Counting down the days until the end of General Motors

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Bailouts to me just don't work long term or even short term.

I've been wondering about this too. Are these bailouts really going to help long term or are they just to delay the pain?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I've been wondering about this too. Are these bailouts really going to help long term or are they just to delay the pain?

My thoughts.
The economy is so intertwined and dependent on each other, that to let it go down would be a small catastrophe. So the governments are gambling on it working so there isn't long term pain, and I hope they win.

[ricosuave]

It will be a shame that all these people will lose jobs, but, in the end, it was partially their own doing, and no other industry or workforce would likely see this kind of help given to a private industry, so why this one, why now? it goes against what capitalism is all about!

[Jedi Ninja]

Bailouts for the banks are one thing... it wasn't the loss of a bunch of banking jobs that they were worried about, but, rather, a wholesale collapse of the banking system, which could lead to total economic collapse.

Bailouts for consumer goods producers is a whole other ball game. It will lead to regional unemployment, but from an economic perspective, there is no point producing surplus goods that nobody wants. It is an industry that has needed restructuring for almost 30 year now, and a failure of one of the major carmakers will actually have positive long term economic consequences.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I've been wondering about this too. Are these bailouts really going to help long term or are they just to delay the pain?

Some people seem to think the bailout is just supposed to keep the economy from collapsing. Its not going to help long-term.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

My thoughts.
The economy is so intertwined and dependent on each other, that to let it go down would be a small catastrophe. So the governments are gambling on it working so there isn't long term pain, and I hope they win.

That is a bunch of crap. GM is making stuff people clearly don't want. That, along with poor business practices, AND a slow economy is why they are going under.

So let them go under. We don't need them. Nobody ever said this cycle was going to be easy. Suffer for the short term to fix things for the long term. Simply throwing billions at a company that is going to go under anyways is pointless. And generations down the road our children are going to pay for our government's stupidity.

[Deegee]

Well, we bought a new GM last time around and have been satisfied for the price so far.

Had I been smarter, I probably would have searched a little harder for a quality used vehicle and gotten more bang for my buck, but it's too late now.

If they go under then it's not like the auto industry will completely die off. People are still going to purchase vehicles, it'll just be a different brand.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

Bailouts for the banks are one thing... it wasn't the loss of a bunch of banking jobs that they were worried about, but, rather, a wholesale collapse of the banking system, which could lead to total economic collapse.

Yeah, I'd agree. With insurance and banks, they need the bailout (or nationalize them) to keep from the entire economy from collapsing. GM? I don't see the point. If the issue is with the suppliers and not sinking the entire car industry, then help out the suppliers (not give them money, but help with the transition to kill off GM)

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Yeah, I'd agree. With insurance and banks, they need the bailout (or nationalize them) to keep from the entire economy from collapsing. GM? I don't see the point. If the issue is with the suppliers and not sinking the entire car industry, then help out the suppliers (not give them money, but help with the transition to kill off GM)

Yeah, a huge difference with the banks.....and I would argue about the WAY they are going about bailing them out, not that they actually are.

GM is a different story. I feel bad for all the employees too. But its not fair that taxpayers are going to have to pay their salaries cause they were so greedy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Well, we bought a new GM last time around and have been satisfied for the price so far.

Had I been smarter, I probably would have searched a little harder for a quality used vehicle and gotten more bang for my buck, but it's too late now.

If they go under then it's not like the auto industry will completely die off. People are still going to purchase vehicles, it'll just be a different brand.

Well, they can still make vehicles after they file for bankruptcy....go under, and rebuild everything.

They'll even make better vehicles after that.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, a huge difference with the banks.....and I would argue about the WAY they are going about bailing them out, not that they actually are.

GM is a different story. I feel bad for all the employees too. But its not fair that taxpayers are going to have to pay their salaries cause they were so greedy.

So the blue collar trademens are greedy and deserve to lose their jobs, but the white collar bankers get a pass?

[Deegee]

We are going to have to pay their salary anyways with EI, won't we?

I'm not sure about the exact numbers of exactly how many would be out of jobs, but it'd be interesting to see what kind of effect that would have on the revenue collected through taxes for the government.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

So the blue collar trademens are greedy and deserve to lose their jobs, but the white collar bankers get a pass?

I think that generally, people aren't viewing it that way. Don't forget the ire and scorn the white collar executives at AIG are drawing. The only blue collar people that are taking sh1t here are the bloated union heads that are foolishly helping to kill the cow they get their milk from.

[CrusaderPi]

55% of their salary for a year. Of course, a union man probably made too much and wouldn't qualify for EI. So, no.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

So the blue collar trademens are greedy and deserve to lose their jobs, but the white collar bankers get a pass?

The banking system is more important to our economy than GM is. We can deal with GM going under. We can't deal with our banking system collapsing.

The government is in a position to buy up the toxic debt, and help the banks turn things around. Sure, it might not be fair, and it might cost a lot of money, but what other choice do they have?

Its the 'rest' of the bailout that I don't like. Billions here, billions there. For what?

[browna]

Originally Posted by Azure

That is a bunch of crap. GM is making stuff people clearly don't want. That, along with poor business practices, AND a slow economy is why they are going under.

So let them go under. We don't need them. Nobody ever said this cycle was going to be easy. Suffer for the short term to fix things for the long term. Simply throwing billions at a company that is going to go under anyways is pointless. And generations down the road our children are going to pay for our government's stupidity.

Well, GM still sold 126K vehicles in Feb 2009. That's 30% more than Ford, and 15% or so more than Toyota in the same month...no one holds a gun to those 126K+ people every (and I am sure that Feb 2009 was probably the slowest month in the past couple decade) month.

This has been covered previously, with such large scale production, the Big 3 have the worst union deals of them all, and that factor alone ie 40% more production costs then the Japanese counterparts, are and have handcuffed the companies...with the scale so large, plant closures or retooling takes 6-12 months to work out details to make sure the unions are satisfied.
With large scale production the suppliers that supply Gm with parts will also go under...those same suppliers have a share or the other Big 3 and Japanese sales, and they'll suffer too.

There is no easy or simple fix to the mess.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

So the blue collar trademens are greedy and deserve to lose their jobs, but the white collar bankers get a pass?

That's not really the argument. The argument is that if AIG or Citi completely dies, that will sink the banking system which intertrades, and anyone who uses the banks to manage day to day operations. Its not just a Citi or a BoA that then die, then you start talking about GE, Eaton, Siemens, Petro-Canada, Shell, Schlumberger, Suncor, CNRL, Intel, IBM, RIM, Apple...

[CrusaderPi]

That kind of is the argument. The bankers are more valuable then the trademens to society and 'the system' as a whole so they get the pass. Despite the fact that the bankers are the ones got us into this mess.

It seems foolish to prop up the very people that caused the system to fail. But, I guess they are just too valuable.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

That kind of is the argument. The bankers are more valuable then the trademens to society and 'the system' as a whole so they get the pass. Despite the fact that the bankers are the ones got us into this mess.

It seems foolish to prop up the very people that caused the system to fail. But, I guess they are just too valuable.

Um I think you should read my post again

And GM has been losing money for years now, this isn't a result of a banking crisis.

[CrusaderPi]

I understand you post completely. I more or less agree with it too. Its the perceived value of the bankers compared to the auto worker that pisses me off.

And the banking crises certainly hastened the inevitable demise of the troubled auto makers.