Obama and the UAW

trrenter_IHB

trrenter_IHB

New member
<a href="http://www.uaw.org/e08/story/e08_0827_01.php">Obama-Biden right team for the UAW</a>



I wonder if they still feel that way?



<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29962730/page/2/">Autoworkers are the losers</a>



The responsibility of government, however, is not to keep any particular company running. It is to keep the workers of the auto industry employed, and so far there is no plan. We'll hear about money for "education" and "retraining." But right now we have no answer for the autoworker who asks, "Retraining for what?" Retraining without the real prospect of jobs is a false hope that has been held out to autoworkers for years.



If
 
Not that I'm for the government intervening in any form, but since they did...they have every right to do whatever they want with GM. GM wouldn't exist today, and neither would the employment.

I'm only upset since they do intervene, they don't do more. Either go all the way, or step out of the way.
 
Baloney. The Government is making a bleeping mess out of it. It should be in Chapter 11, the contracts voided, the shareholders f'd and the bondholders pissing their pants. The retirees would be talking to the Pension Guarantee Corp hoping to get a realistic amount out of their unsustainable retirement packages.



Ford would buy what if anything they want from the holdings as would any other entity that wants to move forward. The suppliers and parts manufacturers would also be porked. But face it, they're porked.



The sooner everyone quits pretending the faster we can move on. The faster all of them need to stop hoping to hit the early retirement lotto and do something productive.



The same can be said for the Banks BS.
 
I'm not saying that I agree with them getting involved. When this mess first started I said that if it can't survive it needs to fail. I could care less if the whole american governemnt and the world collapses.

GM wouldn't be here today....they would already be gone, so would half of the financial system. However, since they DID ask for government help, the government can demand what they want. GM can always say no...they aren't technically forced. But since the government is the "lender" and GM needs the "money" tough. Either BK or don't ask for help. If you ask for help, expect the boss to collect or else.



Yes, it sucks that the taxpayers have to fork over cash for whatever the government gets involved in. Also, sucks that bondholders and shareholders are screwed...however, they would have been screwed anyway.

Citi holders got screwed...so did fannie and fred holders...and AIG. But come on, you really don't think GM would have survived on its own eh? LIke I said...I would have loved to see them fail, because that is what should have happened.
 
No, if the Government stayed out, this would be old news. They'd have BK'd before the inauguration.



The government is meddling and scarily so in distorting the market. Picking winners and losers and turning losers into winners and winners into losers.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1238574978]No, if the Government stayed out, this would be old news. They'd have BK'd before the inauguration.



The government is meddling and scarily so in distorting the market. Picking winners and losers and turning losers into winners and winners into losers.</blockquote>
And all the government is gonna do is prolong the pain. Sometimes its better to take the tough medicine and move forward then just draw out the agony. Don't get me started on the banks. The mess started with the repeal of the Glass-Stagal Act (spelling?) back during the Clinton days. The problem is that banks need to be able to kick the tires and know what they are lending on and who they are lending too. Well that went out the window when securitization exploded in the late 90s. We need to break up all the big banks into smaller more bit sized pieces so we don't need to deal with a "too big to fail" organization in the future. It's the community and local/regional banks that will need to lead us out of this lending seizure.
 
I was literally shouted down in an MBA class in the late 1990's for suggesting what USC is stating now. Funny how hindsight is.



Everybody loses in a GM bankrupcy, but it seems to be the path of least destruction for all involved. I understand that they will be going to the tier 1, 2, and 3 suppliers and demanding price consessions on parts. This is where the wheels fall off the plan. They've already been cut to the bone and can't go any lower.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1238574978]No, if the Government stayed out, this would be old news. They'd have BK'd before the inauguration.



The government is meddling and scarily so in distorting the market. Picking winners and losers and turning losers into winners and winners into losers.</blockquote>


Yes, they are doing that and have been. I guess what are you trying to say? I thought I knew, now I'm confused. Nobody likes the fact the govt is getting involved, however who asked who? Was it GM on their f-ing knees begging for a bailout or the other way around? Last I checked if you're the one with the loot or the lender...you call the shots.



Anyway, i think this convo is just going in circles...I'll show myself out of this thread...I really could care less about GM anyway, and personally would like to see them bankrupt.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1238586422]I was literally shouted down in an MBA class in the late 1990's for suggesting what USC is stating now. Funny how hindsight is.



Everybody loses in a GM bankrupcy, but it seems to be the path of least destruction for all involved. I understand that they will be going to the tier 1, 2, and 3 suppliers and demanding price consessions on parts. This is where the wheels fall off the plan. They've already been cut to the bone and can't go any lower.</blockquote>
Honestly, don't you think there is overcapacity in the industry anyways? I mean, there are just too many damn car makes and models out there. In order for GM and Chrysler to compete, they need to be more competitive from a cost structure than the competition. Let's start by getting rid of all the brands not named Chevy, Caddy, Dodge, and Lincoln.
 
They sold around 20M units in 2000.



This year they are on target to sell 9M in the same old USA.



Absolutley they have overcapacity. At least 11M units worth, maybe more. It's hard to make a business work when you have knocked your revenues down by 55%.



And the point I'm making is these guys share vendors. You break 10% of the tier 1 vendors and it's game over, or radically increased prices to everybody.



The biggest common thread I find in all these "economic colapse" problems is lack of margin and excessive volumes on products of all sorts. Autos, electronics, banking, you name it.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1238592166]They sold around 20M units in 2000.



This year they are on target to sell 9M in the same old USA.



Absolutley they have overcapacity. At least 11M units worth, maybe more. It's hard to make a business work when you have knocked your revenues down by 55%.



And the point I'm making is these guys share vendors. You break 10% of the tier 1 vendors and it's game over, or radically increased prices to everybody.



The biggest common thread I find in all these "economic colapse" problems is lack of margin and excessive volumes on products of all sorts. Autos, electronics, banking, you name it.</blockquote>
I guess it's easier said then done to cut costs via capacity cuts. With such high fixed costs as those in the auto industry (car makers to OEM part makers), lower inventory will result in a higher overhead allocation to those inventory item as the fixed costs can't be spread over as many inventory items. I guess if you take out enough capacity in the system, it may drive up the component costs for the car markers. I just don't get how US car markers got so fat and happy when the Japanese were showing how it's supposed to be done in terms of efficiency. For lower fixed overhead industries like services/banking this isn't as much of a problem (it was more about pushing loans out the door so everyone could make a quick buck).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top