OT GM bailout

On Nov 19, 10:19*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The idea that a society can toss these folks away like spent
machinery is untenable.

So what's the answer? *For once I'd like to hear the whiny liberals
actually propose something.

OK, how about this. Single payer health care, Canadian style.
Take the burden of health care off of industry because it makes
us uncompetitive.

Health care is only a part of the problem. Having the government
in charge of healthcare scares me about as much as having them
in charge of my retirement.


I don't know what retirement plan you're talking about but the
one with which I'm associated, SURS of Illinois, is no scheme.
And it's been working just fine since 1941 and will continue to
work fine unless Illinois adopts a new state constitution because
under the current Illinois constitution the legislature cannot
get their grubby little hands on any SURS monies.

If the GM retirement plan had been as well managed and funded
as SURS there would be no problem at all with it.

We'll see. Covering university employees is slightly different than
a large manufacturing community. If it works so well, I'd like to
see an entire state run its health care system that way. If it's
viable,
companies and skilled people should flock there. It should be a
competitive advantage for a given state....wonder why no one has
tried it.
- Ken

On Nov 19, 12:58*pm, Scott Seidman
wrote:
" wrote in news:10451906-c15c-40e5-
:

So what's the answer? *For once I'd like to hear the whiny liberals
actually propose something.

The answer is to not have the government ignore problems for eight years. *
It puts you between a rock and a hard place.

It's a demographics problem, the government has been aware of and
ignoring
it for decades. Greenspan had been warning about the unsustainability
of
the SS and healthcare systems since the early 1980s.

Republicans and Democrats alike have been feeding at the trough of the
short-term surplus.
- Ken

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

The major difference is the GM has about 2 retirees for every worker.
Those payments about double the labor costs.

One would think that a responsible company would properly endow pension
plans as they went along. Isn't that the only tenable way to do this??


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Maybe they invested in GM stock?
Maybe the UAw should have handled the retirement like the teamsters and
carpenters unions.

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The idea that a society can toss these folks away like spent
machinery is untenable.

So what's the answer? For once I'd like to hear the whiny liberals
actually propose something.

OK, how about this. Single payer health care, Canadian style.
Take the burden of health care off of industry because it makes
us uncompetitive.

We're going to have the same problem across the country soon
now that the boomers are hitting retirement age. The retirement
ponzai schemes only work when there are more people at the
base of the pyramid. Not enough people working to support
those not working. Boomers weren't smart enough to save
for their retirement.

I don't know what retirement plan you're talking about but the
one with which I'm associated, SURS of Illinois, is no scheme.
And it's been working just fine since 1941 and will continue to
work fine unless Illinois adopts a new state constitution because
under the current Illinois constitution the legislature cannot
get their grubby little hands on any SURS monies.

If the GM retirement plan had been as well managed and funded
as SURS there would be no problem at all with it.

There are going to be a lot of people getting a harsh reality check
when they go to retire. I'm glad this recession came now instead
of 5-10 years from now when the boomers had already retired.

Why do you hate America so much ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Health care still has to paid for. And govenment has never done much
efficently. As to SURS, maybe it is like CALPERS. They had a lot of money
during the dot.bomb bubble that they convinced the state that they could pay
3% per year to everyone instead of 2%. Retire at 90% after 30. Values
fell with the bubble burst and now the state has to chuck another 1/2
Billion bucks a year to cover the costs. Part of the states fiscal
problems. SURS is only safer to retirees because the state has taxing
ability.

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
" wrote in news:10451906-c15c-40e5-
:

So what's the answer? For once I'd like to hear the whiny liberals
actually propose something.

The answer is to not have the government ignore problems for eight years.
It puts you between a rock and a hard place.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

A lot longer than 8 years.

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.

"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.

" 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.

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