Automakers $25 billion magically turns into $28 billion

[cunclusion]

Ok does anyone understand what will happen if these companies close. In fact did anyone support a bailout of the homeowners back in January when it first happened no. Everyone dragged their feet turned a ant hill into a mountain. If these guys do go down everyone who has a one of thier automobiles, two live near one of their plants, suppliers plants, auto dealerships will get a very bad awakening. The rest of us will be using the tax payer dollars to pay unemployed people instead of trying to keep them employed. When we understand how many would be effect which is practically all of us then we can find a way.

 

[sealybobo]

We're talking $28 billion. We are giving the banks $750 billion. Do you get that? And why instead of letting the big 3 go bankrupt, why don't we make the banks loan the Big 3 the money they need?

And where is your outrage over what the banks are doing with the money we gave them?

You're too busy trying to fuck yourselves by buying into the idea that it's ok to let the Big 3 fail.

That would be great news for Honda & Toyota.

Do you think Honda & Toyota would pay their employees any better if the Big 3 disappeared? Hell no!!! Then they could pay you all less than $15 because the market would be flooded with people who want your job. Supply and demand.

 

[jillian]

I'm sure this comes as a surprise to no one really. The bailout makes no sense because of the following reasons.

1.) The Big Three automobile companies would quickly spend their bailout - it would last until February 2009 and they would be back to square one.

2.) The costs of the Big Three labor wise is approximately $87 to the $47 which is the average cost for foreign companies who operate factories in Detroit. These same companies have lower costs and have 50% of the US car market. Clearly, a bailout would do nothing to reduce costs and the same problems would still exist (high compensation to employees who are members of the labor unions and additionally a failure to innovate).

A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy guided by the Federal Government would be a far better option because it would allow the Big Three to reorganize without being held to many of the stringent rules, conditions, and laws that hinder their reorganization into a successful trio of companies.

Additionally, a bailout to a major companies denies them the incentive to reorganize and become more effective and efficient. By simply asking for a bailout by virtue of their size, they're ensuring that capitalism in a sense fails because capitalism is inherently partially about holding companies in the marketplace to a high standard of efficiency, ability to adapt and innovate, and to remain fiscally productive. Capitalism by ensuring a bailout may pretty much ensure that these companies - with failed business practices, etc - have less incentives to change than they would have otherwise.

1. which is why the loan had better come with some strict controls about how the company comports itself now.

2. The idiots who keep blaming this on labor costs
a) are forgetting that in those other countries, government provides health care; and b) the answer is de-bloating EXECUTIVE wages, not workers.... tell me the CEO's who ran the company into the ground are giving back their fat pensions; their golden parachutes and company-paid benefits and MAYBE we can talk. Although, taking away a living wage from our own workers is a pretty stupid way of doing things, particularly when Henry Ford's point was that his workers should make enough money to actually buy one of the cars they manufactured.

No ONE ... and I mean NO ONE... is going to buy a car from a bankrupt auto maker because there are service and warranty issues to deal with. Treating this like any other restructuring is irrational.

3. You can't ignore the fact that 2.5 million jobs are dependent on the auto industry... it is shortsighted... no make that moronic... to refuse to pay the costs of two months of Bush's war of choice in Iraq, to protect those jobs.

 

[Munin]

Come on, give em a chance. They all drove to Washington in hybrids, they're showing us they CARE!

They care about WHAT?
- Their stocks?
- Their image?

I can tell you one thing they don't care about: Americans & American workers, how many American Jobs have been shipped abroad? And now the people who lost their job to this selfish company would have to pay that company to save its ass? Is just disgusting.

I think the "founder" of the US car-industry would turn over in his grave if he knew how his company was treating the American workers (replacing them like they were just tools for cheaper tools). The way Henry Ford was treating his employers good by letting them be the first to have such high wages and even allowing them to be able to buy the cars they produced (something that was really new in that time): You call it "the word" that is so frightening to many Americans when they hear it, what was the word again? ... Ah yes, SOCIALSISM!!! Wich doesn't mean he was a communist, or do you think he was?

 

[editec]

1. which is why the loan had better come with some strict controls about how the company comports itself now.

Of course...like we didn't do to the banks which got 28 (or 56. depending on what you're counting) times as much money and employ about 150th the number of workers.

2. The idiots who keep blaming this on labor costs
a) are forgetting that in those other countries, government provides health care;

Which makes ALL the difference to the bottom line, but they refuse to acknowledge that, too.

and b) the answer is de-bloating EXECUTIVE wages, not workers.... tell me the CEO's who ran the company into the ground are giving back their fat pensions; their golden parachutes and company-paid benefits and MAYBE we can talk. Although, taking away a living wage from our own workers is a pretty stupid way of doing things, particularly when Henry Ford's point was that his workers should make enough money to actually buy one of the cars they manufactured.

They got their, get yours thinking of the libertarian mindset.

No ONE ... and I mean NO ONE... is going to buy a car from a bankrupt auto maker because there are service and warranty issues to deal with. Treating this like any other restructuring is irrational.

Irrationality is their superpower, Jill.

3. You can't ignore the fact that 2.5 million jobs are dependent on the auto industry... it is shortsighted... no make that moronic... to refuse to pay the costs of two months of Bush's war of choice in Iraq, to protect those jobs.

Sure they can.

They don't care because they think they'll float about the depression that will follow.

They really do think that they're rich enough and smart enough, and skilled enough that they are not dependent on a viable economy.

 

[jillian]

Of course...like we didn't do to the banks which got 28 (or 56. depending on what you're counting) times as much money and employ about 150th the number of workers.

I actually heard it stated perfectly... the true difference is in the way we treat the people who shower at the beginning of their day as opposed to the end.

Which makes ALL the difference to the bottom line, but they refuse to acknowledge that, too.

Socialism is only good when it bails out the rich, eh?

They got their, get yours thinking of the libertarian mindset.

And of course, if they were deserving, the poor would be middle class and the middle class would be rich ....

Irrationality is their superpower, Jill.

I think they just don't give a flying....

Sure they can.

They don't care because they think they'll float about the depression that will follow.

They really do think that they're rich enough and smart enough, and skilled enough that they are not dependent on a viable economy.

And therein lies my biggest question about their sanity.... not to mention the implications of becoming a banana republic where there's no middle class.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

None of us evil libertarians want to have to go through this recession anymore than any of you want to, I'm sure. We simply realize that by propping up failed businesses we're only prolonging and worsening the recession. It has nothing to do with us hating the working class or any other such nonsense, I can't speak for the others, but I am the working class for crying out loud. One way or another, we're going to live through an extremely rough time; we can either choose to let it do it's damage and start picking up our economy, or we can take the steps necessary to prolong and worsen it. Congress seems intent on the latter.

 

[Paulie]

Editec, you really do like to paint a nasty picture of libertarians.

"they got theirs, get yours"?? I don't know any libertarians who think like that. That is not a typical libertarian philosophy, that's just GREED, and it's not limited to any specific ideology or party.

 

[editec]

The resident SANE libertarians which I have no doubt inhabit this place,

My apologies for lumping you in with the know-nothings who are not even remotely sane but who are in fact, merely smig nitwits who like the attack people who are down.

Yes, I understand your positions.

I think they're sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but I understand how you can logically arrive at that place where you're at, right now.

Basically it's all about those unstated suppositions from whence all the rest of your logical arguments originally flow.

Now how can I know that?

Because I used to think exactly like you do.

Now, if we were starting out a fresh, and if there had been NO HISTORY which gives tremendous advantages to them was has, and screws those what ain't, THEN I TOO would be all over much of what passes for libertarian sytems.

But that isn't our world, boys, and it never was and it never can BE, either.

People are not merely economic units. And society is not merely an economy. It is a SOCIETY, and economics is not the only thing that effects it.

I TOO would sink the fucking FED just as you would like to.

But I would still have a central bank where you or I or Genernal Motors could apply a loan.

What I would NOT DO is grant the right to control the ecomy to a cabal of PRIVATE bankers, and then let them fuck the rest of us for their own benefit (on that you libertarians and I are in 100% agreement)

You boys are going to have to grow up and accept the fact that your Dickensian economic wrold view system is PURE THEORY.

Honestly, you boys remind me of the dyed in the wool Communists in that respect.

You're all over theory, and to HELL with the catastropies the application of a THEORY to the REAL WORLD would have.

The losers in the world do NOT just evaporate just because they lost the game of capitalism. They stay with us and they continue to be our problem one way or the other.

The game of capitalism DEPENDS on losers in fact to make that much rarer class of WINNERS.

Without all those losers, boys, none of you would be affluent.

Make a note of this for future reference:

In order for there to BE a top half of the economic game, there has to be a BOTTOM half in that game

Make a note of this, too.

Economics is NOT a physical science.

Economics merely describes whatever system mankind INVENTS.

That invention can be brutal or it can be moderate or it can be pandering.

But no matter what it is, there is no physical reason for it to be that way other than we choose to make it that way.

I suspect most of you libertarians haven't yet figured that out.

Here's another thing most of you and Mises institute fails to acknowledge:

We do NOT live in a scarcity economy.

We have not lived in a scacity economy in 500 years.

Your Austrian school's UNSTATED supposition is that we do.

And that is why their supply side econmics keep fucking up, too.

Because there are no significant scarcities, merely a system which creates scarcity where none actually exists.

So the wealthy end up SO wealthy that they have all the green pieces of paper which in theory represent wealth.

But remember that is not wealth, that is merely the sytem we use to keep score of the GAME we call capitalism.

 

[Paulie]

Ed, I just like the idea of being on your own and taking full responsibility for how your life turns out.

If you stay on the bottom, for WHATEVER reason, then so be it. That was your life, then.

I will never feel like myself, or anyone else in society, is entitled to anything more than we acquire through our own personal effort. I just won't, I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[sealybobo]

The resident SANE libertarians which I have no doubt inhabit this place,

My apologies for lumping you in with the know-nothings who are not even remotely sane but who are in fact, merely smig nitwits who like the attack people who are down.

Yes, I understand your positions.

I think they're sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but I understand how you can logically arrive at that place where you're at, right now.

Basically it's all about those unstated suppositions from whence all the rest of your logical arguments originally flow.

Now how can I know that?

Because I used to think exactly like you do.

Now, if we were starting out a fresh, and if there had been NO HISTORY which gives tremendous advantages to them was has, and screws those what ain't, THEN I TOO would be all over much of what passes for libertarian sytems.

But that isn't our world, boys, and it never was and it never can BE, either.

People are not merely economic units. And society is not merely an economy. It is a SOCIETY, and economics is not the only thing that effects it.

I TOO would sink the fucking FED just as you would like to.

But I would still have a central bank where you or I or Genernal Motors could apply a loan.

What I would NOT DO is grant the right to control the ecomy to a cabal of PRIVATE bankers, and then let them fuck the rest of us for their own benefit (on that you libertarians and I are in 100% agreement)

You boys are going to have to grow up and accept the fact that your Dickensian economic wrold view system is PURE THEORY.

Honestly, you boys remind me of the dyed in the wool Communists in that respect.

You're all over theory, and to HELL with the catastropies the application of a THEORY to the REAL WORLD would have.

The losers in the world do NOT just evaporate just because they lost the game of capitalism. They stay with us and they continue to be our problem one way or the other.

The game of capitalism DEPENDS on losers in fact to make that much rarer class of WINNERS.

Without all those losers, boys, none of you would be affluent.

Make a note of this for future reference:

In order for there to BE a top half of the economic game, there has to be a BOTTOM half in that game

Make a note of this, too.

Economics is NOT a physical science.

Economics merely describes whatever system mankind INVENTS.

That invention can be brutal or it can be moderate or it can be pandering.

But no matter what it is, there is no physical reason for it to be that way other than we choose to make it that way.

I suspect most of you libertarians haven't yet figured that out.

Here's another thing most of you and Mises institute fails to acknowledge:

We do NOT live in a scarcity economy.

We have not lived in a scacity economy in 500 years.

Your Austrian school's UNSTATED supposition is that we do.

And that is why their supply side econmics keep fucking up, too.

Because there are no significant scarcities, merely a system which creates scarcity where none actually exists.

So the wealthy end up SO wealthy that they have all the green pieces of paper which in theory represent wealth.

But remember that is not wealth, that is merely the sytem we use to keep score of the GAME we call capitalism.

I look at the Libertarian Party and I think, GOP light. And what I don't like about it is the "every man for himself" aspect of the party.

I suspect many libertarians, and Republicans, have good jobs, and they feel safe that they won't lose their jobs because of globalization, outsourcing, illegal immigration or downsizing.

And they don't care about the people who will be affected.

So they are correct about the tax system being screwed up. They are right about the Federal Reserve. But they are wrong, IMO, on what the governments role is.

They believe it's the government's role to punish, but never nurture.

And they are idiots if they think it is a good idea that the Big 3 should fail so that Honda and Toyota end up becoming the Big 2.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I look at the Libertarian Party and I think, GOP light. And what I don't like about it is the "every man for himself" aspect of the party.

I suspect many libertarians, and Republicans, have good jobs, and they feel safe that they won't lose their jobs because of globalization, outsourcing, illegal immigration or downsizing.

And they don't care about the people who will be affected.

So they are correct about the tax system being screwed up. They are right about the Federal Reserve. But they are wrong, IMO, on what the governments role is.

They believe it's the government's role to punish, but never nurture.

And they are idiots if they think it is a good idea that the Big 3 should fail so that Honda and Toyota end up becoming the Big 2.

Being a Libertarian doesn't have all that much to do with the Libertarian Party, bobo. Libertarianism is a philosophy first, a political party second. The perceived "every man for himself" attitude is wrong as well. Nothing wrong with helping out your fellow man, but there is absolutely something wrong with the government forcing you to help out your fellow man.

I suspect that your suspicions about any Libertarians are probably wrong. The fact that we understand that bailing out failed businesses is actually bad for the economy says nothing about what jobs we may have ourselves.

Wrong. This recession affects just about everybody, Libertarians included.

We believe it's the government's role to punish? Punish who? Punish businesses? Hardly. We don't want government interfering in businesses at all. If a company is successful then that's great! If they're failing, then there's a reason for that and they need to fail.

So we should prop up and then protect the Big 3, at a huge expense for the taxpayers of America, and the expense of foreign automakers. Well how many American jobs will be lost if Toyota and Honda leave America bobo? I recently read that the most "American made" cars, meaning parts and assembly, are Hondas. If we protect GM from Honda's competition how many Americans will lose their jobs at Honda? Are you willing to condemn those Americans to help the Americans working for the Big 3?

 

[Paulie]

I'm a libertarian by philosophy, and I'm anything BUT secure in my employment. My line of work is in trouble right now, actually. And I STILL feel the same way. It's no one's responsibility to take care of me except ME.

I don't need handouts, what I probably need to do is go back to school and learn something new while I'm still young enough. Sometime in 2010, I'll have that opportunity. Right now I can't afford to walk away from what I do have. I'll take care of myself.

Kevin is right, Sealy. It's not an attitude of screw everyone else. We like the freedom of being able to lend assistance if we desire, but not be FORCED to if we don't want to or simply can't. Some of us actually CAN'T. Some of us simply can not afford to have taxes taken from us to give to others who aren't even TRYING.