| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2008 12:59:01 PM · #26 |
I saw it on the Today Show this morning and just now found it here.
here
oops, 61,000, not 610,000 employees.
$6 million (similar to that of Goldman and Stanley)... not $60 million.
But still....... |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:24:32 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by cynthiann:
I saw it on the Today Show this morning and just now found it here.
here
oops, 61,000, not 610,000 employees.
$6 million (similar to that of Goldman and Stanley)... not $60 million.
But still....... |
[quote]In Zurich, protesters blocked UBS's private-banking branch on the Paradeplatz last week to seek curbs on executive pay after Switzerland's largest bank was forced to ask for government aid.
"I'm just flabbergasted that the financial community has failed to show any sense of leadership on this issue and doesn't seem to understand how angry people are at them," said Nell Minow of Corporate Library, a corporate-governance research company. "They are just a bonus away from having the villagers come after them with torches."[/quote]
Look Art, customers.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:30:18 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by cynthiann:
If we are going to bail these guys out, which I don't think we should have, shouldn't there at least be some sort of regulations or some kind of authority or some sort of education or SOMETHING. Are we really just GIVING them money to screw with all over again. |
Those companies set aside a certain percentage of revenue for bonuses by default, and the employees expect it as part of their compensation, However, the shattered value of their existing holdings (as opposed to revenue) is a new development that throws a monkey wrench into the works. Just because they set aside that amount does NOT mean they will actually pay out those bonuses, and I suspect the money will be repurposed. If the execs are foolish enough to actually pay it out, then they will richly deserve the torches and pitchforks that follow. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 01:54:11 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by cynthiann:
I saw it on the Today Show this morning and just now found it here.
here
oops, 61,000, not 610,000 employees.
$6 million (similar to that of Goldman and Stanley)... not $60 million.
But still....... |
No, your math is still wrong. 61,000 employees at $110,000 is $6.7 Billion not million.
The $6.7 Billion is the correct number. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 02:10:28 PM · #30 |
| LOL, and I work in a Mathematics Department. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 02:36:47 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by cynthiann:
LOL, and I work in a Mathematics Department. |
Its ok. I blame computers when I cant do it right myself. Growing up, we were much better at pen and paper math:-)
|
|
|
|
10/30/2008 12:04:29 PM · #32 |
Big bailout
Thought our current bailout was large? Try this one on for size. Longish read... |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 02:59:21 PM · #33 |
Its there. Want to avoid it? Spend more money this holiday season.
Lets pay for the mistakes and negligence of the best financial managers and lobbyists and executives and the congress.
Or we can remember what the founding fathers meant by liberty and justice as much as the emphasis on prudence and thrift, and spend wisely. |
|
|
|
11/10/2008 01:23:05 PM · #34 |
What about the auto industry? Should we bail them out too? Or maybe we should just buy vehicles from them. GM has 30 models that get > 30mpg and has over 3 million E-85 vehicles on the road. In my area it was selling for 1.69/gal last weekend. Besides being US industrial icons, what does Ford, Chrysler and GM do for us anyway?
"[i]No other U.S. industry generates more employment, annual economic output, exports, R&D investment, or retail business than the U.S. auto industry. Proof points:
o Directly employs nearly a quarter of a million people;
o Supports another 5 million Americans at dealerships, parts suppliers and service providers;
o Has invested nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars in U.S. over last two decades, including $10 billion alone last year;
o Spends $12 billion annually in R&D in U.S., which exceeds aerospace, medical equipment and communications industries;
o Purchased $156 billion in U.S. auto parts supporting jobs in all 50 states and is the largest purchaser of U.S. steel, aluminum, iron, copper, plastics, rubber and electronic and computer chips;
o Provides healthcare benefits to two million Americans and supports nearly 800,000 retirees and spouses with pension benefits. [/i]"
"The U.S. credit freeze and closed capital markets are resulting in a severe liquidity squeeze, at a time when manufacturers̢۪ cash flow from operations are devastated by plummeting consumer demand. The U.S. auto industry is a vital part of the economy and many in the U.S. government have acknowledged the important role of the industry in the national economy."
So - buy a Chrysler, Ford or GM vehicle and help keep the largest industrial employers in business. It is good for everyone. Or maybe not.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2008 01:35:38 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Flash:
What about the auto industry? Should we bail them out too? Or maybe we should just buy vehicles from them. GM has 30 models that get > 30mpg and has over 3 million E-85 vehicles on the road. In my area it was selling for 1.69/gal last weekend. Besides being US industrial icons, what does Ford, Chrysler and GM do for us anyway?
"[i]No other U.S. industry generates more employment, annual economic output, exports, R&D investment, or retail business than the U.S. auto industry. Proof points:
o Directly employs nearly a quarter of a million people;
o Supports another 5 million Americans at dealerships, parts suppliers and service providers;
o Has invested nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars in U.S. over last two decades, including $10 billion alone last year;
o Spends $12 billion annually in R&D in U.S., which exceeds aerospace, medical equipment and communications industries;
o Purchased $156 billion in U.S. auto parts supporting jobs in all 50 states and is the largest purchaser of U.S. steel, aluminum, iron, copper, plastics, rubber and electronic and computer chips;
o Provides healthcare benefits to two million Americans and supports nearly 800,000 retirees and spouses with pension benefits. [/i]"
"The U.S. credit freeze and closed capital markets are resulting in a severe liquidity squeeze, at a time when manufacturers̢۪ cash flow from operations are devastated by plummeting consumer demand. The U.S. auto industry is a vital part of the economy and many in the U.S. government have acknowledged the important role of the industry in the national economy."
So - buy a Chrysler, Ford or GM vehicle and help keep the largest industrial employers in business. It is good for everyone. Or maybe not. |
If they build vehicles that are more reliable than their competitors then by all means, buy American. But don't just buy American just because it's American.
There are some compact car models made by the big three which hold their own against the imports but there are some that are garbage. |
|
|
|
11/10/2008 02:19:46 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Flash:
So - buy a Chrysler, Ford or GM vehicle and help keep the largest industrial employers in business. It is good for everyone. Or maybe not. |
To support the US auto industry, I'm buying a Mazda. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 09:38:38 AM · #37 |
CAR report
ETA: kind of places into perspective the cost of buying that Toyota or Nissan or Honda or BMW or Mercerdes or....but as one that believes strongly in choice, I feel it is imperative that each has the option. In this case, it appears that choosing to buy from other than the "Big 3", has a significant impact on the US at large.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 09:42:41. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 09:54:57 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Flash:
CAR report
ETA: kind of places into perspective the cost of buying that Toyota or Nissan or Honda or BMW or Mercerdes or....but as one that believes strongly in choice, I feel it is imperative that each has the option. In this case, it appears that choosing to buy from other than the "Big 3", has a significant impact on the US at large. |
FYI, theyr're no longer "The Big Three", they are now called "The Detroit Three". |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 12:08:20 PM · #39 |
The big 3 US auto manufacturers failed. Not only did they close plants in the US and open them in Mexico to make more profit, but they made inferior vehicles.
They lost the battle of capitalism, competition.
If they get a bailout, I want one too for my failed business.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 12:15:54 PM · #40 |
better bailout than fallout...
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 12:17:39 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The big 3 US auto manufacturers failed. Not only did they close plants in the US and open them in Mexico to make more profit, but they made inferior vehicles.
They lost the battle of capitalism, competition.
If they get a bailout, I want one too for my failed business. |
Do you feel the right/correct thing to do is refuse them assistance? If so, please mention why? Additionally please include the impact on the millions of people associated with that industry that are not directly employed by Chrysler, Ford or GM.
I simply want to get this straight - why you feel it is important to refrain from any help. Also, can you support your claim of inferior vehicles? Are you referencing quality? cost? amenities? performance? milage? design? And whose/what standards are you saying are/is superior?
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 12:21:00. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 02:06:10 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Do you feel the right/correct thing to do is refuse them assistance? If so, please mention why? |
Do you feel the correct thing is to reward them for following a strategy based on building the biggest cars they could sell, in the face of all the economic evidence?
Do you feel the right thing to do is to help them out given they've had 30 years to sort out their business model?
If so, please feel free to explain why they should be rewarded for bad choices, when you've been so vocal about not supporting others who make bad choices. There's nothing to indicate that they have any real plans to change going forward, either. Still arguing global warming is a hoax. Still following a 'all we need is more gas and oil' mantra.
Give them money, watch they go broke again in a few years. What would be the point? Car sales are supposed to fall by about 4 million cars next year - if there isn't a market for their product, there isn't a market for their product. Yet some other companies are still showing profits.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 14:09:57. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:17:18 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
Do you feel the right/correct thing to do is refuse them assistance? If so, please mention why? |
Do you feel the correct thing is to reward them for following a strategy based on building the biggest cars they could sell, in the face of all the economic evidence?
Do you feel the right thing to do is to help them out given they've had 30 years to sort out their business model?
If so, please feel free to explain why they should be rewarded for bad choices, when you've been so vocal about not supporting others who make bad choices. There's nothing to indicate that they have any real plans to change going forward, either. Still arguing global warming is a hoax. Still following a 'all we need is more gas and oil' mantra.
Give them money, watch they go broke again in a few years. What would be the point? Car sales are supposed to fall by about 4 million cars next year - if there isn't a market for their product, there isn't a market for their product. Yet some other companies are still showing profits. |
So as to not presume to know your position (as you are a tricky one) - do you support helping them or not? If not - feel free to explain why - or did you do that above? Their business model as you put it to build the largest cars they could sell, bad choices, no real plans, etc etc etc. For those that require proof of positions please tell me about their poor quality, poor mpg ratings, poor fit and finish, substandard warranty, etc. Please feel free to do a side by side comparison of their competition on operating costs, and supporting structure. Please include such indicators like JD Power and Harbor. Please justify why one should purchase a vehicle from a manufacturer where the profits go to another country and opposed to purchasing from a domestic where the profits are used here. Why do the east and west coast purchase so many vehicles from non-union manufacturers then vote blue? Why does the UAW so staunchly march with the democrats when the coasts continue to support non-union auto companies? Just wondering as I suspect some posters here enjoy the UAW supporting their political tickets but don't want to return the support when it comes time to purchase a vehicle. If we bought vehicles from Chrysler, Ford, and GM, then they wouldn't need any help - would they? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:50:03 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Flash:
For those that require proof of positions please tell me about their poor quality, poor mpg ratings, poor fit and finish, substandard warranty, etc. Please feel free to do a side by side comparison of their competition on operating costs, and supporting structure. Please include such indicators like JD Power and Harbor. |
Hasn't the marketplace already done that? Or are people maliciously not buying American cars to make a political point?
Originally posted by Flash:
Please justify why one should purchase a vehicle from a manufacturer where the profits go to another country and opposed to purchasing from a domestic where the profits are used here. |
I suppose it would make sense if you supported the US implementing something of a Communist protectionist marketplace for cars.
Originally posted by Flash:
Why do the east and west coast purchase so many vehicles from non-union manufacturers then vote blue? Why does the UAW so staunchly march with the democrats when the coasts continue to support non-union auto companies? |
Maybe the car purchases are made based on merit and marketing, rather than political motivations?
Originally posted by Flash:
If we bought vehicles from Chrysler, Ford, and GM, then they wouldn't need any help - would they? |
No they wouldn't. Nor would they need help if they were making desirable cars in a cost effective way - would they? The market shifted in 1973 with the oil crisis. The fact that the US automakers didn't manage to take advantage of a 35 year advance warning doesn't bode well for bailing them out for another couple of years.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 15:52:59. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 04:31:48 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The big 3 US auto manufacturers failed. Not only did they close plants in the US and open them in Mexico to make more profit, but they made inferior vehicles.
They lost the battle of capitalism, competition.
If they get a bailout, I want one too for my failed business. |
Do you feel the right/correct thing to do is refuse them assistance? If so, please mention why? Additionally please include the impact on the millions of people associated with that industry that are not directly employed by Chrysler, Ford or GM. |
Sorry, but why should I suffer a vehicle that doesn't meet my needs simply because it was produced by a domestic car company? The company hasn't addressed my voice as a consumer, why should I reward them with my business. Why should they be rewarded for myopic business strategies that have failed?
Originally posted by Flash:
Also, can you support your claim of inferior vehicles? Are you referencing quality? cost? amenities? performance? milage? design? And whose/what standards are you saying are/is superior? |
Quality - American cars are lacking. While it's true that some foreign manufacturers lack as well, the leaders are all foreign. The Japanese specifically have been working on quality since the mid '50's when they embraced Joseph Juran. The US didn't even start taking quality seriously until 30 years later.
Cost - Domestic cars are less expensive initially, however, their lack of quality makes them more expensive in the long run.
Amenities - This is probably a wash for me though I will say that Japanese and European car possess better ergonomics and are quieter.
Performance - The old saw, "There's no substitute for cubic inches." has been taken too far by the US auto companies. There's no need for a family sedan to have 400 HP and go 0-60 in 5sec. With a few exceptions, there's really no need for Hummers, full size pickups or SUV's.
Mileage - American cars suck (see above). They could produce more economical cars in the US, but they don't. If you want examples, look at Ford and Opel in the EU. Ford makes a diesel car for the EU that gets 65mpg, but you can't get one here.
The above reflects my opinion about most domestic vehicles. You can dismiss it as just that, but, unfortunately, lots of people seem to agree with me and since it's an automaker's job to give the customers what they want and the Detroit 3 have had a tin ear for the voice of the consumer for decades... well. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 04:49:51 PM · #46 |
| Rather than arguing about whether or not the auto industry deserves a bailout, perhaps the question should be whether or not we can afford to let such a huge industry go under. Would the auto industry downfall cripple an already receding US economy? If we're talking about who deserves a bailout then we should give $0.00 to any of those financial institutions being bailed out and just let the whole stinking economy go down in flames. At least the bulk of people working for the auto industry are producing tangible goods through honest hard work. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:02:14 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Rather than arguing about whether or not the auto industry deserves a bailout, perhaps the question should be whether or not we can afford to let such a huge industry go under. Would the auto industry downfall cripple an already receding US economy? |
What evidence is there that giving GM enough money for say 2 years of operations would make any difference? They've ignored reality for 35 years already. I suppose you could take them public and run them as a national service or something, as they don't appear to know how to make cars that people want to buy, in a cost effective way. Is there some indication that something would change if the government gives them a few hundred billion dollars? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:08:36 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Rather than arguing about whether or not the auto industry deserves a bailout, perhaps the question should be whether or not we can afford to let such a huge industry go under. |
The question is what do we get out of it? The idea that it's OK for the taxpayers to donate billions to GM but immoral "welfare" to give Food Stamps or other benefits to a hungry family is so laughably hypocritical it's sad ... if we give them money then we get an ownership stake and a share of future profits, and you can have our version of state communism, or else let the free market work. You can't have a "free market" sytem for the distribution of profits but a socialist system of assigning the debt -- make a choice and stick with it. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:38:51 PM · #49 |
 GeneralE, I actually think the "welfare" of giving people food stamps and other benefits are highly moral. Also, the US has not been a truly free market economy since markets are heavily regulated to hedge the market's benefit for the overall public good. Obviously the regulations either were not good enough or (more likely) were not enforced in the financial markets. Still, the bottom line isn't free market vs. communism. We have to decide what balance might be in the public interest with regard to bailouts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to accept that bailouts might be a bad idea and letting failing industries sink may be better in the long run despite how many millions of additional people will find themselves needing food stamps and the like in the near term. I'm just not convinced yet that the damage of those bailouts will outweigh the damage of millions of people losing their jobs. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 06:00:42 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by JMart:
I'm just not convinced yet that the damage of those bailouts will outweigh the damage of millions of people losing their jobs. |
Me wither, but shouldn't the burden of the bailout be weighted towards those who have disproportionately benefited from these companies?
In order to get Food Stamps you essentially have to wipe out your savings/assets -- your car can't be over a certain value, etc. How about making a condition of receiving Federal aid that those CEOs have to first place all of their assets over, say the $5 million "McCain line (so they'll still be "rich"), into their companies ("matching funds"), and that they earn only the Federal minimum wage they pay their gofers until the Treasury is repaid in full ... |
|
