OT GM bailout

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Larry L" wrote in
:

One of the great things about ROFF is that I can spout off about
things I don't know much about .... and fit right in G


I, personally, don't want to see GM 'bailed out' via my money. Let
'em go BK and restructure. Their business model is dead ... bury the
damn corpse, don't keep it on a heart lung machine pretending it's
still alive


YOMV



If you think a tax increase on those making more than $250K will damper
the economy, wait until 10% more of American jobs start getting squishy.

This is probably the wrong time to be letting them go. Even if we can
keep them viable for 18 more months, it might well be worth it.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Unemployment insurance will cost less and why should the chosen few (UAW)
workers get a free ride. Been lots of layoff's over the years. Pension
plans have gone bust. The govenment picks up some of the pension
liabilities, but those UAW workers have been pulling down top $$$ for years.
Maybe they should have saved some of them.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:25:30 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


Unemployment insurance will cost less and why should the chosen few
(UAW) workers get a free ride. Been lots of layoff's over the years.
Pension plans have gone bust. The govenment picks up some of the
pension liabilities, but those UAW workers have been pulling down top
$$$ for years. Maybe they should have saved some of them.

Just to add, there are @500,000 UAW retirees. That's enough to break the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. You can bail them out now, or you can
bail them out later.

On Nov 18, 1:12*pm, "Larry L" wrote:
One of the great things about ROFF is that I can spout off about things I
don't know much about *.... and fit right in G

I, personally, don't want to see GM 'bailed out' *via my money. * Let 'em go
BK and restructure. * Their business model is dead ... bury the damn corpse,
don't keep it on a heart lung machine pretending it's still alive

YOMV

The CEO of GM only made 20 million last year. If they had paid more
like some of the investment bankers they could have hired real talent
and wouldn't be in this mess.

On Nov 19, 3:12*am, "Larry L" wrote:
One of the great things about ROFF is that I can spout off about things I
don't know much about *.... and fit right in G

I, personally, don't want to see GM 'bailed out' *via my money. * Let 'em go
BK and restructure. * Their business model is dead ... bury the damn corpse,
don't keep it on a heart lung machine pretending it's still alive

YOMV

If GM and other Detroit Motocompanies don't want to go tits up, I have
a couple of simple suggestions.

1) Build competitive cars. And that doesn't necessarily mean 'build
what people want' because too many Americans want cars that burn a lot
of gas, and that are too heavy and too big to be efficient. Build cars
that are economical and long-lived, like the japs and germans do, and
beat them at their own game.

2) Socialize your retirement plans. Half of this thread is about how
the UAW folks are losing their retirements if the companies go
under...sounds to me like you want protected retirement
accounts...that means socialized. If you want your retirement money to
float on the open market, then you have to accept the potential for
disaster along with the potential for overwhelming growth. Welcome to
the open market...its all fun and games until someone gets an eye put
out.


That's it. But to pump money into a dying business only makes sense if
the business is dying because of lack of capital. GM et al are dying
because people won't buy their cars, and that's mostly because their
cars burn too much gas, wear out too soon, cost too much, and aren't
competitive with imports. The old days of $1 gas, 442 cubic inch
engines and 1 to 60 in 3.2 seconds with double-blown dual racing carbs
on street rods are gone....the days of $5 gas, small efficient engines
and who can get the most out of a drop of gas are here. To stay.

--riverman

In article
,
riverman wrote:

That's it. But to pump money into a dying business only makes sense if
the business is dying because of lack of capital. GM et al are dying
because people won't buy their cars, and that's mostly because their
cars burn too much gas, wear out too soon, cost too much, and aren't
competitive with imports. The old days of $1 gas, 442 cubic inch
engines and 1 to 60 in 3.2 seconds with double-blown dual racing carbs
on street rods are gone....the days of $5 gas, small efficient engines
and who can get the most out of a drop of gas are here. To stay.

I bought a gm/chrysler car just a half year ago. A jeep. Gets 28 mpg,
has 4 wheel drive, air, keyless unlock, cruise control, automatic,
power, 14,100 before taxes after I haggled them. Sure doesnt go 0-60 in
3 seconds, more like 6 seconds, but it has 4 wheel drive, decent gas
mileage (was 30 mpg under the old mpg) and all the major components are
warrantied for life.

" major components are warrantied for life. "

life of the car, or life of the company ??











On Nov 19, 11:44*pm, industry rep wrote:
In article
,

*riverman wrote:
That's it. But to pump money into a dying business only makes sense if
the business is dying because of lack of capital. GM et al are dying
because people won't buy their cars, and that's mostly because their
cars burn too much gas, wear out too soon, cost too much, and aren't
competitive with imports. The old days of $1 gas, 442 cubic inch
engines and 1 to 60 in 3.2 seconds with double-blown dual racing carbs
on street rods are gone....the days of $5 gas, small efficient engines
and who can get the most out of a drop of gas are here. To stay.

I bought a gm/chrysler car just a half year ago. *A jeep. *Gets 28 mpg,
has 4 wheel drive, air, keyless unlock, cruise control, automatic,
power, 14,100 before taxes after I haggled them. *Sure doesnt go 0-60 in
3 seconds, more like 6 seconds, but it has 4 wheel drive, decent gas
mileage (was 30 mpg under the old mpg) *and all the major components are
warrantied for life.

In article
,
"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:

" major components are warrantied for life. "

life of the car, or life of the company ??

Point taken. But jeep is very profitable.

Piper wrote:
In article
,
"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:

" major components are warrantied for life. "

life of the car, or life of the company ??

Point taken. But jeep is very profitable.

Of the Chrysler products lines, Jeep will probably survive before any of
the others. Its the only interesting thing Chrysler has (other than
some retro-styled toys).

"riverman" wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 3:12 am, "Larry L" wrote:
One of the great things about ROFF is that I can spout off about things I
don't know much about .... and fit right in G

I, personally, don't want to see GM 'bailed out' via my money. Let 'em go
BK and restructure. Their business model is dead ... bury the damn corpse,
don't keep it on a heart lung machine pretending it's still alive

YOMV

If GM and other Detroit Motocompanies don't want to go tits up, I have
a couple of simple suggestions.

1) Build competitive cars. And that doesn't necessarily mean 'build
what people want' because too many Americans want cars that burn a lot
of gas, and that are too heavy and too big to be efficient. Build cars
that are economical and long-lived, like the japs and germans do, and
beat them at their own game.

2) Socialize your retirement plans. Half of this thread is about how
the UAW folks are losing their retirements if the companies go
under...sounds to me like you want protected retirement
accounts...that means socialized. If you want your retirement money to
float on the open market, then you have to accept the potential for
disaster along with the potential for overwhelming growth. Welcome to
the open market...its all fun and games until someone gets an eye put
out.


That's it. But to pump money into a dying business only makes sense if
the business is dying because of lack of capital. GM et al are dying
because people won't buy their cars, and that's mostly because their
cars burn too much gas, wear out too soon, cost too much, and aren't
competitive with imports. The old days of $1 gas, 442 cubic inch
engines and 1 to 60 in 3.2 seconds with double-blown dual racing carbs
on street rods are gone....the days of $5 gas, small efficient engines
and who can get the most out of a drop of gas are here. To stay.

--riverman

GM was selling cars. Lots of cars. Worldwide, they sold more than Toyota.
They sold lots here in the US. They get the same or better mileage than the
equivalent imports. Costs to build are 2x the imports, and they are even
close on quality. These are not the 1970 cars. But that said, let them
reorg in Chapter 11. Management will be ousted, onerous work rules will be
tossed, they will not have to keep paying 12,000 workers for not working
(Job Bank). The Congresswomen from Michigan sounded like she worked for the
companies. Promising the money would be paid back with interest. They have
been bleeding cash for years, how they gonna pay back the money. We, the
people could buy GM for 20% of what they want as a loan. Market
Capitalization is about $1 billion. At least Rep. Issa of Calif is asking
hard questions of the automakers and of Paulson.

riverman wrote:
On Nov 19, 3:12 am, "Larry L" wrote:
One of the great things about ROFF is that I can spout off about things I
don't know much about .... and fit right in G

I, personally, don't want to see GM 'bailed out' via my money. Let 'em go
BK and restructure. Their business model is dead ... bury the damn corpse,
don't keep it on a heart lung machine pretending it's still alive

YOMV

If GM and other Detroit Motocompanies don't want to go tits up, I have
a couple of simple suggestions.

1) Build competitive cars. And that doesn't necessarily mean 'build
what people want' because too many Americans want cars that burn a lot
of gas, and that are too heavy and too big to be efficient. Build cars
that are economical and long-lived, like the japs and germans do, and
beat them at their own game.

Build big, heavy cars if that's what people want *now*, but reduce the
number being built. Also start to focus more on smaller, more efficient
cars (including small "luxury" cars) to compete with the higher-end
imports. The small luxury car market is very profitable. Detroit is a
couple of years behind the curve on this since the market for larger
cars/trucks has held up pretty well until the last 18 months or so.
They don't have to worry as much about long-life as much as five years
ago since they are pretty close to most of the import manufacturers
(except maybe Honda). And if Chrysler could have solved their tranny
problems. (Chrysler is likely to become a badge under GM anyway so that
might help their most pressing reliability issue.)


2) Socialize your retirement plans. Half of this thread is about how
the UAW folks are losing their retirements if the companies go
under...sounds to me like you want protected retirement
accounts...that means socialized. If you want your retirement money to
float on the open market, then you have to accept the potential for
disaster along with the potential for overwhelming growth. Welcome to
the open market...its all fun and games until someone gets an eye put
out.


Don't socialize. Turn the money over to the retirees in an annuity or
lump and get out of the process. Then its a just matter of risk
acceptance and income management.

Don't let the UAW manage pension funds. They'll just skim more off of
the top and raise the costs even higher. They have done enough damage
already.


[snip 8 lines]

--riverman