Cut off nose - spite face?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0Ee7HIsw7Ao&refer=home

Well according to this maybe the rugged individualists should stop and think twice before saying just let GM go under.

Are they considering how much it will cost not to rescue the auto industry?

I cant personally vouch for all these numbers, but those making the claim seem to have pretty good credentials.

sodbuster wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0Ee7HIsw7Ao&refer=home

Well according to this maybe the rugged individualists should stop and think twice before saying just let GM go under.

Are they considering how much it will cost not to rescue the auto industry?

I cant personally vouch for all these numbers, but those making the claim seem to have pretty good credentials.

Let the free market rule--or just let UAW workers buy twice as many cars.

Well Terri maybe u could have read the reference and posted your response in 4 minutes.

If you are a real fast reader.

But you couldnt have thought about it and made an informed decision I dont think.

But the gist of it is that it will cost the taxpayers far more than the requested $25 billion if GM goes under.

sodbuster wrote:Well Terri maybe u could have read the reference and posted your response in 4 minutes.

If you are a real fast reader.

But you couldnt have thought about it and made an informed decision I dont think.

But the gist of it is that it will cost the taxpayers far more than the requested $25 billion if GM goes under.

If Big Brother socializes the auto industry, we will all be driving Yugos.

sodbuster wrote:Well Terri maybe u could have read the reference and posted your response in 4 minutes.

If you are a real fast reader.

But you couldnt have thought about it and made an informed decision I dont think...

Terry let the facts influence his opinion? Nawwwww!!!!

Keli wrote:

sodbuster wrote:Well Terri maybe u could have read the reference and posted your response in 4 minutes.

If you are a real fast reader.

But you couldnt have thought about it and made an informed decision I dont think.

But the gist of it is that it will cost the taxpayers far more than the requested $25 billion if GM goes under.

If Big Brother socializes the auto industry, we will all be driving Yugos.

And the problem with that would be just what?

20 years or so ago someone was lamenting that some day Toyota & Honda would be selling more cars than GM. What has been the problem with that?

Until GM builds a fleet of cars that Americans can afford to buy and operate, it deserves to be in the pits.

More scare tactics, Sherm.

btw.......When I saw the title you gave this thread I immediately thought of the Democrats booting Lieberman.

ziggy wrote:

Keli wrote:
If Big Brother socializes the auto industry, we will all be driving Yugos.

And the problem with that would be just what?

20 years or so ago someone was lamenting that some day Toyota & Honda would be selling more cars than GM. What has been the problem with that?

Until GM builds a fleet of cars that Americans can afford to buy and operate, it deserves to be in the pits.

Along those lines, the other day I was talking to my brother on the phone and he mentioned that of their three cars, a 6-year-old Ford, a fairly new (2?) Volvo (a Ford company), and a 12-year-old Honda, two of the three were in the shop at that moment. Guess which two???

I saw on a couple of the morning shows how bad it would be if GM filed bankruptsy. I agree, something very well may have to be done but I say not a dime until and unless the UAW is willing to make concessions.

That's how I see it.

Well the last time whebn they bailed out Chrysler the UAW made lots of concessions as I recall.

Time will tell. Of several Republicans I heard today, many said the same thing. It's one thing to loan money to an industry that provides so many jobs.

It's quite another to give money to companies to burn on overpaid union workers.

Bankruptucy- especially Chapter 11- is a way or re-ordering priorities.

But even bankruptcy will hit the economy as GM will not have to pay creditors including subsidiaries of GM and other parts manufactures. There was one estimate that said a GM bankruptcy could cost the government as much as $75 million alone in lost revenue.

And that raises the question of whether the economy take that hit right now or not? Many experts don't think so, or they think that hit and the loss of revenue from taxes will be far more costly then money to GM.

As much as I hate to say it, economically speaking, I think the government has to do something. What I would hope for is that they demand the union make concessions in much the same manner a bankruptcy court would require.

As always, Robert Samuelson is worth reading:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/169162

And I agree with him. Good read Randall. Too bad our incoming Congress and President won't heed the advice. I got a bacon samich that says all that's done is money is thrown at the Big 3.

Second, labor costs need to be cut. By Lache's estimates, GM's hourly compensation—wage plus fringe benefits—totaled $71 in 2007 compared with Toyota's $47. Health benefits for retirees (many in their 50s, having retired after 30 years) are expensive. These costs contributed to GM's massive cash drain, $31 billion since 2005. But the United Auto Workers opposes making concessions. Just the opposite. Government aid, says UAW president Ron Gettelfinger, is needed "so that auto companies can meet their health-care obligations to more than 780,000 retirees and dependents." The bailout should be more than union welfare.

Well you guys probably dont want to go there but if we had universal health care there would be a more level field re labor costs.

A whole bunch of that $71 (which I doubt btw) is directly attributable to health care costs, including retirees.

"And that raises the question of whether the economy take that hit right now or not? Many experts don't think so, or they think that hit and the loss of revenue from taxes will be far more costly then money to GM."

Well I dont suppose anyone checked out the link I provided in the original post.

I did.

sodbuster wrote:Well you guys probably dont want to go there but if we had universal health care there would be a more level field re labor costs.

A whole bunch of that $71 (which I doubt btw) is directly attributable to health care costs, including retirees.

This post here shows you don't know the policies of those you support very well Sherman. Obama's plan would in no way touch the health care provided by corporations like GM as his plan is not meant to replace existing plans, just provide for those that don't have current health care, thus universal health care would not alter this situation one way or another.

As much as I hate to say it, economically speaking, I think the government has to do something. What I would hope for is that they demand the union make concessions in much the same manner a bankruptcy court would require.

So, unlike what you said only a couple weeks ago, you aren't really for markets "correcting" themselves after all- especially if the government can use its financial clout to help the industry bust the unions.

I say let GM and its employees' unions take care of their problems in the marketplace of commerce. If collective bargaining brought us deca-million dollar executives and $71 dollar an hour laborers, then the same process can "correct" those inequities.

Well the UAW doesn't seem to interested in saving jobs. They just want a government handout. Why shouldn't they expect one, right? The government just bailed out the bankers the auto workers want bailed out too.

United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger would not flat-out reject further concessions by members on top of the two-tiered wage system and other concessions the union gave the automakers last year, but he bristled at calls for further sacrifices by his members.

"Let's go to AIG, Bear Stearns, active and retired workers: Did anybody go in and ask them to give back wages and benefit levels?" Gettelfinger said on WDIV-TV in Detroit. "What about the bond traders? Did anybody ask them? What about the cleaners in the building? Why would the UAW be any different?"

"We made an agreement, and we made major concessions," he said. "So how can you blame the autoworkers?"

ziggy wrote:So, unlike what you said only a couple weeks ago, you aren't really for markets "correcting" themselves after all- especially if the government can use its financial clout to help the industry bust the unions.

Now you're showing your ignorance Frank. You can't undo a process that's already started and you know that.

Your comparison would be, after the patients already been cut open to do by pass and had his veins removed, the doctor decides all the patient really needed was medicine and exercise so he walks away and does nothing else.

The economy is on the table with its chest wide open. It’s a little late to take the correct actions now.

I think that the $71/hr figure (and similar such numbers) that gets tossed around is the "burdened rate" of their labor costs. This includes not just wages and benefits, but also all the personnel-related administrative costs. I'm willing to bet that this last category is much smaller for Honda, Toyota, etc. than for the (formerly) Big Three.

Aaron wrote:Now you're showing your ignorance Frank.

Yeah, but you started it.

You can't undo a process that's already started and you know that.

"The process" of bailing out GM has not started.

Your comparison would be, after the patients already been cut open to do by pass and had his veins removed, the doctor decides all the patient really needed was medicine and exercise so he walks away and does nothing else.

Oh what drama! A better analogy would be that we shouldn't offer patients deca-billion dollar operations when they are taking their last breaths.

The economy is on the table with its chest wide open. It’s a little late to take the correct actions now.

It's that kind of ass-backward "thinking" that got us bogged down in Vietnam, and now Iraq, and now in proping up failed Wall Steeet enterprises.

It is never too late to do the right things.

We either believe in socialism, or we don't. You can believe that government bail-outs of failing private enterprises is OK if you want to. But if that is what you favor, then quit whining about how evil "socialism" and "socialists" are.

You're showing either your stupidity or your deceitfulness now Frank, I’m not sure which.

You're either so stupid you don't remember that along with Stephanie and Jimmy, I was vehemently against the bailout or you're a damn liar and trying to classify me as something I'm not, which is it?