No....I am paying for it...not you.
Our tax $$ may helped build it....but I am paying for it with my $$ now.
So I am therefore paying you back.
....oh, and smile why dont you
No....I am paying for it...not you.
Our tax $$ may helped build it....but I am paying for it with my $$ now.
So I am therefore paying you back.
....oh, and smile why dont you
F
Falcon-A
No....I am paying for it...not you.
Our tax $$ may helped build it....but I am paying for it with my $$ now.
So I am therefore paying you back.
....oh, and smile why dont you
I smile all day
I just don't smile when I disagree with your purchase.
While I don't like to see anyone have trouble with something, I'd just like to know how well you like it after a couple years. Feel free to drop me a line.
I made this same deal with a guy I know that bought a brand new Yukon a few years back.
He had a nice list of malfunctions. About the only thing that still was original after 3 years was the paint color.
Good luck sir.
lease:
and of us..how many are lineing up to apply at those wages?
I have to agree with your arguments in general about all government bailouts. Basically the government is rewarding companies for doing a bad job.
This is very true.
So... why doesn't GM ask other governments for bailout help?
What ticks me off is the concept that GM was going to shut their doors and stop selling cars unless we bailed them out. It was just freakin' BANKRUPTCY for cryin' out loud. They have cried "Wolf" so many time it's starting to hurt my ears.
The only thing stopping GM from competing is three words: Pride, Arrogance & Greed.
Too damn proud to read the writing on the wall years ago that holding on to the vaunted "Biggest Automaker in the World" trophy doesn't make you money. Building better cars does. I'd rather be half the size and turn a profit than the biggest on the block and lose billions each year.
Too damn arrogant to think they could turn the company around without downsizing or lopping off deadwood. Too arrogant to think that the buying public would continue to fall for the "10 different models of the same lousy car" crap.
Too greedy to not notice that one out of every three vehicles they sold was an SUV or truck. You NEVER build a product line around a product who's attraction to the buying public is directly related to market forces you CAN'T control. Business 101. GM = Epic Fail.
They did. And they got it.
I don't want to debate GM's product quality. This too easily turns into a "Ford v. Chevy" discussion. I am also not a huge fan of government intervention in the free market...though the free market often needs government intervention. Pure capitalism run amok leads to results like this.
So we're left with two scenarios: 1. Let GM and Chrysler fail 2. Provide assistance in the form of a loan to help them reorganize.
Neither are particularly desirable, and there are risks and rewards for each option.
Let's start with "let the free market decide winners and losers". Sorry GM...sorry Chrysler. You guys over there have made poor decisions and we're not going to provide assistance.
This now leaves GM and Chrysler to face reorganization during a time when consumer confidence is at a low point (not all related to GM and Chrysler products), and more importantly...during a time when Debtor In Posession financing is not available due to locked up credit markets (completely outside the control of GM or Chrysler).
GM & Chrysler fail, as the free market dictates, Ford survives...for now. Note that the reason for failure is in large part due to the inability to secure DIP financing necessary to allow a company to function while making changes in bankruptcy. Ford dodged a bullet for now.
Almost overnight, a huge portion of U.S. manufacturing capacity is wiped out. This capacity in large part allowed us to turn the tide during World War 2 as GM and other automakers were able to quickly shift production from automobiles to weapons.
As a result, our national security is reduced to some degree.
With the closure of GM and Chrysler, hundreds of thousands of workers lose their economic lifeline and become a burden on the federal unemployment insurance system. Many of these laid off workers default on car payments and home mortgages...adding further strain to a banking system on the verge of collapse.
Now we have double the level of bank failures in the country. The FDIC insurance fund which insures all our deposits is wiped out and the government has to step in to add more taxpayer dollars (and dollars borrowed from both U.S. citizens and overseas investors) to the fund in an attempt to stop the widespread panic as depositors around the country begin lining up to withdraw deposits from their local banks.
Now Ford has a problem. They have an assembly line shut down in Dearborn because they are waiting for parts from a subcontractor in Toledo. The free market dictated using "Just in Time" manufacturing techniques to minimize inventory on hand and maximize profits. The problem now is the subcontractor in Toledo also did business with GM and Chrysler. Now that GM and Chrysler can't pay their bills, the subcontractor wasn't able to make payroll last week or purchase raw materials to make product for Ford. The subcontractor has a truckload of axles for Cadillac Sevilles on its dock and asks Ford if they could use them in their F-150's. Ford declines.
These assembly line shutdowns are extremely costly to Ford, and any automaker...so costly that they actually charter small jet aircraft at times to fly to supplier's locations to pick up parts to get the lines moving again. Ford, though no direct fault of its own, suffers as a result of our decision to allow GM and Chrysler to fail. It will take a few months at least to rebuild the supply chain to eliminate the impact of the failures. In the meantime workers at Ford will have to be laid off. The cost to Ford as a result of the GM and Chrysler collapse will be huge.
As a result of a near 20% unemployment rate in the U.S. as a result of our decision to allow GM and Chrysler to fail under free market principles, almost no one is buying new cars from Ford, Toyota, Honda, or any U.S. or global car manufacturer. Ford announces additional reductions to its workforce...proving those who are afraid they might lose their jobs that they were justified in their beliefs.
So the cycle continues.
This is a somewhat simplistic (for sake of time and short internet-age attention spans) description of what could likely have happened had the government not intervened on behalf of GM & Chrysler. Certainly one can find snippets here and there to disagree with, but the overall impact on an already fragile economy during a time of severe credit deflation is the message I'm attempting to communicate.
Now let's examine option #2. The Federal Government steps in with hugely unpopular loan packages (not exactly a "bailout") to give GM & Chrysler time to reorganize. This move may not work in the end, but at a minimum it should delay the failure of GM and/or Chrysler to a point in the future where their collapse may not be simultaneous, and may well be during a time when the overall economy can better absorb the shock of a huge employer (and tax revenue generator) such as GM shutting down.
To avoid inciting panic in the general population, it seems better to have GM fail (if necessary) during a time when the rest of the economy is doing well, not in December 2008.
There certainly is some risk to this path, and you're certainly going to give a lot of ammunition to AM radio and irresponsible cable "news" outlet demagogues, but ultimately a leader who has a bigger picture than the average person on the street must often make decisions that are not popular on the street.
There is also a potentially huge upside to this option...as well as some history. In 1979, Chrysler faced failure and was given help in the form of a loan by the federal government. The result...the loan was paid off in four years and the U.S. taxpayer earned a $350 million profit...a 25% rate of return during that four year period.
Further, tens of thousands of jobs were preserved, as well as a large portion of U.S. manufacturing capability.
Billions of dollars in tax revenues were generated by a recovered Chrysler over the next thirty years.
The unemployment insurance system was spared increased strain during a time of significant economic weakness.
So in closing (if you've read this far I commend you), option 1 or option 2? Both carry significant risk. One seems to carry more upside than the other however.
In a perfect world, the free market system would never fail, and governments would never need to intervene to ensure the survival of businesses and to force them to conduct business in an ethical manner.
Unfortunately ours is not a perfect world, and sometimes life comes down to a choice between the lesser of two evils...no matter how much we don't like our options.
Something to consider...
J'Man
Registered
F=MA, you bring up some great points except of course the below.
"There certainly is some risk to this path, and you're certainly going to give a lot of ammunition to AM radio and irresponsible cable "news" outlet demagogues, but ultimately a leader who has a bigger picture than the average person on the street must often make decisions that are not popular on the street."
Economic advisors to the prez are the ones looking at the bigger pic, not the prez himself. Not trying to start a bash the prez thread, but I couldn't be more disappointed in the "change" he has provided so far. The bailouts had already began under the Bush administration (his advisors) so not an original idea by the Prez. As far as the irresponsible cable news outlet I can only assume your talking about FOX news. Please don't believe everything you hear from the Prez or CNN. I myself try to watch all networks to keep the BS balanced, but I don't blame a news organization for reporting the stories that may be unpopular with this administration.
Anyway, other than that, great write up!
"There certainly is some risk to this path, and you're certainly going to give a lot of ammunition to AM radio and irresponsible cable "news" outlet demagogues, but ultimately a leader who has a bigger picture than the average person on the street must often make decisions that are not popular on the street."
Economic advisors to the prez are the ones looking at the bigger pic, not the prez himself. Not trying to start a bash the prez thread, but I couldn't be more disappointed in the "change" he has provided so far. The bailouts had already began under the Bush administration (his advisors) so not an original idea by the Prez. As far as the irresponsible cable news outlet I can only assume your talking about FOX news. Please don't believe everything you hear from the Prez or CNN. I myself try to watch all networks to keep the BS balanced, but I don't blame a news organization for reporting the stories that may be unpopular with this administration.
Anyway, other than that, great write up!
I smile all day
I just don't smile when I disagree with your purchase.
While I don't like to see anyone have trouble with something, I'd just like to know how well you like it after a couple years. Feel free to drop me a line.
I made this same deal with a guy I know that bought a brand new Yukon a few years back.
He had a nice list of malfunctions. About the only thing that still was original after 3 years was the paint color.
Good luck sir.
My 2000 Silverado had 180,000 miles when I traded it in on my 2006...not 1 problem with it..except it started leaking some water into the cab from a weather seal.
My 2006 Silverado had 108,000 miles when I traded it in on my 2009 and I never had a problem with it....except a squeaky water pump shaft.
All I have ever owned is GM. I have never had any major problems with any. All manufacturers have defects of one kind or another .....some which even call for recalls.
My wifes 2003 trailblazer has 96,000 miles on it and we never have had a problem with it.
I guess I may just be lucky on the ones I get
, but mine have been fine so far.I dont like how all new vehicles have gone to the plastic snap together interiors.
If you can say...what years or engine size are you seeing the head problems? Is it a thin wall concern or over heating? I would think aluminum would warp before it cracks?....unless is is an interior crack from a thin wall in the casting.
Like many others here, I didnt think they should have given any companies $$ without removing the UAW from the scene. They should have just let them reorganize and let the chips fall where they may.
But, then again we can take this debate all the way to welfare, 3rd World country relief, susidies (even the oil companies)....why are we giving people $$ with out any hopes of seeing a return?......I guess sometimes people just need to be helped...but response to the situation should come with stipulations on change for improvement.
....cash fro clunkers...want to guess how many used Toyota Camry's will be on the market in a few months.
F=MA, you bring up some great points except of course the below.
"There certainly is some risk to this path, and you're certainly going to give a lot of ammunition to AM radio and irresponsible cable "news" outlet demagogues, but ultimately a leader who has a bigger picture than the average person on the street must often make decisions that are not popular on the street."
Economic advisors to the prez are the ones looking at the bigger pic, not the prez himself. Not trying to start a bash the prez thread, but I couldn't be more disappointed in the "change" he has provided so far. The bailouts had already began under the Bush administration (his advisors) so not an original idea by the Prez. As far as the irresponsible cable news outlet I can only assume your talking about FOX news. Please don't believe everything you hear from the Prez or CNN. I myself try to watch all networks to keep the BS balanced, but I don't blame a news organization for reporting the stories that may be unpopular with this administration.
Anyway, other than that, great write up!
Thanks, and you're correct. That small portion was included because it seems there's a lot of regurgitation on this thread of simple populist themes that have been repeated over and over by those in the media (on either side) to rile up the consumers of that particular news or entertainment outlet.
There are a number of "newscasters" and talk radio hosts who have made a killing by inciting the masses by tapping into their most basal fears. It was a subtle attempt to promote the value of critical thinking, which you wrote of yourself, that oftentimes seems to be lacking in internetland.
Last edited:
F=MA, great well thought out post. I said i have mixed feelings; the retention of heavy manufacturing capacity in the US has national security implications. And if the company can get leaner better managed it may eventually pay the taxpayer back in more ways than one. The history of if this was a good idea or not has yet to be written
I love my Chevy
+1 i love chevy But would have prefered that it went bankrupt than get gov money.... Company can't be fixed they ran into the ground let them finish burying it.
StromBusa
Registered
If my brothers work at the Ford plant I buy Ford, If my neighbors work at the GM plant, I buy GM, If both are true, I alternate. If your neighbor sells bread, & you go over the mountain to save a nickel on bread, don't expect the neighbor to rush over when your shed catches fire. Therefore: Mercury, Dodge, Pontiac, Chevy, Chevy, Dodge, Ford, Chevy, Chevy, Dodge, Dodge, Chrysler, Ford, Ford, Ford, Oldsmobile, GMC . If I remember correctly. Yes I know my way around the toolbox, but in the big picture, that is probably for the better
F
Falcon-A
Whats wrong with the arguement that if Gm shuts down it will ruin the economy, well hate to break it to you, Gm is a mere shadow of what they once were. I HAVE NEWS FOR YOU IT ALREADY HAPPENED!!
Gm only employs a realitively small work force, while I do not have the exact numbers I assure you its a tiny amount of people compared what they once employed. I saw the numbers its nothing.
So saying Gm going under is going to devistate our economy that just isn't true anymore. Its already over and the majority of the workforce has already been layed off.
What we have left is a managing team, and engineers that desperately need to go!
Again the bailout should have NEVER happened, it just delayed the inevitable.
Gm has time after time over and over continually built nothing but garbage over and over and over for years and years and years.
Motortrend once listed the top ten worst V8s ever made Gm made nine out of ten!
Failure of the company is because of the products they sold period! People are just tired of it. Junk is junk GM= Gigantic Mistake!
The bailout is wrong, it opened a can of worms and now they stand beggin for more yet.
The exectutives all should have been sent to prison, the engineers should have been beat up with a stick for designing that crap.
Gm only employs a realitively small work force, while I do not have the exact numbers I assure you its a tiny amount of people compared what they once employed. I saw the numbers its nothing.
So saying Gm going under is going to devistate our economy that just isn't true anymore. Its already over and the majority of the workforce has already been layed off.
What we have left is a managing team, and engineers that desperately need to go!
Again the bailout should have NEVER happened, it just delayed the inevitable.
Gm has time after time over and over continually built nothing but garbage over and over and over for years and years and years.
Motortrend once listed the top ten worst V8s ever made Gm made nine out of ten!
Failure of the company is because of the products they sold period! People are just tired of it. Junk is junk GM= Gigantic Mistake!
The bailout is wrong, it opened a can of worms and now they stand beggin for more yet.
The exectutives all should have been sent to prison, the engineers should have been beat up with a stick for designing that crap.
if you ask me.
Zoinks!
Registered
Well then we can all be thankful that it's not up to you. Your opinion of the quality of the brand is likely unwarranted. How many GM products have you owned? What were they? How many miles did you own them for? What problems did you have out of them?
You claim to have "seen the numbers" but yet, don't have any clue what they are.
You base your opinion of the brand on an article in a magazine, yet you preach to everyone here not to believe everything you hear (or read). Read that article again and count how many times it says "we think" or "we believe" or "we fee like." They're all opinions.
It's pretty clear that the basis for your entire argument is that your "blood runs blue" and you hate GM. We get it. You've said the same thing in all your posts: "GM has made nothing but garbage for years." Unless you have something new to add, then just stop. We all know your position. We've known it for the past 2 pages. You hate GM, you think they should fail, you think Ford is the golden child who should be praised for it's greatness.
Similar threads
