The Big 3

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Deutschbag, Nov 18, 2008.

  1. Do they deserve a bailout or should they handle their own problems?
     
  2. Dont bail em out. We have to draw a line somewhere.
     
  3. they will get bought out by a private investor or somethin crazy before they ever go out of business
     
  4. Do they deserve one? As far as management goes: absolutely not, especially considering the poor choices we've seen from Rick Wagoner and Co. who have refused to adapt to today's energy dilemmas. Even worse, Wagoner's been pocketing huge raises in recent years, despite his company's woes. However, were the Big 3 to collapse, millions would be out of work either directly or indirectly. For the welfare of the industry, a bailout is needed but so too is a vast amount of oversight. Don't hand over $20B without the necessary regulation and then watch it get pissed away. I see no reason to believe that the Big 3 have the competency to get this done unless they are completely forthright with their plans and are watched with every move they make. It's absolutely ridiculous that the taxpaying public isn't being briefed on where their money is going, how much of it is going to certain sectors, and how this will ultimately get the markets back on track.
     
  5. Theyd just get bought out. To give one business a leg up against others is immoral. Although our trade policies with Japan etc. def gave Jap/Korean car companies the leg up. The unions need to give up some benefits as well. I love the fearmongering though on the part of the car companies.
     
  6. American car companies specialized in making huge, gas-guzzling cars, as opposed to European companies' luxury cars and Japan's efficient models. It's absolutely their fault that they aren't able to compete in the market anymore due to those policies. It's a tragedy that so many people will lose their jobs if the companies go under, but how much can taxpayers pay to bail out companies? Where will it end? Even with a bailout, the companies just aren't set up to manufacture cars that people would be interested in buying in today's uncertain economy, and would probably need more infusions of cash not too far down the line.

    I hate to see such a major hub of manufacturing business (because lots of companies will go under if they do, and it will definitely drag the economy). But the reality is that there just isn't the money to correct their terrible decisions, either in their own pockets or those of U.S. taxpayers.
     
  7. In a free market economy, you adapt because of competition or get the fuck out.
     
  8. They were happy to skirt environmental laws and make thousands selling SUVs as "light trucks" when the economy was good and gas was cheap. Don't tell me that in the year 2008, it would be financially unfeasible to increase fuel efficiency and devote more attention to hybrids so that there aren't waiting lists to get one.

    Big business is the first to cry "laissez-faire," and now they want $25 billion from the taxpayers to prop them up after years of reckless and irresponsible management.
     

  9. Exactly. If you wanna get bailed out, start making better fucking cars.

    ..although it could be argued that they wouldn't be going down if it wasn't for the current financial crisis - people can't afford shiney new cars atm.
     

  10. Agreed, Ford should really cash in on the green money by making more efficient, cheaper to run cars, something which might actually sell.
     
  11. I suggest instead of bailing them out, they help them out by giving them an advantage over there competitors.

    You see the big oil companies hold patients on all the electric car batteries that could effectively make them realistic now.

    Obama comes in, calls for eminate domain on those patients, make it government property, then give it to only US car makers.

    That would instantly jump them ahead in tech advantage and seal a economic victory for them.

    They couldn't make enough cars to be sold.
     
  12. Eminent domain would be a stretch for intellectual property, like a patent. And it would still take a large capital investment to refit factories so that they could produce the new type of car, and people would have to start buying those cars. But I agree, I can't see any other type of government investment in those companies as anything other than a band-aid that will barely last at all.
     
  13. Considering the obscene profit margins of big oil over the last couple years, at our expense I might add, maybe THEY should bail out the "big three."

    It'a in their best interest. :mad:
     
  14. Technically eminent domain is for any type of property, even intellectual.

    Aslong as the government sees fit that this would be better for the overall american they can take any property.

    I am not saying they will ever do this, but it is a progressive idea to solve an incermountable problem.
     
  15. hahaha this is a good idea lol :hello:
     
  16. too many jobs depend on the big 3. not just directly automotive, but paint, textile, metal, electronics, plastics, etc. all sell to auto manufacturers. letting them die takes money away from these companies too. so its like dominoes, one falls, the one right behind it will fall too.

    another is, when all the plant workers get laid off/fired, they wont have money to spend. whats gonna keep the economy going? this will cause even more of a freeze than there already is.
     
  17. Seems moral hazard might have put the 'big 3' where they are today.

    What have we learned from history?

     
  18. I might be biased as I'm from the Detroit area, but yes we should bail them out. I like Michigan, I would like to continue living here. I'm currently going to school to become a mechanical engineer, and I hope I will not have to leave the state to find a job after graduation. The Big 3 have caused many of their problems, but if one or all of these companies were to fail, the impact could be devastating. I heard on the radio the other day that 10% of American jobs were somehow tied to the big 3, not necessarily directly but also supplying the big 3. Any bailout package would be peanuts compared to how much it would cost to bail out the employees who lose their jobs.

    To those who say they would just be bought out by other companies, yes this is true. Chrysler already has foreign companies looking at purchasing them. If this happened Chrysler (or Ford or GM) would not remain the companies they are today. If they were bought out the company buying them would want a small percentage of dealership network, and a smaller percentage of the manufacturing capabilities. So you end up with the big 3 being owned most likely by a foreign company, and most of the people employed lose their jobs. People are so quick to demonize the big three without really realizing how big a part of the U.S. economy.

    I would like to see us bail out the big three (or at least GM and possibly Ford, Chrysler seems to be pretty much fucked) and then clear out some of the corporate bullshit that filled these companies. I think it would be a good idea for the employees of whatever companies were bailed out to become part of the single payer Federal Employee health care system. This would take the huge burden of health care and make it more manageable.


    I don't claim to know everything, and I was against the first bailout, so it might just be my Michigan bias.
     
  19. Why would most people lose their jobs?
     

Share This Page