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 Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
4110 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
For questions about how the program works or to discuss program details, please visit our discussion titled, "Cash for Clunkers - Does it Work for You?"
|
Replying to: roland3 (Jul 09, 2009 11:25 am) The Cash for Clunkers - Does it Work for You? discussion is focusing more on the nuts and bolts as to how the program works. There's less politics in that one. |
|
|
GM to exit from bankruptcy today... Immediately it is 'worth' $15-$25 Billion. Hmmmm that sounds like a running headstart on an IPO for next year. Let's see if the value will be increased by next year when the planned IPO is to take place. http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/gm-to-close-sale-of-assets-on-frida- - y/?hp
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Jul 09, 2009 11:00 am) Why is it that bankruptcy for the Big 3 is such an evil word for some? TONS of corporations have gone under -- any reason the Big 3 get special privileges? If the Big 2 went under Ford would get more business, not sure why the government should show favoritism. If they can't compete, they need to go. When they go under people will still need cars. A clever entrepeneur will buy up the GM and Chrysler factories and assets at fire sale prices and the creditors will get some of that. Then that clever entrepeneur will start his own car company. But they will have to compete - not just be propped up by the government. They really will have to produce good cars, clever ideas, their factory workers will have to "survive" on realistic non-Union wages, and their CEO's won't be able to pay themselves ridiculous salaries and wages. Their engineers and designers will have to be clever, capable and good. The infrastructure will still supply no matter who makes the cars. If Honda makes cars and buys up GM's assets then the suppliers will supply to Honda instead of GM. The UAW will simply have to disappear but their former workers will now work for Honda at more competitive wages. Bankruptcy gets rid of the dead weight. It exists for a reason. No special privileges for the auto corporations is a better business decision.
|
|
|
Replying to: maryh3 (Jul 09, 2009 1:33 pm) There is no single black and white, right and wrong standard here. Everything is gray. Simply put the banks and the B2 were too big to fail given the current condition of the economy. As dtownfb noted previously the situation might have been entirely different in 2006 when the economy was booming. Everything is gray. In different circumstances probably Chrysler would have been allowed to be liquidated and Ford and the rest would have benefitted. But saving jobs now in this depression is most important. I agree that BK is the right tool to get rid of the dead weight....just not right now. Everything is gray. It appears that this will all work out for the good as both companies have exited BK court as planned with very good structures and GM at least has a good product lineup available to it. Chrysler is very ??? IMO. We'll see more in the next 18 months but at least both companies have a decent chance of survival. If they can do so then this is good for the nation.....and I compete against both.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: maryh3 (Jul 09, 2009 7:43 am) |
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Jul 09, 2009 11:21 am) Lots of potential losses when your throwing 30 billion + down a bottomless money pit. Potential earnings I am talking about could be: 1) putting that 30 billion into investments that pay dividends and interest 2) using some of that money to start a TRULY new car company that will actually make money and pay taxes on earnings due to being profitable. 3) putting that 30 billion into the stock market. 4) putting that 30 billion into a lottery or Las Vegas Casino. 5) giving it back to the "people" in tax rebates 6) giving it to companies that are successful and profitable so that they can expand and grow and become EVEN more profitable and successful. 7) using it for infrastructure that helps improve everyone's productivity. 8) and the list goes on and on. Saving jobs for some is no better than giving people that already have jobs raises equivalent to those lost jobs. If Jack is making $50/hour and Joe is making 0 dollars an hour, that works out the same as if they were both making $25/hour. It's just too bad so sad if Joe isn't keeping up his end of the bargain in helping to run a company into the ground. If Jack has helped a company succeed, I say give them a bailout RAISE. |
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Jul 09, 2009 1:58 pm) There have been bigger bankruptcies than the Big 2 in the history of the US. Showing favoritism for the UAW based ones is simply wrong again. Here are some that are bigger: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0905/gallery.largest_bankruptcies.fo- - rtune/index.html Saving jobs is just fueling the fire. These companies are sucking more out than they put back. The sooner they fall the sooner someone competent can take over. Delaying the inevitable costs more. Haven't we already seen this?
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Jul 09, 2009 12:06 pm) Bu,t then again, with the government essentially owning GM, I might pass out of spite for the Socialism this represents. |
|
|
Replying to: maryh3 (Jul 09, 2009 2:47 pm) This President is anti Constitution. You are beating your head against a wall trying to talk sense into a died in the wool Liberal. They cannot see past their own little world. You want to see real corruption in Politics look at how the stimulus is being handed out. C4C is peanuts compared to the rest of the $800 billion in vote buying dollars. Billions in aid go to areas that backed Obama in '08 By Brad Heath, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election. That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation. REPORT: Cities missing out on much needed road funds STIMULUS FUNDS: States aren't using money as intended "There's no politics at work when it comes to spending for the recovery," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says. Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college. |
|
|
Replying to: maryh3 (Jul 09, 2009 2:47 pm) You focus on the UAW an easy whipping boy. If it was only the UAW then they might actually have let both companies fail and be liquidated. But there is much much more to the picture here. There are all the suppliers to the B2 and all their jobs. Make the B2 disappear and all those jobs are gone too....at least at this time in these economic conditions. Then there are all the downstream jobs that would be affected. Between the B2 there were nearly 10,000 dealerships in NA. If each one only employed 50 people that's 500,000 jobs you've just made disappear. In this depression it's not very smart economics to kill off ... 100,000 direct automotive jobs 100,000 supplier jobs 500,000 downstream jobs Is this really what you're proposing? You wouldn't last very long in any political office if your ideology is slash and burn..cut them jobs, send 'em all home. But by brilliant efforts both companies will survive to get another chance. If the new companies are lean with little or no debt how do you come to the conclusion that they'd be sucking out more than they put back? If they're making vehicles that people are buying that's the definition of productivity. Why should they fail? |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
