You Know....

by Americanadian Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:02 am

I'm beginning to seriously believe that America shouldn't bail out corporate entities. Prolonging the inevitable failure of some big businesses that had a decision in charting their own destiny and saddling the populace with the debt isn't exactly a frugal decision.

Is anyone here knowledgeable about the details of the Stimulus to GM and Chrysler for example? If a company receives a "bailout" and still declares bankruptcy in six months or a year, what is the guarantee for the taxpayers?

by **Peregrine(Endangered)** Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:19 am

I hate to say it but you are right..just can't keep throwing money at GM and Chrysler...let them declare bankrupcty. They will either survive or fade into the night...its just sad because who would imagine GM failing so bad...afterall they were "A piece of the American Pie"

by Susan aka CV Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:53 am

Americanadian wrote:I'm beginning to seriously believe that America shouldn't bail out corporate entities. Prolonging the inevitable failure of some big businesses that had a decision in charting their own destiny and saddling the populace with the debt isn't exactly a frugal decision.

Is anyone here knowledgeable about the details of the Stimulus to GM and Chrysler for example? If a company receives a "bailout" and still declares bankruptcy in six months or a year, what is the guarantee for the taxpayers?

hi ac. being that my dad (deceased) retired from chrysler, and my mom receives his pension, i'm probably not the most objective person to respond to your thread - but here's my understanding on this topic:

to answer your question, there are no guarantees for taxpayers - but the government knew that when it got involved. if chrysler files bankruptcy, it will be for restructuring rather than liquidation. it's a very lengthy process, and with this country on a massive downward spiral, the bailout was an emergency lifeline to give chrysler (and gm) some time to get their ducks in a row and determine what their next move would be. my understanding is that March 31 is the next deadline for the automakers to have their shit together and decide if they are filing bankruptcy or not.

personally, i expect obama to give them more money if bankruptcy enters the picture, and here is why:

taxpayers are on the hook either way. if the automakers file bankruptcy, the money we have already forked out will NEVER be seen. on top of that, there will be MILLIONS of people laid off through the process, resulting in more astronomical unemployment claims; and on top of that, the government (taxpayers) will become responsible for billions of dollars in pensions that will have to be paid to people like my mom through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

i think the the question is;

taxpayers pay either way, so which makes more sense... bailouts or bankruptcy?

i think the bailouts are the better choice. at least with them, there is a CHANCE, no matter how slim, that the money will be paid back. plus, i think the idea of seeing millions more people laid off is something an already fragile american psyche doesn't need right now.

imo, the auto bailouts are the only package where there's an actual PRODUCT that may be available at the end of the line. vehicles are something we can SEE with our own eyes, ya know? unlike the bank bailouts - where there's nothing tangible and no one even seems to know where the money went!

again, i may be a little biased here.. Smile

CV

by Americanadian Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:06 am

No, not at all CV. That was a good, well rounded response. I do understand your point and I can see the logic of preventing massive job losses in the interim. However, I believe the auto industry has saturated the market with an over abundance of vehicles. There's simply too many vehicles for the amount of people. Not everyone is like me with more than half a dozen, LOL.

The domestic vehicles do not compare well with the foreign competitors and I don't think people should lose 30% just for driving a Big 3 vehicle off the lot. Honda or Toyota certainly don't depreciate that severe. The Big 3 should either lower their prices to reflect reality or start trimming the fat from its inflated exec pay scale and private jets expenses.

Despite the negative aspects, I still drive GM predominantly, and will continue to do so, most likely. I won't buy brand new because of the depreciation factor, and I may just try a newer Honda in the near future. I do want that Dodge Challenger though...

by Big Slick Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:25 pm

I'm of the opinion and have been before all the bailout started that the govt should not bail a comapany out. If a company has run inefficiently to the point where they are failing then they need to fail. Giving them money does not make them change their inefficient ways.

Part of the reason the auto companies are failing is because of the labor unions. They have strong armed their way to create high labor costs and pension plans that are great for workers but not so great for the company.

Susan, I think you underestimate the American people. We are a resilient bunch and we can handle a lot more than given credit for. Layoffs would certainly hurt a lot of people if the Big 3 were to fail, but the ecomomy would be fine. The workforce will always find jobs, they might have to change the industry they work in, but they'll find work. You end up with a shift in the workforce but it all balances out.

What is dangerous is when the government artificially props up weak companies to the point where they burst. It's like repairing a leaking dam with bubble gum. The gum can only stand so much and eventually the dam bursts under its own weight.

That's what's happening right now with all the bailouts. It's not a good thing.

by **Grim17** Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:39 pm

Americanadian wrote:I'm beginning to seriously believe that America shouldn't bail out corporate entities. Prolonging the inevitable failure of some big businesses that had a decision in charting their own destiny and saddling the populace with the debt isn't exactly a frugal decision.

I have to admit something here.

I bought into what president Bush and so many economists said months ago, that we couldn't allow the banks to fail, because they were the key to our entire economy. I had supported the bank bailouts and was against all the rest, but now I believe I was wrong. I now believe that there should not be any bailouts period.

I think bailouts are nothing more than an opportunity for the government to control business in America. It's like throwing money into bottomless pit that we will never see again. Let them stand or fall on their own merits, and we as a country will deal with the repercussions.

by **Peregrine(Endangered)** Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:09 pm

Grim17 wrote:
Americanadian wrote:I'm beginning to seriously believe that America shouldn't bail out corporate entities. Prolonging the inevitable failure of some big businesses that had a decision in charting their own destiny and saddling the populace with the debt isn't exactly a frugal decision.

I have to admit something here.

I bought into what president Bush and so many economists said months ago, that we couldn't allow the banks to fail, because they were the key to our entire economy. I had supported the bank bailouts and was against all the rest, but now I believe I was wrong. I now believe that there should not be any bailouts period.

I think bailouts are nothing more than an opportunity for the government to control business in America. It's like throwing money into bottomless pit that we will never see again. Let them stand or fall on their own merits, and we as a country will deal with the repercussions.

I felt the same way about bailouts...but as events kept unfolding...I gradually changed my mind...I hate the idea of GM going bankrupt(they were a piece of the American Pie) and I've never owned a chevy...I now believe we have to let them and the failed companies go...they will either restructure and come back healthly or they will be dust in the wind...

by **PaulM** Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:39 pm

Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:
Grim17 wrote:
Americanadian wrote:I'm beginning to seriously believe that America shouldn't bail out corporate entities. Prolonging the inevitable failure of some big businesses that had a decision in charting their own destiny and saddling the populace with the debt isn't exactly a frugal decision.

I have to admit something here.

I bought into what president Bush and so many economists said months ago, that we couldn't allow the banks to fail, because they were the key to our entire economy. I had supported the bank bailouts and was against all the rest, but now I believe I was wrong. I now believe that there should not be any bailouts period.

I think bailouts are nothing more than an opportunity for the government to control business in America. It's like throwing money into bottomless pit that we will never see again. Let them stand or fall on their own merits, and we as a country will deal with the repercussions.

I felt the same way about bailouts...but as events kept unfolding...I gradually changed my mind...I hate the idea of GM going bankrupt(they were a piece of the American Pie) and I've never owned a chevy...I now believe we have to let them and the failed companies go...they will either restructure and come back healthly or they will be dust in the wind...

...and that IS the American way.

by **Kazza** Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:46 pm

Grim17 wrote:
Americanadian wrote:I'm beginning to seriously believe that America shouldn't bail out corporate entities. Prolonging the inevitable failure of some big businesses that had a decision in charting their own destiny and saddling the populace with the debt isn't exactly a frugal decision.

I have to admit something here.

I bought into what president Bush and so many economists said months ago, that we couldn't allow the banks to fail, because they were the key to our entire economy. I had supported the bank bailouts and was against all the rest, but now I believe I was wrong. I now believe that there should not be any bailouts period.

I think bailouts are nothing more than an opportunity for the government to control business in America. It's like throwing money into bottomless pit that we will never see again. Let them stand or fall on their own merits, and we as a country will deal with the repercussions.

I'm unsure as to this, I'm not enough of an economist to know what's right or wrong. I do know that all theories are based on certain assumptions, and the theory that a free market results in the most efficient distribution of goods is based on the assumption that no entity can affect the market.

In other words, the collapse of one bank will not affect the financial market, the collapse of one auto maker will not affect the labour market, letting a financial giant fall will not affect the rest of the economy etc..

Obviously this isn't the case. Corporations have grown far beyond the point where the basic free market philosophy applies. In principle, I agree with what you wrote entirely - let them fail and let someone else rise up in their place. In practice, though, I don't know what the right thing to do is.

On the other hand, while I may not know the right thing do, I'm pretty damn sure that propping them up indefinitely is not it.

by Sir Bonvolio Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:09 pm

Is the economy not akin to the cyclic universe?

by **Kazza** Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:11 pm

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Is the economy not akin to the cyclic universe?

Nah, not really, besides from the fact that it cycles. But there are other processes in physics that closely resemble the economy. There's actually a branch of research called 'econophysics', which takes some of the mathematical tools from physics and applies them to economics.

by Sir Bonvolio Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:18 pm

I just jointly showed off my knowledge of physics and the American economy. Suspect

Econophysics sounds interesting though.

by **JReed** Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:35 pm

A little about my background.
I have a Bachelors in business administration as well as a masters. My focus has been information technology, and have moved up the ladder fairly steadily. I was a programmer, moved to senior levels, became a progam lead, became a project manager, then program manager and am now in full fledged management. I am also an entrepeneur and an investor (real estate and stocks). I don't say that to "prove" I'm correct, but rather to give everyone a little insight into how I came to my opinion.

Bad businesses need to go bankrupt...period. This is the US...FREE MARKET. That concept is what we're based on. It it were Microsoft failing, there wouldn't even be a discussion.

There is always someone waiting to take over. Even if you are the very best in the world, there is always someone hungrier that is working harder and willing to do more to be successful. It's the same way in sports. Sure, once in a great while a prodigy is born, ala Tiger Woods or Michael Phelps. But the are the exception, not the rule.

Those automotive plants have real value. Sure GM and the other guys may go bust. But there is an entrepeneur waiting to take those plants and start running a good company. They will be willing to hire those experienced workers...hopefully without the union.

That is the nature of the market. It goes up, it goes down. Bad companies fail and their competitors take over. It is as mother nature intended...the weak get eaten by the strong. It's human nature too.

Sure we can prop those companies up for now...but the fundemental problems still exist. The union is still there causing huge problems and the management team is incompetent. As a result they have a fat lazy incompetent work force and a bunch of managers that haven't a clue on how to run a successful business. It's a really bad combination!! So while they may get propped up for a little while, they'll be gone soon no matter what we do. All we're doing is throwing money away...right to the executives.

I know there is a psychological component to all this. It's the same with investing in stocks...some people just have a hard time letting go. They see their stock going down and think they have to keep it...when they could save themselves quite a bit...and invest in something better, faster. Instead they keep the stock praying it will go back up. It is difficult to make the tough decisions and cut something loose. The stocks and/or companies feel like they are part of us. It feels like we're all a failure for letting them fail because they are part of America.

But let me assure everyone...the time for tough decisions is now. Propping them us only prolongs the pain. And then we start on a slippery slope...who's next? The airlines? perhaps the railroad industry? Maybe trucking companies? Where do we draw the line?

After the wildfire purges the forest, new life always takes its place.

It is time to let go.

by Susan aka CV Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:00 pm

Americanadian wrote:I do want that Dodge Challenger though...

i hear ya ac:

You Know.... 22_ext_photo_gal_chal_09

by **box86rowh** Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:01 pm

Susan aka CV wrote:
Americanadian wrote:I do want that Dodge Challenger though...
i hear ya ac:

That is one Beautiful car! Shocked

by Susan aka CV Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:18 pm

box86rowh wrote:
That is one Beautiful car!

yes box, it most certainly is one beautiful car. Cool

check it out:

http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/challenger/gallery/

CV

by **JReed** Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:54 pm

I'm not disputing the looks. That's one area American cars have excelled at.

Functionality and affordability have certainly suffered.

by Susan aka CV Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:20 am

JReed wrote:I'm not disputing the looks. That's one area American cars have excelled at.

Functionality and affordability have certainly suffered.

this freakin' car is AWESOME jreed! have you seen one up close and personal? omg.. it's HOT! cherry

i think functionality depends on what one wants.. or needs. this is definitely not a 'family car'! but if your desire is to go fast and turn heads?? Cool

affordability?... MSRP starts at $22K - tops out at $32 (hemi) without buyer incentives or employee pricing.

as i said earlier, i'm biased. i've driven chrysler products my entire life, with the exception of a tricked out 1965 Chevy II SS - silver metallic paint; 327-V8; 4 barrel carb; dual exhaust; vertical gate shifter; black leather high back bucket seats; crager mag wheels... damn! i LOVED that car.. lol bounce

all i can is, it will be a very sad day for me if chrysler folds. the company has been a part of my life for as long as i can remember! Crying or Very sad

CV

by Sir Bonvolio Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:38 am

by Big Slick Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:44 am

Sir, yes that is a beutiful car as well, I think you missed the affordability point that was being made.

by Big Slick Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:51 am

JReed wrote:A little about my background.
I have a Bachelors in business administration as well as a masters. My focus has been information technology, and have moved up the ladder fairly steadily. I was a programmer, moved to senior levels, became a progam lead, became a project manager, then program manager and am now in full fledged management. I am also an entrepeneur and an investor (real estate and stocks). I don't say that to "prove" I'm correct, but rather to give everyone a little insight into how I came to my opinion.

Bad businesses need to go bankrupt...period. This is the US...FREE MARKET. That concept is what we're based on. It it were Microsoft failing, there wouldn't even be a discussion.

There is always someone waiting to take over. Even if you are the very best in the world, there is always someone hungrier that is working harder and willing to do more to be successful. It's the same way in sports. Sure, once in a great while a prodigy is born, ala Tiger Woods or Michael Phelps. But the are the exception, not the rule.

Those automotive plants have real value. Sure GM and the other guys may go bust. But there is an entrepeneur waiting to take those plants and start running a good company. They will be willing to hire those experienced workers...hopefully without the union.

That is the nature of the market. It goes up, it goes down. Bad companies fail and their competitors take over. It is as mother nature intended...the weak get eaten by the strong. It's human nature too.

Sure we can prop those companies up for now...but the fundemental problems still exist. The union is still there causing huge problems and the management team is incompetent. As a result they have a fat lazy incompetent work force and a bunch of managers that haven't a clue on how to run a successful business. It's a really bad combination!! So while they may get propped up for a little while, they'll be gone soon no matter what we do. All we're doing is throwing money away...right to the executives.

I know there is a psychological component to all this. It's the same with investing in stocks...some people just have a hard time letting go. They see their stock going down and think they have to keep it...when they could save themselves quite a bit...and invest in something better, faster. Instead they keep the stock praying it will go back up. It is difficult to make the tough decisions and cut something loose. The stocks and/or companies feel like they are part of us. It feels like we're all a failure for letting them fail because they are part of America.

But let me assure everyone...the time for tough decisions is now. Propping them us only prolongs the pain. And then we start on a slippery slope...who's next? The airlines? perhaps the railroad industry? Maybe trucking companies? Where do we draw the line?

After the wildfire purges the forest, new life always takes its place.

It is time to let go.

JR, I just want to say I echo this 100%. My focus of my BBA was Marketing. So I had to study a lot of economics, global finance, and global economics. The economy will always balance out, both domestically and internationally. I was against any bailout from day one. They need to let bad companies fail. Yes, in the short term this will lead to lots of unemployment, however that workforce will find work in other areas of the economy. Bad companies will be replaced with new companies and the economy will continue on. The governent is not doing anything but throwing our money in the toilet.

by Sir Bonvolio Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:44 pm

Big Slick wrote:Sir, yes that is a beutiful car as well, I think you missed the affordability point that was being made.

You can't put a price on beauty!

(I think I rather did, sorry about that)

by Americanadian Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:15 am

Susan aka CV wrote:
Americanadian wrote:I do want that Dodge Challenger though...
i hear ya ac:

Mmmm....I'll take this one in black, like the one I saw the other day.

You Know.... Dodge_challenger_srt_convertible

Black hard top would be fine too.

You Know.... Moparregister-challenger-black

No one beat Dodge during the muscle car era. Not even close. Those were the days. American muscle.

You Know.... 1969DodgeChargerR-TSpecial-sept15c

I'll take one of these with a 440 6 pack under the hood. Twisted Evil

by Americanadian Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:18 am

I honestly believe that the reason no one can truly permit the Big 3 to go under is due to history and sentimentalism. I know it would be a sad day to see the companies that made some of my favorite cars go under. GM, producer of the Corvette goes under. The Corvette is an American icon. I can't imagine it. I wager others feel likewise.

I don't feel that corporate malfeasance should be tolerated either.

What to do... Mad

by Big Slick Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:03 pm

Americanadian wrote:I honestly believe that the reason no one can truly permit the Big 3 to go under is due to history and sentimentalism. I know it would be a sad day to see the companies that made some of my favorite cars go under. GM, producer of the Corvette goes under. The Corvette is an American icon. I can't imagine it. I wager others feel likewise.

I don't feel that corporate malfeasance should be tolerated either.

What to do...

AC, I don't think you would have to worry about any of the icons going away. I would bet if GM went under, Corvette would become an independent brand and still make them, they just wouldn't be under the GM umbrella. That's what I would hope anyway.

And yes Dodge makes a nice little challenger but I've always had a weakness for the Z28. I've owned 3 of them and can't wait to get the new one that just came out.

by Americanadian Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:11 pm

Oh well. The old classics will always be around. That's one positive.

by **JReed** Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:42 pm

This was over on scam.com.

Ron Paul being right...yet again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MshgrVIJF28&feature=player_embedded

by Sponsored content

You Know....

You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....

Re: You Know....