OT GM bailout

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

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

I don't *want* to see them bailed out either, but I don't think
there's really any choice. Now is not the time to lose one out
of every ten jobs in the country. It's a damn shame and a bitter
pill to swallow but we can't let the Big 3 go belly up no matter
how much they richly deserve it.

However, the moment the government puts one penny of my tax dollar
into that mess I want a clean sweep. That means fire every damn
executive in the company, tear up the union contracts, void all
deals with suppliers, tell the shareholders "tough ****, you got
nothin'", and turn the whole thing over to government receivership
with the intention of making the company viable and once again
publicly owned ASAP.

My two centavos.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I find it ironic that the waning days of a rabidly irresponsible
"capitalism at any cost" political ethos are seeing the largest
socialist actions (by far) on the part of the federal government since
the New Deal.

I don't like any of the bailouts that are happening, but I'd far
prefer seeing the 700B bail out an industry that actually builds
something, rather than one that siphons off what it can...

Jon.

On Nov 18, 1:52*pm, wrote:
I find it ironic that the waning days of a rabidly irresponsible
"capitalism at any cost" political ethos are seeing the largest
socialist actions (by far) on the part of the federal government since
the New Deal.

I don't like any of the bailouts that are happening, but I'd far
prefer seeing the 700B bail out an industry that actually builds
something, rather than one that siphons off what it can...

Jon.

Thank you. And that is the key.
In Utah, in economics we were taught that production of goods and
services for export to other parts of the country, and to other
countries, was the way that localities and nations paid for what they
imported and consumed, on a sustainable basis. The basic input/output
models used in econ development and labor market planning were all
based on keeping these factors in balance and well fed with well
trained workers, efficient tools and plant, and capital.

I never did "get" how a "post industrial," "free trade" economic
environment would be sustainable. Germany and Japan never bought into
it. These countries continued to prosper with an emphasis on
MANUFACTURING. And that is what built this country and where we need
to get back to.

Ponzi scheme economics has been a failure. Politicians and business
leaders who tie their wagons to paper pyramids are the dying "business
model." I think the future is brite for Americans who have the skills
and energy to focus on producing real stuff that real people need,
from the resources the US has in abundance.

Dave

On Nov 18, 5:32*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:52*pm, wrote:

I find it ironic that the waning days of a rabidly irresponsible
"capitalism at any cost" political ethos are seeing the largest
socialist actions (by far) on the part of the federal government since
the New Deal.

I don't like any of the bailouts that are happening, but I'd far
prefer seeing the 700B bail out an industry that actually builds
something, rather than one that siphons off what it can...

Jon.

Thank you. And that is the key.
In Utah, in economics we were taught that production of goods and
services for export to other parts of the country, and to other
countries, was the way that localities and nations paid for what they
imported and consumed, on a sustainable basis. The basic input/output
models used in econ development and labor market planning were all
based on keeping these factors in balance and well fed with well
trained workers, efficient tools and plant, and capital.

I never did "get" how a "post industrial," "free trade" economic
environment would be sustainable. Germany and Japan never bought into
it. These countries continued to prosper with an emphasis on
MANUFACTURING. And that is what built this country and where we need
to get back to.

Ponzi scheme economics has been a failure. Politicians and business
leaders who tie their wagons to paper pyramids are the dying "business
model." I think the future is brite for Americans who have the skills
and energy to focus on producing real stuff that real people need,
from the resources the US has in abundance.

Dave

Exactly. We simply cannot afford to lose any more heavy industry in
this country. The illusion of a "service industry" supporting the
country is just that...an illusion. It is also important regarding
national security. If we suddenly had a pressing need for large
numbers of tanks, would you want them made in China?

Actually, though, I think the "Big 3" will become the "Big 2".
Chrysler will likely go the way of Studebaker er al. GM may manage
something of a merger, and keep the Jeep line going, and possibly the
Charger, which is rapidly replacing the Ford Crown Vic as a fleet car,
but the rest of Chrysler is doomed.

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote


However, the moment the government puts one penny of my tax dollar
into that mess I want a clean sweep. That means fire every damn
executive in the company, tear up the union contracts, void all
deals with suppliers, tell the shareholders "tough ****, you got
nothin'",


Well, I don't really know much about bankruptcy ( and don't understand what
I know ;-) but I've been given the impression that it would, indeed, force
such changes .... whereas just handing them money wouldn't

The only argument against bankruptcy ( like many airlines have ) seems to be
that buyers would be afraid to buy because of uncertainty about future
service/ parts/ and such. To my mind, I'd far prefer to buy from a
trimmed, re-structured, company than one that will use the bailout up in a
couple months and be looking for more, instead of really changing. A
healthy company is far more likely to be there in 15years to supply parts
than a temporarily bailed out one ... IMO


I'm NOT saying "let 'em fail" .... I am saying "let 'em take the routes
available in the system to fix their problems"

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:20:36 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote:

A
healthy company is far more likely to be there in 15years to supply parts
than a temporarily bailed out one ... IMO

I hope you are right, but you forget the unions. The unions will not
budge an inch. They would just as soon cut off their nose to spite
their face. Poor planning, poor product, poor design, and a screwed
up I-deserve-it work force will bring down any future GM/Ford merger.

Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
However, the moment the government puts one penny of my tax dollar
into that mess I want a clean sweep. That means fire every damn
executive in the company, tear up the union contracts, void all
deals with suppliers, tell the shareholders "tough ****, you got
nothin'",

Well, I don't really know much about bankruptcy ( and don't understand what
I know ;-) but I've been given the impression that it would, indeed, force
such changes .... whereas just handing them money wouldn't

My point was that Congress shouldn't just hand them the money but
mandate an actual government takeover. With Chapter 11 bankruptcy
the same old nitwits would be in charge of the reorganization and
it'll take an act of Congress to tear up the union contracts.

The only argument against bankruptcy ( like many airlines have ) seems to be
that buyers would be afraid to buy because of uncertainty about future
service/ parts/ and such. To my mind, I'd far prefer to buy from a
trimmed, re-structured, company than one that will use the bailout up in a
couple months and be looking for more, instead of really changing. A
healthy company is far more likely to be there in 15years to supply parts
than a temporarily bailed out one ... IMO


I'm NOT saying "let 'em fail" .... I am saying "let 'em take the routes
available in the system to fix their problems"

That's a good argument, but I don't think the system is capable
of handling such an enormous problem.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
However, the moment the government puts one penny of my tax dollar
into that mess I want a clean sweep. That means fire every damn
executive in the company, tear up the union contracts, void all
deals with suppliers, tell the shareholders "tough ****, you got
nothin'",

Well, I don't really know much about bankruptcy ( and don't understand
what I know ;-) but I've been given the impression that it would, indeed,
force such changes .... whereas just handing them money wouldn't

My point was that Congress shouldn't just hand them the money but
mandate an actual government takeover. With Chapter 11 bankruptcy
the same old nitwits would be in charge of the reorganization and
it'll take an act of Congress to tear up the union contracts.

The only argument against bankruptcy ( like many airlines have ) seems to
be that buyers would be afraid to buy because of uncertainty about future
service/ parts/ and such. To my mind, I'd far prefer to buy from a
trimmed, re-structured, company than one that will use the bailout up in
a couple months and be looking for more, instead of really changing. A
healthy company is far more likely to be there in 15years to supply parts
than a temporarily bailed out one ... IMO


I'm NOT saying "let 'em fail" .... I am saying "let 'em take the routes
available in the system to fix their problems"

That's a good argument, but I don't think the system is capable
of handling such an enormous problem.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Chapter 11 would put the judge in charge. He can tear up the union
contracts, he can toss management. We are not going to lose 10% of the
country's jobs. Either they will survive leaner and functional with a
better business model, or something else will fill their niche.

On Nov 18, 5:22*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

...



Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
However, the moment the government puts one penny of my tax dollar
into that mess I want a clean sweep. That means fire every damn
executive in the company, tear up the union contracts, void all
deals with suppliers, tell the shareholders "tough ****, you got
nothin'",

Well, I don't really know much about bankruptcy ( and don't understand
what I know ;-) but I've been given the impression that it would, indeed,
force such changes .... whereas just handing them money wouldn't

My point was that Congress shouldn't just hand them the money but
mandate an actual government takeover. With Chapter 11 bankruptcy
the same old nitwits would be in charge of the reorganization and
it'll take an act of Congress to tear up the union contracts.

The only argument against bankruptcy ( like many airlines have ) seems to
be that buyers would be afraid to buy because of uncertainty about future
service/ parts/ and such. * *To my mind, I'd far prefer to buy from a
trimmed, re-structured, company than one that will use the bailout up in
a couple months and be looking for more, instead of really changing. * *A
healthy company is far more likely to be there in 15years to supply parts
than a temporarily bailed out one ... IMO

I'm NOT saying "let 'em fail" .... I am saying "let 'em take the routes
available in the system to fix their problems"

That's a good argument, but I don't think the system is capable
of handling such an enormous problem.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Chapter 11 would put the judge in charge. *He can tear up the union
contracts, he can toss management. * We are not going to lose 10% of the
country's jobs. *Either they will survive leaner and functional with a
better business model, or something else will fill their niche.

10% seems high. I've been reading "2 million jobs directly and
indirectly
affected". Given that the "indirectly" people are likely people like
mechanics,
it seems unlikely all those jobs would instantly vanish. I don't know
for certain,
but I assume we have more than 20 million jobs in this country
regardless.

Silly question: Why is it that foreign companies with local (US)
manufacturing
seem to be doing alright while domestic companies are bleeding money?
- Ken