nissian skyline can keep up with a 4 door automatic sedan?
A stock and not track-ready or even track-oriented, 12 year old Skyline. Effectively it's even little changed from the 1989 model.

The track-ready version is the 400R.
The track-oriented one is the N1.
This was neither.
Unlike in the later Skylines, the R33's V-spec was basically the base model, retaining all the comforts, but with ABS. Yes, the base model is so old that it didn't even have ABS.

By the way, Skyline GT-R is a full 4-seater, with proper rear seats, and even had a 4-door version - all it took was to add the doors. But it wasn't popular, since the customers wanted a coupe.


What's also important, the Japanese car makers have a limit on engine power, so the stock GT-R is capped at the same 276hp as all other JDM performance cars. The engine easily handles more power, and it's always unlocked in any track-ready vehicle.
Unlock the engine of that 12 year old car, give it at least a ECU tune, and it will rip CTS-V apart.

So rather look at it the other way: this preproduction CTS-V only ran as fast as a 12 year old Japanese car, despite having twice more engine power.

Papers and rules can be changed. Maybe the constitution isn't up to date anymore. It's written ages ago, for a world entirely different as the world of today.

Will we allow that millions of people (around the globe and NOT only in USA) will lose their job soon, just because solutions can’t be activated due some ancient document?
No, that's my point. They oughtn't to turn it down, as other sectors have been bailed out.

Huh? You belive that a shitty company should be bailed out because of the job loses otherwise?
For the time being. You don't want to turn all the patients off life support, otherwise the morgue would be flooded and unable to cope.

I remember when that Thatcher woman *spit* closed down the coal mines over here, loads of people lost their jobs. Man how things change, how opinions on what the right thing to do is, changes.
It was still wrong to do what she did. If you're going to eliminate jobs you might as well have a viable way to retrain them.

People, the marketeers, don't respond well to sudden large problems - they tend to either go crazy and do something stupid or stay cool and develope a predatory monopoly. That's the problem with advanced capitalism - nothing is regional any longer, everything is tightly interconnected.

Defaltion is the key, not popping the balloon.

The thing about jobs though, is you can always find another one. Let these companies go down the drain, let the workers get out now and find other employment, get out while the ship is still afloat, so to speak.
Only problem is that many of these people wouldn't find work. It's even worse when you factor in the need to preserve a respectable number for when expansion increases (this applies to the 'foreign owned' car companies as well).

Now I would do a similar thing to Germany - bailouts with conditions and stocks. I'd also make it a condition that certain factories that are relatively easy to retool to be nationalised at a dirt-cheap price. Then I'd use those factories to produce whatever vehicles are needed for recovery (using them to test mass production of various electric vehicles would be a good start).

Only problem is that many of these people wouldn't find work. It's even worse when you factor in the need to preserve a respectable number for when expansion increases (this applies to the 'foreign owned' car companies as well)

Well this may sound cold, but isn't that up to them?

I have been unemployed a few times, and guess what I done. I went out and found any work, just to look after myself and my family, and if that meant retraining and starting at the bottom again, well that's just what I had to do.

The truth is if you really want to work, you'll go out and find work.

I can't really see why the goverment should be helping. People are not buying cars, thus less are being made, thus some people should be looking for other work, now right now, instead of waiting around for the goverement to help them.

Otherwise it opens the flood gates. What other industries will send out the call for aid in times of hardship if the goverment help out here? Can smaller business expect a gov handout or will they be told to fold and good luck?

Well this may sound cold, but isn't that up to them?

I have been unemployed a few times, and guess what I done. I went out and found any work, just to look after myself and my family, and if that meant retraining and starting at the bottom again, well that's just what I had to do.
Only problem is that the loss of jobs in one sector would affect another, and another.

The lack of jobs in the current economic situation (of which you probably weren't when you were unemployed), a situation that isn't exactly founding new industries (or expanding old ones for that matter).

Another problem is that there are huge sunk costs (financial or social) with most of the workers; Even if they want to move somewhere for a job they can only handle their locale, they can't simply pack their bags and leave.

The truth is if you really want to work, you'll go out and find work.

I can't really see why the goverment should be helping. People are not buying cars, thus less are being made, thus some people should be looking for other work, now right now, instead of waiting around for the goverement to help them.
Hence why the government should always keep one eye on the future. Anyway, the government is supposed to be there to help (yes, I like the idea of the 'saftey net').

The major problem with both government and business in this situation is the lack of comprehensive plans, especially for remployment plans.

Otherwise it opens the flood gates. What other industries will send out the call for aid in times of hardship if the goverment help out here? Can smaller business expect a gov handout or will they be told to fold and good luck?
Pragmatic: Well it depends, are they an important factor in the network? If so then they should gain the funds needed to deflate.

The main problem for the job loss factor is twofold: 1 - there isn't a national retraining system going on for recessions and 2 - overloading the economy with unemployed persons all at once isn't a good idea when you can do so over a longer time stretch.

"the car world as we know it" can't end soon enough! it's a nail bitting race as to weather or not it WILL end soon enough to save hoomanity from collective mass suicide. (oil IS the 'jonestown coolaide'!)

Only problem is that the loss of jobs in one sector would affect another, and another.

Yes in the motor industry this is a valid concern, but in a global recesion there IS going to be mass unemployment anyhoo. When people the world over stop purchasing the unesacry or the too expensive then it will hit all manufactures, and consumer sevices alike. Why then and by what measures should the motor industry be singled out for aid? Can the TV manufactureing industustry expect the same treatment, after all they use a lot of electronics and chemicals in their product.



The lack of jobs in the current economic situation (of which you probably weren't when you were unemployed), a situation that isn't exactly founding new industries (or expanding old ones for that matter).[/QUOTE]

Wrong, I'm afraid. I left school in the arly 80's unemployment was rife in the UK at the time, even now with figures released today of 1 million unemployed, it does not touch what happend here in the 80's. As I said I have had to change career and start at the bottom again several times.



Another problem is that there are huge sunk costs (financial or social) with most of the workers; Even if they want to move somewhere for a job they can only handle their locale, they can't simply pack their bags and leave.

Well they can of course, they may find themselves beyond the breadline, they may have to sell assets and walk into the next city, town, state, country, whatever. It is not impossible, just bloody hard. Never underestimate the human sprit in it's fight for survival. Have we got too soft since WWII, since the last great depression I wonder?


Hence why the government should always keep one eye on the future. Anyway, the government is supposed to be there to help (yes, I like the idea of the 'saftey net').

The major problem with both government and business in this situation is the lack of comprehensive plans, especially for remployment plans.

Then I guess we disagree on the role of goverment. Yes sure help those in honest need, but only after you are clear that they have done all that they can for themselves. Teach a man to fish or give him a fish huh!


Pragmatic: Well it depends, are they an important factor in the network? If so then they should gain the funds needed to deflate.

Heh I guess that comes with advanceing age, I never used to see life that way, but you know liveing life teaches one to be pragmatic and learn to cope for yourself.

Everything can be argued to be an important factor in the network, linked as it all is. See my point re: TV manufatures. What is the special case for the motor industry? I for one think, less cars on the roads, great, and if this is caused by a downturn in the amount of cars being sold. Then really why should the gov bail these people out if they are not going to be making any more cars. Do we really need to pay them to create a stock pile?



The main problem for the job loss factor is twofold: 1 - there isn't a national retraining system going on for recessions and 2 - overloading the economy with unemployed persons all at once isn't a good idea when you can do so over a longer time stretch.

Point one yes I agree, and I would argue that setting this up would be a much better response to this, and use of time energy and money.

Point two again it may sound cold but personaly I would be getting out now, rather than waiting for gov help that may or may not be coming.

In fact I have a freind that works in the industry, he got out 2 months ago, and now works in IT. Not because he saw it comeing but because he just wanted to chnage career, and you know what, he is nowt speacial just a normal bloke, if he can do it, then so can everybody else.

Yes in the motor industry this is a valid concern, but in a global recesion there IS going to be mass unemployment anyhoo. When people the world over stop purchasing the unesacry or the too expensive then it will hit all manufactures, and consumer sevices alike.
Unfortunately the media helped to feed the public's desire for shiny things, governments thought lack of regulation was a nice idea (and hired people who thought so as regulators) and thus a big pile of debt was created.

Why then and by what measures should the motor industry be singled out for aid? Can the TV manufactureing industustry expect the same treatment, after all they use a lot of electronics and chemicals in their product.
Motor industry - Big, has lots of workers and lots of supporting industries that don't have many other places they could sell items/services.

TV manufacturers - I have no idea. It depends on how much various electronic subcomponent/chemical supplier depend on the manufacturing of televisions, along with how easy it would be for those workers to gain employment.

Wrong, I'm afraid. I left school in the arly 80's unemployment was rife in the UK at the time, even now with figures released today of 1 million unemployed, it does not touch what happend here in the 80's. As I said I have had to change career and start at the bottom again several times.
Well I'm glad I put 'probably' in.

Well they can of course, they may find themselves beyond the breadline, they may have to sell assets and walk into the next city, town, state, country, whatever. It is not impossible, just bloody hard. Never underestimate the human sprit in it's fight for survival. Have we got too soft since WWII, since the last great depression I wonder?
Unfortunately many of these people have assets sunk into housing, with either too much debt to hope of moving away anytime soon, or. A minority could move quite readily, though even then there would not be nearly enough jobs. Factor in retraining costs for individual business and they probably would get low pay (not enough to pay the cost of moving) jobs.

Then there is the social side of people being unwilling to move due to family (elderly or children).

I won't forget the survival instinct when looters start breaking into stores :p. Anyway, WWII was people bandying about, killing other people, and celebrating it. That's not being 'hard', that's being effected by propaganda. :p

It's more like people were not educated about the depression, so security was lax, rather than being 'soft'.

Then I guess we disagree on the role of goverment. Yes sure help those in honest need, but only after you are clear that they have done all that they can for themselves. Teach a man to fish or give him a fish huh!
Well I could argue that the government is teaching him/her how to fish... and would be doing it better than the man/woman could do purely by him/herself.

Heh I guess that comes with advanceing age, I never used to see life that way, but you know liveing life teaches one to be pragmatic and learn to cope for yourself.
Just realism, due to the limited resources available.

Everything can be argued to be an important factor in the network, linked as it all is. See my point re: TV manufatures. What is the special case for the motor industry? I for one think, less cars on the roads, great, and if this is caused by a downturn in the amount of cars being sold. Then really why should the gov bail these people out if they are not going to be making any more cars. Do we really need to pay them to create a stock pile?
No, though some of those factories could be retooled for other purposes, or the workers hired for other tasks. What's important is that the workforce is employed and that a core segment of those workers don't shift into other fields (which would cause the loss of talent or willing workers), along with preserving the needed factories.

There will be an increase of car production in the future (electric/hybrid/fuel cell), so it's better to keep at least some of the base industry, rather than having to start near scratch.

Point two again it may sound cold but personaly I would be getting out now, rather than waiting for gov help that may or may not be coming.
If your not careful it could become a cascade effect, with one industry falling after the other.

Also I'm going along from the idea that assistance would be given, so a longer job loss would be better for government programmes, as they wouldn't be overloaded.

It'd also be good for business and workers, as they could better plan their future than if they were all dumped at once.

In fact I have a freind that works in the industry, he got out 2 months ago, and now works in IT. Not because he saw it comeing but because he just wanted to chnage career, and you know what, he is nowt speacial just a normal bloke, if he can do it, then so can everybody else.
One person's experience does not a viable population employment show.

The problem is the shrinking job market, along with some employment groups being scared about finances, so jobs are being lost. This means very little people would be able to get a job on their own if their previous one went bust.

Pragmatic: Well it depends, are they an important factor in the network? If so then they should gain the funds needed to deflate.
You see, the thing with the cars today is that everyone in US who wants a car, has one. Every newly licensed driver has thousands of no longer driven used cars to choose from. New cars, at this rate of production, no longer serve any purpose, they don't increase anyone's mobility, they're once again just luxury items. Not just luxury cars, but all new cars except for the fuel-sippers, even simple family saloons - every family has a vehicle already, the only reason to buy a new one is because it's better. And the recession has put a dent into this sector.

The net result of the modern car industry is junkyards filled with well drivable cars, gigatons of carbon emissions, and other pollution. These people are working for the dump. Why should they be supported?
And wouldn't it be better to simply give them this money as unemployment aid, so they at least don't pollute the environment at it?


The main problem for the job loss factor is twofold: 1 - there isn't a national retraining system going on for recessions and 2 - overloading the economy with unemployed persons all at once isn't a good idea when you can do so over a longer time stretch.
But it will be done over a longer time stretch.

GM and Chrysler aren't banks, they won't go boom like Lehman Brothers. They have profitable departments and products, neutral-balance ones, and losing ones.

So they can start by gradually closing up the losing departments, then sell neutral ones to foreign companies that can manage them better, then keeping the profitable parts of the business. There won't be some mass closure, just gradual layoffs.

Spotted on Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/1208/The_Bailout_Poster.html?showall) (user created image)

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6321/081212autoadshenanve5.jpg

Spotted on Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/1208/The_Bailout_Poster.html?showall) (user created image)

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6321/081212autoadshenanve5.jpg

I believe that was mentioned earlier in this thread (or maybe another thread?) but it bears repeating as long as the bailout is being talked about.

Unfortunately the media helped to feed the public's desire for shiny things, governments thought lack of regulation was a nice idea (and hired people who thought so as regulators) and thus a big pile of debt was created.
Actually, the problem is not lack of regulation, it's that the government supported the bankers and bailed them out whenever there was trouble, so they adapted and learned to disregard the risks.


Motor industry - Big, has lots of workers and lots of supporting industries that don't have many other places they could sell items/services.
Well, what should we do, if these items/services are no longer needed, or more exactly needed on a much lesser scale?


Unfortunately many of these people have assets sunk into housing, with either too much debt to hope of moving away anytime soon, or. A minority could move quite readily, though even then there would not be nearly enough jobs.
And a better use for the money is creating these new jobs, in industries that have positive output, rather than negative.


There will be an increase of car production in the future (electric/hybrid/fuel cell), so it's better to keep at least some of the base industry, rather than having to start near scratch.
Not soon, really. Oil is down again, which puts electric and FC techs further away (and it's not like lead-acid batteries filled with coal power are going to be big Earth-savers). Hybrids are just a bit better than normal cars, nothing revolutionary.

Also, base industry will be kept. Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, Ford, they are going to survive. The well-doing departments of GM and Chrysler are going to survive. Only the unnecessary and redundant ones are going down.


The problem is the shrinking job market, along with some employment groups being scared about finances, so jobs are being lost. This means very little people would be able to get a job on their own if their previous one went bust.
Well, yes, that's why the government should invest in sustainable employment, rather than keeping dump-suppliers alive on free feed.

Hooray, mass transit for everyone then! :D

And being not well built is an argument for GM cars to you?

Well, there is such position, but as the market shows, most people disagree with it - and prefer actually good cars.




What's wrong with Civic? :-\

http://www.autounleashed.com/images/honda_civic_type_r.jpg

The sort of short haired tracksuit sporting earinged common chav who drives them.

just take a bus instead of car.... leave GM and other poor companies in misery.

suck it up, that's capitalism.

If no gas, get a freaking solar panel

Hooray, mass transit for everyone then! :D

No man who takes the bus over a certain age is a success.

But it will be done over a longer time stretch.

GM and Chrysler aren't banks, they won't go boom like Lehman Brothers. They have profitable departments and products, neutral-balance ones, and losing ones.

So they can start by gradually closing up the losing departments, then sell neutral ones to foreign companies that can manage them better, then keeping the profitable parts of the business. There won't be some mass closure, just gradual layoffs.

See I don't think so. Basically GM and Chrysler are out of money within the next 3 months. No money means no one gets paid means no one works for free and they're going to go on unemployment.

Once all production stops by the car manufacturers, most production will stop at the parts suppliers; some will be still going to provide replacement parts, but not that much.

What's going to happen when all those people that get laid off stop spending?

If every person that gets laid off (2.5-3 million) doesn't spend 10 dollars they weren't spending before, that's 30 million dollars that isn't going into the economy. And that's going to last for a very long time. Jobs aren't going to appear over night.

Hooray, mass transit for everyone then! :D

Mass transit? More like ass transit. The last time I took a train I witnessed all kinds of stupid and generally depressing things. People are rude and obnoxious. I'll stick to my BMW.

Mass transit? More like ass transit. The last time I took a train I witnessed all kinds of stupid and generally depressing things. People are rude and obnoxious. I'll stick to my BMW.

Curiously, the last time I took the train, I encountered people being basically polite and okay with each other.

On the other hand, on the way to work today, other drivers were rude and obnoxious, and did all kinds of stupid and generally depressing things.

Curiously, the last time I took the train, I encountered people being basically polite and okay with each other.

On the other hand, on the way to work today, other drivers were rude and obnoxious, and did all kinds of stupid and generally depressing things.

I daresay you both see precisely what you want to see.

I daresay you both see precisely what you want to see.

Then you daresay incorrectly, because the last thing I want to see, is some dumbfuck sideswiping the mom and her kids at the stoplight.

People are stupid assholes.

Whether they are on the train, or in their car.

People who are stupid assholes in their car, kill people. With the trains - not so much.

Curiously, the last time I took the train, I encountered people being basically polite and okay with each other.

On the other hand, on the way to work today, other drivers were rude and obnoxious, and did all kinds of stupid and generally depressing things.

Fair enough, but at least when I'm in my car I don't have to suffer from the smell of unwashed, sweaty armpits like I did that summer day I took the train. That's a plus.

I daresay you both see precisely what you want to see.

Good point. I think we can all agree that assholes are everywhere, at least.

Then you daresay incorrectly, because the last thing I want to see, is some dumbfuck sideswiping the mom and her kids at the stoplight.

People are stupid assholes.
Whether they are on the train, or in their car.

People who are stupid assholes in their car, kill people. With the trains - not so much.

I can agree with that, but I think you mistook my comment. To recapitulate; I imagine you're predisposed to see drivers as angry self-centred arses. Which, in truth, they are.

I can agree with that, but I think you mistook my comment. To recapitulate; I imagine you're predisposed to see drivers as angry self-centred arses. Which, in truth, they are.

I'm predisposed to see everyone as angry self-centered arses. :tongue:

I can agree with that, but I think you mistook my comment. To recapitulate; I imagine you're predisposed to see drivers as angry self-centred arses. Which, in truth, they are.

No, I see people in general as being stupid assholes.

Every so often, I meet someone who convinces me that it's not ALL people, but I think it probably holds true as a rough generalisation.

I hate driving. Not because of anything mechanical - I actually rather like the physical process of it.

No - I hate driving because I hate sharing the road with other people. I'm a safe driver, I even have 'defensive driving' course qualifications, etc to prove it, but most people aren't safe drivers. They do ridiculous and stupid things... and people get hurt.

My dislike for 'private' transport is influenced by what I see on the roads - not the other way around.

I'm predisposed to see everyone as angry self-centered arses. :tongue:

Pleased to oblige this view then.:wink:

Fair enough, but at least when I'm in my car I don't have to suffer from the smell of unwashed, sweaty armpits like I did that summer day I took the train. That's a plus.


I agree, that's an advantage.

Of course, I live in rural Georgia. If I want unwashed, sweaty armpits, I don't have to look for a train, I can just go stand around at Wal-Mart. Maybe that influences how I rate trains.

See I don't think so. Basically GM and Chrysler are out of money within the next 3 months.
They should have started layoffs half a year ago. Now they'll need to sell their assets. Not that they don't need to anyway.

Once all production stops by the car manufacturers, most production will stop at the parts suppliers;
Well, so? What if the US simply doesn't need their production?


If every person that gets laid off (2.5-3 million) doesn't spend 10 dollars they weren't spending before, that's 30 million dollars that isn't going into the economy.
You're missing the big picture.

If every person that is doing useless, non-profit-creating work, continues to spend these 10 dollars from bailout money, where is it coming from?

From the economy.

So that's either 30 million not going into the economy, or 30 million taken away from the economy and put back there. Taken from companies that make useful goods and given to companies that make useless ones.

They should have started layoffs half a year ago. Now they'll need to sell their assets. Not that they don't need to anyway.


Well, so? What if the US simply doesn't need their production?



You're missing the big picture.

If every person that is doing useless, non-profit-creating work, continues to spend these 10 dollars from bailout money, where is it coming from?

From the economy.

So that's either 30 million not going into the economy, or 30 million taken away from the economy and put back there. Taken from companies that make useful goods and given to companies that make useless ones.

Shit, I meant were spending before:$.

But yeah I see what you mean, but what about the trickle down effect? That's what I'm trying to get at. It's not just the car companies being affected, it's all the businesses surrounding the manufacturing plants that employ thousands that won't be getting the same amount of money they were receiving; in turn they'll most likely lay off workers too. It's almost like a domino effect.

You pull money from a major source of spending, and everyone down the line is denied that money as well...

Not exactly. The line isn't infinite or circular. It's a pyramid, not a domino line. You remove some of the top (car making), then some of the bottom becomes redundant, so you remove it too.

Also, the thing is, you don't pull the money out if you don't have a bailout. Money just leaves the redundant, unneeded sector. On the contrary, you have to pull the money out of the healthy and productive part of the economy in order to keep the unneeded parts on life support.

Not exactly. The line isn't infinite or circular. It's a pyramid, not a domino line. You remove some of the top (car making), then some of the bottom becomes redundant, so you remove it too.

Also, the thing is, you don't pull the money out if you don't have a bailout. Money just leaves the redundant, unneeded sector. On the contrary, you have to pull the money out of the healthy and productive part of the economy in order to keep the unneeded parts on life support.

Alright now see this is the tricky part. Would it be cheaper to give the auto makers the bailout and let them worry about paying the workers, or would it be cheaper to just give all these people unemployment?

But now if you give them unemployment, how long is that unemployment going to need to last until new jobs are made, and how many people are actually going to be affected and need to go on unemployment? If it was a minimum of 3 million people on unemployment for a year will be a huge strain. Now add another million or two, just doesn't sound like a good idea, especially in a recession where other people are losing their jobs as well.

Alright now see this is the tricky part. Would it be cheaper to give the auto makers the bailout and let them worry about paying the workers, or would it be cheaper to just give all these people unemployment?
The same probably. Depends on how many people want GM cars. At the present situation, way too few.

The workers will just come there and stand around, or IDK what else can they do if the cars just don't sell.


But now if you give them unemployment,
Unemployment aid isn't $70 an hour.


If it was a minimum of 3 million people on unemployment for a year will be a huge strain.
Good thing it isn't. It's not like anyone is proposing to blow up the factories and fire everyone. The companies will simply have to start closing the unneeded lines and firing their workers. Retaining the profitable parts.