-
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
No."Pardon me, I have nothing to say!" -George Carlin -
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
I'd have to agree about the Bailout being bad. I wish we hadn't passed what we have so far. I've actually never heard of Peter Scheiffer, but I'll start keeping up with what the man has to say. I don't agree with his choice of McCain for president though. Otherwise he really knows what he's talking about. I brought this(our debt) up with my Economics professor a lot and he's a firm believer in Keynsian Economics which doesn't work unless rations are used, bond sales are way up, and we're at war with someone we can pillage from afterward. He'd always tell me that the free market will fix itself just fine before that happens. A true Free Market would never work. One of the main reasons we became such a economic powerhouse after WWII is because everyone else was in turmoil and we took all the gold the Nazi's had stolen from everyone else. We've been using Military Keynsianism for far too long I can't remember the exact number of military "conflicts" we've been in since WWII but I know it's over 40. This whole stock market is going to take a huge beating. The worst is yet to come I'm sure.
Grow!Comment
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
Yes. Someone made sense."Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you gotta swallow it."...and that's why.Comment
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
so is Taco Bell, but it helps me get through the day, just like the bailout.Comment
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
You know, I really don't care about what other people say about the automotive industry bailout, I'm glad it happened. I hope they get more. Yeah, the auto industry sucks, but they are the only thing keeping michigan's economy from completely bottoming out. if they go, this state is done for.
My sister has worked for a part supplier for Chevy for almost 8 years. she's gonna be laid off January 1st and unless the auto industry turns around, she won't be coming back as her seniority isnt high enough to keep her on the one shift that's going to run. There are no jobs here that can replace what she's going to lose. the pay and benefits just cannot be found in this state unless you work your way up corporate crap for years. so she's possibly going to lose her house and everything else, unless this turns around. she'll also be losing her insurance a month after she goes on layoff, and her son has some severe medical issues that need that require medicine that costs $700 or more per bottle. can't do that without GOOD insurance.
The banks got the bailout after intentionally screwing people over for years. They're spending a big chunk of it on bonuses and expensive dinners. they aren't disclosing what they're doing with the rest. the auto industry proposed a plan that would give complete transparency with what the money is being used for. they arent asking for nearly as much as the banks were. the banks got their bailout because they're too important to lose. so is the auto industry. this state simply will not last without them. I give us two years after they go under to achieve a 50% unemployment rate.
Comment
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
Yep, basically everyone I know is ****ed otherwise.Comment
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
Well, don't kid yourself. Even if you bailout the automotive industry, it's not going to save this state.
GM will still have to severely downsize. Chrysler will probably be fused with GM. That means the loss of thousands more jobs. If Chrysler and GM merge, do you honestly think they'll need the Ren Cen, the GM tech center, AND the Chrysler building? No way. One or two of these will go, costing thousands of skilled jobs to vanish. I've seen the numbers that project that even with the bailout probably half of the automotive suppliers in this state will go under anyway.
As for unskilled labor, the unions will have to give up much. That means even more job losses, wage cuts, benefit cuts, etc.
The party is over. Michigan is like a burning building and I'm leaving as soon as I finish college.Comment
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
This won't turn around; GM's recent proposal to increase consumer demand for its products is 'more efficient' trucks and SUVs along with hydrogen fuel cells and also some overpriced plug-in hybrids with more technology than they need, the former of which consumers don't want, the middle of which we don't have the technology for and probably won't for the next two decades, and the last of which is just a tactic to stall the introduction of more practical/affordable pure EVs.Originally posted by Valkysas View Post
If GM doesn't change, it deserves to go under and it shouldn't be bailed out. If they want the money, they should be REQUIRED to change their automobile lineup. People would buy an 80 mpg Precept, an 88 mpg Ultralite, an electric EV1 or one of UC Davis' re-engineered Suburbans that get 35+ mpg. Therse vehicles would make a profit on the sale. Relatively speaking, people will not buy a Yukon improved to a meagre 23 mpg combined(which is what it would obtain if re-designewd under GM's proposal). GM still has no plans to build the former, but focuses on the latter.
People don't want high-maintenance gas-zuzzlers anymore. That era is over. GM is simply taking our money to try to continue that era, and if we don't buy into it, they'll take out money anyway through the tax system. Why? The executives are heavily invested in oil; it makes THEM more money for us to be driving gas guzzlers even if GM is going under, than it does for the rest of the smaller shareholders to make a profit on the sale of efficient products that people actually want. **** GM.
Ford's plan still isn't much to brag about, but it is far better than GM's plan; they will downsize to turbocharged 4-cylinder engines as opposed to V6s in effort to increase fuel economy an estimated 20%(whooptie-****ing doo), and have mentioned the possibility of a battery electric sedan by 2011(but with no details; so far it's just a vague promise, but if they deliver it will completely turn the company around).
Unfortunately, neither company seems willing to address the two largest factors in increasing fuel economy along with the cheapest ways to increase fuel economy and both of which involve no compromises to the consumer: improved aerodynamics and reduced rolling resistance. We don't need to wait to 2020 to have a 35 mpg fleet average; if our government were serious about this issue they'd have required it immediately for the next model year.
Meanwhile, if AC Propulsion, Tesla Motors, or any similar small electric car manufacturers had a mere $200 million, they could have a mass-produced a sub $30,000 all-electric family sedan with more than 200 miles cruising range on the market within a year. If Aptera or Loremo had $200 million, they'd have a mass-produced affordable no-compromises 100+ mpg family sedan on the market. Yet, our government ignores them in favor of allowing these parasites to leech more money from us.
GMs bonds have been reduced to junk status since 2005. They are roughly $300 billion in debt. They are going to go under, bailout or not, unless they dramatically and immediately change their product lineup. Bailout or not, GM is going to undergo massive layoffs. The reason is that they haven't changed and they are only willing to change incrementally when there is a crisis. Incremental improvements are not enough.The banks got the bailout after intentionally screwing people over for years. They're spending a big chunk of it on bonuses and expensive dinners. they aren't disclosing what they're doing with the rest. the auto industry proposed a plan that would give complete transparency with what the money is being used for. they arent asking for nearly as much as the banks were. the banks got their bailout because they're too important to lose. so is the auto industry. this state simply will not last without them. I give us two years after they go under to achieve a 50% unemployment rate.
The employees are screwed. There is no getting around this.
I just hope that your sister can prepare for what is coming; that is horrible news to hear.
***edit***
Of interest to those reading this topic is that over the past year, 1 out of 45 homeowners in Detroit lost their homes because they could no longer afford the increasing property taxes. When it gets to that point, it's about time to hunt down those running the city government with pitchforks and torches and demand those homes be returned... That's 2.22% of the population who owned a home and lost it, and considering that there is more than one person per household...
The rest of America is now looking like Michigan 3 years ago, and Detroit today will probably tell us what awaits the whole of the US in the not too distant future.Last edited by The Toecutter; 12-09-2008, 08:25 PM.The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder." ~ Thomas JeffersonComment
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
Oh its all alarmist propaganda.Comment
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
I dunno, free market economy. Doesn't it kind of make sense that some companies... you know, fail from time to time?
Wait... America isn't exactly a free market economy, you say?
Last edited by Toaster; 12-09-2008, 09:10 PM.Comment
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
GM doesn't need to be bailed out either, you know what they could've done to save themselves? Do you or anyone you know drive their stupid Saab's? Didn't think so, so why do they make them? They sell like hotcakes in China and India. So why not try and sell that branch of GM to another country? That could net them quite a lot of money. Also, they still plan on makes Humvees. That's just retarded.
I hope that's a joke.Originally posted by Armored View PostLast edited by altoecko; 12-09-2008, 10:23 PM.Grow!Comment
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
Save your hope for your economy if you're so worried.Comment
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
I have so much trouble reading into dead-pan satire on the internet. I'll be fine in this depression, it's others I worry about.Grow!Comment
-
Re: Bailouts are bad for you
I lurv Canada.Comment
Comment