Prev: {BS} How to pass a bill without even trying...
Next: Toyota recalls lawnmowers.
From: jim beam on 16 Mar 2010 00:11
On 03/15/2010 03:39 PM, dr_jeff wrote:
> Ed White wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 4:08 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> GM (and Chrysler) should have been allowed to fail and the retirement
>>> funds
>>> of their workers should have simply been written off into the ether
>>> the way
>>> the stockholder's value was written off. And before any of the Ford
>>> folks
>>> claim otherwise, it is only by the luck of Ford's borrowing cycle
>>> that they
>>> didn't end up in the same bankruptcy situation at the same time. That
>>> automaker, just like the other two, overpays and overbenefits the
>>> workers in
>>> an unsusstainable manner.
>>
>> A few thougts:
>>
>> I think Ford should get a little credit for at least recognizing the
>> situation and taking action before it was too late. Ford never made
>> the big move into mortgages like GM did with GMAC. They unloaedd their
>> profit draining overseas operations (Aston-Martin, Jaguar, and Land
>> Rover) while they were still marketable. They lined up afforable long
>> term loans before the bottom fell out, etc. So while the Ford
>> management might not have acted as soon as they should have, they did
>> act before it was too late. Bill Ford actually knew things were in the
>> dump when he fired Nasser, but I think it took him a few years to
>> realize he was in over his head and finally brought in an outside
>> manager that had a clue. Unfortunately for Ford, they have not been
>> able to get the same sort of labor concessions that the UAW has
>> granted GM. I almost wonder if the UAW doesn't want to force Ford into
>> the same sort of process as GM went through.
>>
>> While we can all point at the UAW contracts as excessive, how would
>> you have avoided them? Suppose GM had decided to play hard ball with
>> the UAW when they were making money? What do you suppose would have
>> happened? I doubt that Ford, Toyota, Nissan, etc. would have stopped
>> selling cars in order to help GM get better terms from the UAW.
>>
>> Whenever someone accuses Toyota / Nissan / whoever of not paying their
>> auto workers fare wages, they are usually baragged with multiple posts
>> saying Toyota is paying their workers just as well as GM. I don't
>> think they are. If they aren't then is that good or bad for Americans?
>> Would you rather have more of a car's price go to workers in the US,
>> or Japanese corporations?
>>
>> I think it not quite fair to trash GM for accepting bailout money
>> while ignoring the significant involvement of the Japanese and Korean
>> goverments in support of their automotive industries. I would have
>> allowed GM to go into "normal" bankrupcy instead of handling the
>> failure as was done. I do agree that the GM failure was handled so as
>> to protect the UAW. I also think it was an illlegal siezure of GM by
>> the Government.
>>
>> I thought the UAW managed a retirement fund, so I am not sure that if
>> GM went bankrupt the retirement funds would have been writen off. But
>> if the failure of GM would have ended in a retirement fund cllaspe,
>> the US government would have ended up picking up at least part of the
>> tab.
>>
>> Ed White
>
> There is a federal agency that guarantees the pensions of failed
> companies. If any of the former big 3 fail, the pensions will end up here.
>
> A problem with the Michigan-3 is that the pensions are underfunded.
> There is not enough money in the pension plans to cover the projected
> outlays to pay all the pensions they owe. So, the Michigan-3 are going
> to have to pony up a bunch of money to the pension plans to pay for
> pensions, for both retirees and future retirees. A lot of governments,
> particularly state governments, are in the same creek.
>
> Jeff

but picking up pension obligations is a damned sight cheaper than
continuing to pour billions into the existing bottomless incompetent
money hole. and having that money hole send its jobs to china.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on 16 Mar 2010 00:12
On 03/15/2010 02:46 PM, Conscience wrote:
> On 2010-03-15 13:18:49 -0700, "Obveeus" <Obveeus(a)aol.com> said:
>
>>> Your dictionary is defective. Real conservates would have done
>>> nothing as
>>> described.
>>
>> No 'real conservatives' work in auto manufacturing plants? Really?
>
> No switching gears. I wasn't talking about workers borrowing billions,
> and you know it.
>
> GM should have been allowed to fail. No loans, no bailouts, just
> restructuring.
>

they've already been restructured - and it's cost the tax payer
billions. they should have been killed and liquidated. if anyone
wanted to buy the remnants and start again, fine. i'd even be happy to
loan them the money [via taxes]. but existing management is retarded
and the whole edifice deserves to die.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum
From: Obveeus on 16 Mar 2010 07:14

"Ed White" <ce.white3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3b7b2f2-6b0c-4ed5-843e-b18cf65666fb(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 15, 4:08 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...(a)aol.com> wrote:

>> GM (and Chrysler) should have been allowed to fail and the retirement
>> funds
>> of their workers should have simply been written off into the ether the
>> way
>> the stockholder's value was written off. And before any of the Ford folks
>> claim otherwise, it is only by the luck of Ford's borrowing cycle that
>> they
>> didn't end up in the same bankruptcy situation at the same time. That
>> automaker, just like the other two, overpays and overbenefits the workers
>> in
>> an unsusstainable manner.
>
>A few thougts:
>
>I think Ford should get a little credit for at least recognizing the
>situation and taking action before it was too late. Ford never made
>the big move into mortgages like GM did with GMAC. They unloaedd their
>profit draining overseas operations (Aston-Martin, Jaguar, and Land
>Rover) while they were still marketable. They lined up afforable long
>term loans before the bottom fell out, etc.

You are giving Ford way too much credit. They were an even bigger failure
than GM and Chrysler so they had to restructure and refiniance slightly
sooner. As it turned out, they got lucky and had the opportunity to do so
before the credit markets fell apart. That doesn't make them insightful or
intelligent, it just means they were fortunate in needing money sooner, when
it was still available.

>While we can all point at the UAW contracts as excessive, how would
>you have avoided them? Suppose GM had decided to play hard ball with
>the UAW when they were making money? What do you suppose would have
>happened? I doubt that Ford, Toyota, Nissan, etc. would have stopped
>selling cars in order to help GM get better terms from the UAW.

Ultimately, this is the heart of the problem. The workers (UAW) demand to
be overpaid and overcompensated. The companies are left with the choice to
'play hard ball' and refuse to sign an unsustainable contract (which will
result in loss of market share, long downtime, and ultimately the full
implosion of the company because the workers will not relent to the sizeable
paycuts needed) or the choice to sign whatever the workers (UAW) demand and
end up with an unsustainable mess that will implode at some point in the
future. What we have seen is that the auto companies are taking the cue of
the Federal government and ignoring financial responsiblility now, so that
the people now get more than they deserve...at the sacrifice of the people
in the future.

The airline industry has largely followed the same path. Even with huge
paycuts (much more responsible than the auto industry), the workers are
still pulling down much more in income and benefits than the industry can
sustain. The result is the same...even after each round of 'restructuring',
the brand new financial platform is already leveraging the future away in
order to overindulge now.

>I think it not quite fair to trash GM for accepting bailout money
>while ignoring the significant involvement of the Japanese and Korean
>goverments in support of their automotive industries. I would have
>allowed GM to go into "normal" bankrupcy instead of handling the
>failure as was done. I do agree that the GM failure was handled so as
>to protect the UAW. I also think it was an illlegal siezure of GM by
>the Government.

The lack of available credit pretty much required the government to
intervene in some way (other than simply allowing for regular bankruptcy
process). Otherwise, there likely would have been a complete shutdown for
either GM, Chrysler, or both. As for 'illegal seizure'...that would be the
retirement funds' stock holdings getting an equity stake in the new company
when they should have been treated as unsecured creditors.

>I thought the UAW managed a retirement fund, so I am not sure that if
>GM went bankrupt the retirement funds would have been writen off. But
>if the failure of GM would have ended in a retirement fund cllaspe,
>the US government would have ended up picking up at least part of the
>tab.

That part fot he tab would have been much smaller that what the government
is now strapped with.


From: Ray O on 16 Mar 2010 15:03

"Scott in Florida" <MoveOn(a)Outa.here> wrote in message
news:baivp51f0f2nrmiuo1tt0pe6fqd9ferv5f(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:21:58 -0500, "Ray O"
> <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote:
>
>>I tried the coast over the weekend, and it was closer to 1 block with a 5
>>mph speed reduction, not 2 as I said before., ;-(
>>--
>>
>>Ray O
>>(correct punctuation to reply)
>>
>
> 911? Yes there is a guy coasting on back streets in Chicago. Isn't he
> supposed to be racing?
>
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida
>

LOL, my heavy-footed days are pretty much a thing of the past.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: {BS} How to pass a bill without even trying...
Next: Toyota recalls lawnmowers.