Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?
3958 messages, Last post on Oct 02, 2009 at 4:52 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: Vinnmar (Jan 12, 2009 11:05 am) As that great American Rambo once said "I didn't start this thing!!".  The fact is that it was our corporate and political leaders who started the demise of U.S. manufacturing thru their policies, about 30 years ago. Globalization has led to much cheaper products but the demise of high-paid union jobs. As for your concerns about where we would make weapons for a war, I don't foresee us ever fighting a war where we'd have a year or so to convert an auto-plant, and then need it to build thousands and thousands of tanks over many years. Why? Technology has made warfare like that obsolete. It's almost as obsolete as marching in formation towards the enemy with a drummer. A couple of bombers carrying anti-armor cluster bombs can destroy an armored brigade within minutes. Sort of silly building 60-ton tanks when a single 5 Lb bomblet (of a hundred in a cluster bomb) can take out an enemy tank. http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb_11.html And if we do need auto factories for something, we'll still have all the Honda, Toyota, Korean, and German factories here on U.S. soil which can be converted. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 12, 2009 1:36 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: Vinnmar (Jan 12, 2009 11:05 am) That was then, this is now, lots of patriotic companies are gone including Willys who made Jeep. I am sure the auto industry benefited from the war too - and they sold lots of cars once the war was over....I don't think they made vehicles completely for patriotic reasons. In the time of WW II it was the auto industry that stopped making cars and started making what the USA needed to win the war. Hummer is still around for awhile. Can't hold onto unprofitable business because they might make products for a war. Next wars will probably be fought with missiles and planes anyway. Buy the way don’t the us autoworkers use the American banks? We all use banks, but companies that can't make a profit can't be subsidized. Why no string for the banks? What did the banks do to help win the war? We need banks or everything shuts down. Also, there isn't any competition to turn to. We absolutely need money, we don't need D3 cars, there are alternatives. We came to this country because it was the land of opportunity but today’s generation has no loyalty to America. I would love to buy American, but the quality has to be at least as good...and it isn't. And, I don't feel like subsidizing the UAW. Fact is, many business's and even car makers have not survived over the years. But, the world goes on. We used to make radios and TVs in the USA and that business has gone to Asia a long time ago.....but we still survived. The best hope is for the D3 to go into Chapter 11, reorganize, become smaller...reduce the number of models and concentrate on making them the best in their field, close down dealers, get a new work force that is not unionized. If we keep subsidizing the D3 there is no incentive to change and even now the UAW won't give concessions. Many plants close down because the unions are unreasonable in their demands. Cost of labor is 10% of the cost of the car, so I would rather that extra money that the labor costs go into giving me more car for my money.....I kind of resent paying someone for else's pension and benefits if I don't have to.
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 12, 2009 1:36 pm) Good point. I was thinking of the exact same thing as I was leaving work today, which BTW is Lockheed Martin, the largest aerospace company and largest defense contractor. All of their planes, bombs, satellites, etc, are in fact made in the good old USofA. And I believe the latest Nemitz class carrier the USS George H Bush was also built here. So needing the auto plants here on our soil owned by heritage American companies in case we need to convert them over to war machines is an idiotic argument. Would anyone in their right mind really want to be on a plane made by a UAW worker?
|
|
|
Replying to: driver100 (Jan 12, 2009 2:05 pm) Fyi, Willys was folded into American Motors, which was bought by Chrysler. So in essence, good old Willys is still alive. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: driver100 (Jan 12, 2009 2:05 pm) boy, are you stuck in the 50's. "I would love to buy American" you live in canada and there are a fair percentage of people in your province that work building vehicles or vehicle components for the D3. now i think you are stuck in the 40's.
|
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Jan 12, 2009 4:19 pm) Correct, but if they can't compete then I won't buy their cars, whether they are American or Canadian built. I have worked for companies that went under and they weren't subsidized. I'll buy the best car I can afford and if it's made in Canada or the USA fantastic (I love the U.S. - worked for an American company for 16 years), but so far that isn't happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: driver100 (Jan 12, 2009 6:53 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: mikefm58 (Jan 12, 2009 2:56 pm) I sure would not want to. They cannot even build a decent small car. The UAW work rules would probably allow them to go on strike if they had to build tanks. The Anti-war sentiment within the rank and file UAW would probably cause US to lose any war we depended on them to supply. Let em dig out or their own hole or just die. Tomorrow's wars will be fought with armed drones controlled from a work station in Silicon Valley. They are currently flying all over Iraq and Afghanistan ready to strike an enemy target. This stuff is so far past anything that GM builds, they would be at a loss. Quite frankly, I would not want to be a soldier out in the field waiting on equipment from a UAW company. They would for some political reason decide to strike and leave the troops hanging. Vinmar, this is not the same UAW patriots we had during WW2 or even the Korean conflict.
|
|
The continued thought process of "too big to fail." Whether it is financial services, AUTOS, transportation, etc., the "top-down" approach of providing more and more taxpayer dollars to weak corporations is ill-advised. In my opinion, if you're using taxpayer dollars, then either nationalize the company or let it fail. And, if you nationalize the company then wipe out the bond holders and shareholders, replace the management and board, sell the good assets to qualified buyers, and then and only then, have the taxpayers eat the remaining deficit. With the current "bailout system" we are merely trying to sustain the status quo, which penalizes those business institutions that did not make bad decisions while at the same time rewarding poorly managed institutions by handing them taxpayer money. Until you put the stimulus money back in the hands of the private sector (i.e., the individual) you're fighting today's housing/mortgage fires with a garden hose. The bailout funds need to be distributed to the homeowners, not the D3, banking and lending institutions. Banks currently taking the government TARP money (our tax money) are adding it as capital to their balance sheets and then sitting on the funds in anticipation of further losses, rather than lending back into the system. Obama should follow the laws of nature: if you have a herd of animals and some become sick, get rid of the sick. Why continue sustaining the sick animals that will eventually die anyway and at the same time risk the entire herd? A prime example of propping up the status quo occurred in December of this year when Treasury Secretary Paulsen made the unilateral decision to guarantee $306 billion of CitiGroup's assets. The guarantee was in addition to the $25 billion Citi had already received in TARP funding. The $306 billion "guarantee" was not part of TARP and was extended without Congressional approval! $306 billion is equal to what our government spent in 2007 for the departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation combined. (The Economist) Unfortunately, the only money makers to come out of TARP and the proposed stimulus bill, in my opinion, will be the lobbyists, the legislators (imagine, with our taxpayer money, the campaign contributions to be received!), and a few "selected" legal, accounting, and infrastructure firms. 
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?
