The Automotive Bailout?

Nationalize them!  The free market had its chance and the free market blew it!  Now the creeps in the corporate media are trying to blame it on the unions!  What a joke!
::)

Nationalize them! 


Little history for you Max - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland

Little history for you Max - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland



Oh, Leyland, I remember that debacle.

I'm being facetious...partially.  I just never thought I would GM and Ford bring themselves to the edge of collapse.  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.  I remember the Chrysler bailout in the late '70s, though I was just a kid.  It seems the free market solution here (and who likes the free market better than business execs?) would be to let the auto manufacurerers fail.  I always hear this from the right-wing: Freedom is the freedom to succeed and to fail.  But this is only applied to the working classes.  I did see one Republican congressman from Georgia say this about the car companies.  Can't remember the guy's name.  At least he's consistent.  The business analysts say these car companies are "too big to fail."  If GM, Ford, and Chrysler all go bankrupt it would send us into a depression.  Maybe we're in one already.  Maybe it's time for some creative destruction as terrifying as it might be for a few years.

It seems the American auto industry for the past three decades has done nothing but pay the top management oodles of money, cheerlead for outsourcing, and beat the unions with a stick.  Look where it's gotten their companies...as if they didn't know this would happen.  I used to think the fatcats just didn't care about America.  Now it turns out they don't even care about their own corporations, just as long as they get a lifeboat and a chest of gold as the ship burns. 

If the government is going to ask the taxpayers to prop up these crooked enterprises, shouldn't we impose some conditions?  Why not establish the public as a partial owner?  How about nationalizing healthcare so the comapnies can compete with manufacturers in other countries that don't have to pay for health benefits?  How about reforming tariffs so everybody has an incentive to build American and buy American? 

Surely, we can't let this crisis pass and then let the corporate pirates go back to looting, because they will if we let 'em!
::)

Nationalize them!  The free market had its chance and the free market blew it!  Now the creeps in the corporate media are trying to blame it on the unions!  What a joke!
::)


I agree with you (and Larry Kudlow, for once), LOL. 

GM and Ford are broken and cannot be fixed with $25 billion:
1.  GM and Ford each burned through $8 billion in cash over the past quarter.  A $25 billion bailout will be gone in months. 
2.  These companies can't even afford to pay their retirees' pensions. 
3.  Workers' salaries are more than 50% higher than the workers in the Japanese car companies.
4.  Americans are AFRAID to spend money and will not buy cars - they can't even get loans if they wanted to buy cars.

However, if we let them go down then the ripple effect will be huge:
1.  Millions of lost jobs in the auto industries and many others.
2.  RIOTS IN DETROIT.  They will burn Detroit to the ground (remember OJ? - this is worse).
3.  Stock market will fall to 5000, causing more cutbacks by UNRELATED companies in other industries.
4.  USA will be 50 Californias.  Houses will continue to NOT sell and things will get MUCH worse (bankruptcy / foreclosure HELL).

I say we KILL off Chrysler and take over GM and Ford.  Bring in Kaizen and clean them up.

I say no bailout.  Between both greedy unions and inept management, (and a stupid public who kept buying those gas guzzlers), the Big 3 are dinosaurs.

Back when I was in the steel business, those rat bastards in automotive could care less about us.  Now the shoe is on the other foot.  Karma's a bitch, I say.

The world will not end if GM goes bankrupt.  The production assets will be taken over by the creditors' committee, and assets will be bought up for pennies on the dollar, and put back into production.  GM models will be relaunched.  Some models will never restart because they were turds to start with.

The management of GM is begging for a buyout because they do not want their stock to zero out.  Screw 'em.  I say not one penny of bailout money, unless as part of the deal, the stockholders get zeroed out.  I have ZERO INTEREST in bailing out a car company's shareholders.  None.

Let 'em rot and the creditors will take over.

I say no bailout.  Between both greedy unions and inept management, (and a stupid public who kept buying those gas guzzlers), the Big 3 are dinosaurs.

Back when I was in the steel business, those rat bastards in automotive could care less about us.  Now the shoe is on the other foot.  Karma's a bitch, I say.

The world will not end if GM goes bankrupt.  The production assets will be taken over by the creditors' committee, and assets will be bought up for pennies on the dollar, and put back into production.  GM models will be relaunched.  Some models will never restart because they were turds to start with.

The management of GM is begging for a buyout because they do not want their stock to zero out.  Screw 'em.  I say not one penny of bailout money, unless as part of the deal, the stockholders get zeroed out.  I have ZERO INTEREST in bailing out a car company's shareholders.  None.

Let 'em rot and the creditors will take over.


Then maybe it'll be easier for my hippie friends to start a non-profit collective to build light rail, veggie-oil cars, and more bike paths, yeah, gotta have more bike paths, dude!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/jinnwink.gif

I was perusing the yahoo message boards and saw a post from someone which is kinda true. 

A guy said that he makes on $24,000 per year and can't even afford to buy a house.  He rents.   He can't figure out why his tax dollars are bailing out these companies run by millionaires and these RECKLESS homeowners who bought homes KNOWINGLY that they could not afford.

Lyricboy, I APPRECIATE YOUR PASSION.  It would be NICE to see the GM/Ford/Chrysler executives burn like Lehman's Dick Fuld did.  However, it will push the economy further over the edge.   

WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE DOW 5000.  Buy a burglar alarm and a gun because the house break-ins will increase.

I say we do NOT bail them out, but TAKE THEM OVER.  Throw out the executives and run the stock down to zero.  Kick the unions out and continue to pay retirees. 

There are actually a lot of solutions out there other than throwing billions of taxpayer money at the problem. But everything nowadays is being presented as a yes or no decision that has to be decided NOW! Remember how Paulson said we had to buy all those mortgages NOW!? Hmm... Personally I don't think it matters. Despite all the assurances and explainations the tax payer money will just quietly disappear.

But again I say the solution is to:

1-Break up the monopolies into smaller companies
2-Pass a law forbidding mergers. I think the Automotive industry is just the tip of the iceberg with all the conglomerate industries.
3-No CEO should be paid more than the President of the United States, especially if they are receiving public funds.

We might be better off with managed competition.  Sounds good to me.  Of course, the conglomerate fatcats will fight like hell against the idea, and they've got deep pockets.

I'm not so sure about your third suggestion; the CEOs would be happy to chip in to raise the presidential salary to $1 billion per annum!
::)

Personally, I like an idea that I have heard from several people in the last weeks.

Get the UAW to bail them out.

This does two things.  For one, it encourages the Unions to try to put a lid on the sometimes exorbanent demands they make of the companies during contract deliberations.

It also gives them a vested interest in making the companies profitable and keeping them alive.  The more the companies make, the more the Union makes.  Which then in theory benefits the workers.

I lived in Alabama until last year, and there are many Auto factories in that state.  And they have been hit nowhere near as bad as those that are Unionized.

And increasing the stake in the company has otherr benefits.  Just look at Harley-Davidson.  A large percentage of the company is owned by the employees, which encourages them to do better work since they are able to see the benefit themselves (in the form of bonuses, increased stock value, increased pension).

To me, the biggest problem with modern Unions in the US is that they foster an "Us Vs. Them" attitude.  If the employees and Union both have a larger stake in the Corporation, it benefits all parties.  Not to mention that this would give them a larger say in affairs during Stockholder meetings.

It is us vs. them.  The interests of labor and capital are at odds.  However, GM was at its strongest when the unions were at their strongest.  Is it the fault of the unions that the costs of healthcare have skyrocketed?  Is it the fault of the unions that their country subscribed to that Ronald Reagan every-man-for-himself hogwash?  The business tycoon is lionized and the union leader is demonized in our anti-labor press.  They have drilled this into our heads since the '70s.  It is simply prespammersite to suggest the UAW should pay management for management's f**k ups. 

If we want to compete with Japan and Germany, we will need universal healthcare that will take the obligation of the employer's back. 

I think Mush has a point.  Worker owned companies can prosper, but in this environment it isn't the time to start.  The heath insurance benefit is a Hugh problem.

Then maybe it'll be easier for my hippie friends to start a non-profit collective to build light rail, veggie-oil cars, and more bike paths, yeah, gotta have more bike paths, dude!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/jinnwink.gif
i for one am supportive of saddling capitalists and riding them around like horses. :D

I don't know which way is the best option. I see both sides of the issue.

The American car industry did not learn the lessons of the energy crisis of the 1970s. During the '80s & '90s, "foreign" auto makers (I use that term loosely because many of their cars were built in the U.S. ) started making fuel efficient cars while the "Big Three" started making bigger and bigger cars. And they spent "boo-coo" bucks on lobbying so they can by-pass all sorts of regulations so they can keep building bigger & bigger cars/trucks. Then gas prices started going up and people discovered that they couldn't afford to drive a GM car or Ford. So, they started to buy Hondas & Toyotas. And poor GM had to stop production of their baby they were so proud of-the Hummer.

Back in the 90s, GM had the EV1 which was the first electric car. No one was allowed to purchase the cars-only allowed to lease it. All the leasers LOVED the car but then GM pulled ALL of them and destroyed them without any explanation as to why. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

If GM had kept the EV1 and improved upon it, I don't think they would be in this situation they are in today. They have been basically practicing poor business by NOT seeing what consumers what/need. Now they need help and one part of me wants to say, they made their bed, let them lie in it.

However, I understand if they go down, many will lose their jobs (which unemployment rates in this country are going up & up & up). It is not just people who work at the "Big Three" that will lose their jobs but it will have a ripple effect. We have a small Dodge dealer in town. I don't know how many employees he has but there is a possibility that they will close their doors. Of course I don't know how much business they are doing these days anyway.

I think if the government does bail them out, they need to really specify what to do with the bailout money (unlike what they did with banking industry).


Cat

The American car industry did not learn the lessons of the energy crisis of the 1970s. During the '80s & '90s, "foreign" auto makers (I use that term loosely because many of their cars were built in the U.S. ) started making fuel efficient cars while the "Big Three" started making bigger and bigger cars.

Back in the 90s, GM had the EV1 which was the first electric car. No one was allowed to purchase the cars-only allowed to lease it. All the leasers LOVED the car but then GM pulled ALL of them and destroyed them without any explanation as to why. 


These are important issues.  And each have their reasons for how they are.

As far as "Big Cars Vs. Economy Cars", there is nobody to blame for that but the consumers.

People bitch about how the car companies do not make fuel efficient cars.  But in fact they have for years.  Look at the Geo Metro, which 25 years ago was getting almost 50 MPG.  And off and on over the years similar cars appeared.  But they all largely failed, because nobody wanted them.

15 years ago, the SUV craze started, and this has lowered mileage and increased gas useage.  And in reality the only people to blame for this is the American consumer.  If you own a car lot and see 10 SUVs go out the door to every "Economy Box", which are you going to stock?  And if you yourself are going to go out tomorrow and buy a car, would you choose a Suburban or a Suziki Swift?

Mostly we did this to ourselves.  The car companies simply make what people want to buy.  If the majority of people 15 years ago were buying High Mileage vehicles, then the roads would be full of them and almost nobody would be buying the SUVs.  But we are a status conscious society, and most people believe that "Bigger is Better".

As for the EV1, that was never intended to be a full production vehicle.  If anything, it was a wde spread prototype, to see if electric cars were viable.  And while the experiment was not fully successful, it encouraged the development of the modern hybreds.

As for why they were not sold, it is because if they had done that, they would have been commiting themselves to 20+ years of providing service and replacement parts.  By simply leasing them, this allowed them to discontinue them when the experiment ran it's course, without any kind of long-term commitment to the model.

And when comparing what is available today, why would you want to settle for a first generation electric car?  The Batteries alone every 2 years would cost a fortune.

What mushroom sez about it being the consumer’s fault is true to an extent but two things:

1. I never was inclined to buy an SUV and very few people I know were inclined to get one either, they always struck me as silly and wasteful. So when I hear “we did this to ourselves” my first thought is, “who’s this ‘we’, paleface?” but at the same time I guess statistically SUVs WERE popular items, but I’m more inclined to think the SUV purchasers did this to the rest of us.

2. consumers are not going to be aware of industry realities as well as industry insiders are. It would have been smart of the big 3 to steer consumers toward smaller cars since I assume the companies knew they were putting all their eggs in the SUV basket and they were surely more aware of facts like, wars in the middle east tend to inflate oil prices. Particularly since those in the administration who orchestrated the war were largely from the oil industry themselves. So if the Big 3 had decided to push more compact cars I’m sure they could have used clever advertising to make the compacts look more fashionable. They don’t just respond to consumer choices, they also help to shape them. That’s what advertising is. But the Big 3 smelled a frenzy in SUVs so they poured all their resources into it and so, so much the worse for them. Also

3. I remember right after 9/11 the airlines went looking for a bailout from congress, and I remember this one airline representative was asking for more money (they DID get a bailout, I can’t remember for how much but I remember they wanted more. So some congress guy told the airline guy they weren’t going to get as much money as they were asking for and the airline guy actually literally put his hand over his forehead and said, “we’re doomed! The airline industry is going to collapse!” lol. And yet somehow there are still airlines.

Companies like to play damsel in distress when there are bailouts in the offing. It gets them more money. So I think when the Big 3 propose all these doom-and-gloom scenarios it should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, it actually pays dividends to them to act like the sky is falling, whether it really is or not.

I thought you guys would get a kick out of this.

Auto CEO's Flew Private Jets To DC

That's almost as awesome as when the AIG folk (or whoever it was) used half a million dollars to throw a bailout party.

I thought you guys would get a kick out of this.

Auto CEO's Flew Private Jets To DC


I like how they were asked if they'd be willing to fly commercial on their way home.  No one raised their hand.  Safety issues?  No one really knows who they are and they can be replaced.  Just a bunch of stupid money grubbing CEOs.

What's wrong with this picture?

# of dealerships in USA:
Honda      1000
Toyota    1500
GM          7000

What's wrong with this picture?

# of dealerships in USA:
Honda      1000
Toyota     1500
GM           7000




Did I mention greedy bastards?  Paulson my have been a bit hasty in the financial bailout . . . hope he doesn't make the same mistake.

Wow, that's almost as many as there are Starbucks...

What's wrong with this picture?

# of dealerships in USA:
Honda      1000
Toyota     1500
GM           7000


Thats because Gm's dealer network dates way back to where the Japanese Automakers weren;t a force at all in the US. GM did own alot of the US market before the 1980's came along. I think GM did own 47% of the market in 1979 and did own 43% of the US market in 1985. Looking at sales statistics 1984-1986 was the peak of GM in which they sold over 6 million cars in those 3 years in the US alone. By decades end(the 1980's) Gm in 1989 owned 35% of the US market.

As far as the automotive bailout goes as a guy who buys Japanese cars the Big 3 in the 1990's put all their resources into SUV's which came back to haunt them. GM just a couple years ago started to put offerings that competed with the Japanese like the Caddy CTs, the Chevy Malibu, and the Saturn Outlook and GMC Acadia. Ford offerings on the other hand are now as reliable as Honda or Toyota's offerings.Its not GM or Ford's fault on the credit crisis when both companies were in the middle of restructuring.

I think another thing that killed the Domestics is bad contracts(labor agreements) with the UAW.

I will say I have owned and currently own a Mazda that was built by UAW workers in Flat Rock, Michigan(a plant which Ford owns.) What will Mazda do if Ford goes bankrupt where will they build the Mazda 6? I mean the US version Mazda 6 is not a world car.

These are important issues.  And each have their reasons for how they are.

As far as "Big Cars Vs. Economy Cars", there is nobody to blame for that but the consumers.


15 years ago, the SUV craze started, and this has lowered mileage and increased gas useage.  And in reality the only people to blame for this is the American consumer.  If you own a car lot and see 10 SUVs go out the door to every "Economy Box", which are you going to stock?  And if you yourself are going to go out tomorrow and buy a car, would you choose a Suburban or a Suziki Swift?

Mostly we did this to ourselves.  The car companies simply make what people want to buy.  If the majority of people 15 years ago were buying High Mileage vehicles, then the roads would be full of them and almost nobody would be buying the SUVs.  But we are a status conscious society, and most people believe that "Bigger is Better".

And when comparing what is available today, why would you want to settle for a first generation electric car?  The Batteries alone every 2 years would cost a fortune.
Yeah but SUV's were more like a 1997-2003 fashion trend. I don;t understand that sentence in your post where you say we have ourselves to blame. And to another point when the SUV's were dominating the Honda Civic was a top 10 selling car when the whole SUV trend was dominant. The Toyota Corolla was at least in the Top 15 best selling cars as well during that SUv's domiance period. Don;t blame the automotive consumer for the Big 3's problems. The Big 3 saw the SUV trend dwindling in the 2004-2006 period.

Personally I don;t have a use for a Big SUV either like another poster mentioned on this board. My following cars were as follows: a sports car, 4 door car, a luxury coupe, and a 4 door car.

As far as what dealers stock I mean you can go to a Toyota dealer and see loads of Camry's and Corolla's on the lot along with the big Tundra pickup.

My two cents…
GM, Ford and Chrysler are full of it.

The big three are well known for crying wolf.
Remember these are the same companies that said the public will never buy safety and resisted safety regulation, seatbelts, airbags and the like back in the 60’s-70’s (Did anyone ever read "Unsafe at Any Speed", do you really trust the US auto industry after reading it?).

Same big 3 that said they couldn’t produce a car that could compete with the small foreign cars that gave 25mpg back in the 70’s and couldn’t provide a car with lowered emissions and has successfully lobbied to NOT comply with CAFÉ fuel requirement standards or cleaner emissions proposals in congress for decades.

Enough is enough, yes?

So here’s my proposal, if GM and the others want a bailout, fine, then they have to agree to these terms (and stop with the BS) to qualify for a loan or bailout.

1. GM get rid of Pontiac, Buick and either Saturn or Saab (take your pick), too many bland worthless cars that nobody wants competing for the same market. GM has been stuck in “badge” engineering since the 50’s and that worked then, doesn’t work now. Too many dealers competing over the same market with marginal cars at best. GM follow your own example with Oldsmobile and make them go away.
2. For Ford, same as above but for Mercury. Mercury goes bye bye. Not a single car in the Mercury line up will be missed and is not needed in the US market.
3. Mopar (Chrysler) needs to shift completely away from its heavily based truck and V8 platforms (no, I don't care if it has a HEMI or not). They HAVE to develop some kind of 4 cyl or hybrid small or mini car and soon. No amount of $$ will save them if they don't.
4. Either…
All automakers will be REQUIRED to produce either a fully electric (plug in capable) car, four passenger four door sedan or coupe (that doesn’t look like a outer spaceship reject) with a range of at least 160 miles per charge and bring it to market within 3 years. Base price at $19,500. (US government will loan out $2K to the automakers for each one built and sold) No bitching on how difficult it will be to produce, there is more than enough engineering, marketing and business talent in these companies to do it, just DO it. (Don’t tease us with things like the “Volt” that you know damn well you have no “real” plans to produce as you claim (talking to you GM)). The automakers will also have to chip in on building a real viable infrastructure for electric vehicles, charging stations and the like as well.
OR
All bailout automakers be REQUIRED to produce at least TWO hybrid or regular gasoline cars that achieve at min 35 MPG within 3 years and at least one be available to the market starting @ $14K.

Other than that, I agree with others that a cap be put on CEO and managers salaries until they get in to the black (just don't have a set amount to what that should be).

If they don’t submit to these conditions, then screw ‘em.  >:(

If the free market is supposed to work as advertised, then the jobs lost will go to those newer, leaner and meaner markets and auto businesses that can compete.

The government propping up/buying into the auto industry with the loans they are asking for is a bad idea anyway.  As someone has already pointed out British Leyland and FIAT in the 70’s as an excellent warning example regarding that approach.

Plus I don’t like them holding a gun to my head for my hard earned tax $$ threatening employment doom and economic despair for bad management decisions, I, as a citizen, had no part of and shouldn’t have to pay.  Let them fire some of those extremely overpaid "executives" that got them into this situation WITHOUT a "golden" parachute, that alone would save them millions and probably 50 jobs per exec in comparative salary.

Lets not forget that both GM and Ford are international automakers and produce cars all over the world, they aren’t approaching those governments (like China where they are more than profitable) for a bailout. The have much more resources than we realize or they let on. Ford Europe, Aussie Holden, British Vauxhall, and German Opel consumers/buyers overseas don’t put up with the mediocre/crappy products that we do from the big 3 here and the automakers don’t face the same situation there, wonder why?

BTW this all coming from a diehard “car guy”, so even biased, I think KNOW Detroit needs a wake up call.

I thought you guys would get a kick out of this.

Auto CEO's Flew Private Jets To DC


Shows you how much out of touch these big shot fat cats are. I say no bailout if they don't dump the luxury jets and multi million $ salaries, suck it up like the rest of us or no deal. If they don't change their business model then we're just tossing $25 billion into a black hole. There's too many dealers as posted above, most are ghost towns with hundreds of SUVs collecting dust. They need to cut back the gas guzzling, environment polluting SUV and big pick up business and focus on hybrids and smaller cars. Maybe BIG OIL should bail out the BIG 3 they can afford it, they're setting new records every quarter.

I'm not so sure about your third suggestion; the CEOs would be happy to chip in to raise the presidential salary to $1 billion per annum!


::)


What they have to do is enact a maximum wage law, and include all those nifty bonuses in to the wage category.  If they were to say that the highest paid worker(including the CEO) could not make more than maybe 5 times that pay of the lowest you would see the standard of living of the lowest paid rise dramatically, and you would also see money being reinvested into the company to make it more profitable so that the salaries of all could be reflected in the worth of the company.

GM, Ford and Chrysler are full of it.

If they don’t submit to these conditions, then screw ‘em.  >:(




My sentiments exactly!  The chairman of GM looked shocked and indignant that some lousy congressional committee got to drag HIM through the mud! Just give me what I want and shut up! 

WTF?  I thought the Free Market didn't need the government.  I thought the government was nothing but a nuisance to hard-working, God-fearing businessmen.  I thought the government that governs best is the government that governs least!

OK, then shut up, get back in your Lear jets, and Lear off!  Let us get back to governing least!

If the automobile industry is too gosh-darn important to the well-being of the world economy to be allowed to fail, then doesn't it ipso facto fall outside of the realm of the free market?  Fred's Widgets is in the free market.  If Fred's Widgets can't compete for price and quality with Al's Widgets, then we expect in a free market for Fred's Widgets to go out of business.  There's no harm done to anyone except Fred and his folks.  Fred doesn't get to plead his case in front of the United States Congress! 

If GM must have this $25 billion loan (25 and loan, my skinny Irish ass) to survive OR the entire economy is going to be in a world of hurt, then haven't they effectively nationalized themselves?  So shouldn't they, as Gumby suggests, have to submit to some requirments in the interest of people's economy in the long-term, not just the interests of their shareholders for this quarter?  If not, it's just kleptocracy as usual!
::)


What they have to do is enact a maximum wage law, and include all those nifty bonuses in to the wage category.  If they were to say that the highest paid worker(including the CEO) could not make more than maybe 5 times that pay of the lowest you would see the standard of living of the lowest paid rise dramatically, and you would also see money being reinvested into the company to make it more profitable so that the salaries of all could be reflected in the worth of the company.

Ben & Jerry of Ben & Jerry's were doing that for years...then they sold out to Unilever for some phat cash!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/diablotin.gif

Interesting article.

No need for bailout, say diners near thriving car plant

Here's my opinion....

GM Should suspend Pontiac and Buick until they get their heads above water.

Ford should suspend Mercury and join with Nissan until they get back on their feet.

Chrysler should've stayed with Diamler-Benz or join with Volkswagen.

Yeah but SUV's were more like a 1997-2003 fashion trend. I don;t understand that sentence in your post where you say we have ourselves to blame. And to another point when the SUV's were dominating the Honda Civic was a top 10 selling car when the whole SUV trend was dominant. The Toyota Corolla was at least in the Top 15 best selling cars as well during that SUv's domiance period. Don;t blame the automotive consumer for the Big 3's problems. The Big 3 saw the SUV trend dwindling in the 2004-2006 period.


That is true, but look at the numbers of car's sold for 2007:

Toyora Corolla/Matrix:  120,484  Sales Ranking:  #6
Chevy Silverado:        202,151  Sales ranking:  #2
Ford F150:                228,343    Sales Ranking: #1

So for every Corolla, 4 Big Trucks of just 2 models were sold.  And this ranking was only comparing Pickups and cars.  Here are some of their sales figures:

Ford Expedition:  108,535
Toyota Four Runner:  162,683
Lexus GX-RX-LX:  120,024  (RX alone was 54,879)
Honda CR-V:  167,223

And believe it or not, this has not slowed down the hunger for SUV's.  While sales are down across the board, SUV sales as a percentage has increased almost 3% this year.


4. Either…
All automakers will be REQUIRED to produce either a fully electric (plug in capable) car, four passenger four door sedan or coupe (that doesn’t look like a outer spaceship reject) with a range of at least 160 miles per charge and bring it to market within 3 years. Base price at $19,500. (US government will loan out $2K to the automakers for each one built and sold) No bitching on how difficult it will be to produce, there is more than enough engineering, marketing and business talent in these companies to do it, just DO it. (Don’t tease us with things like the “Volt” that you know damn well you have no “real” plans to produce as you claim (talking to you GM)). The automakers will also have to chip in on building a real viable infrastructure for electric vehicles, charging stations and the like as well.
OR
All bailout automakers be REQUIRED to produce at least TWO hybrid or regular gasoline cars that achieve at min 35 MPG within 3 years and at least one be available to the market starting @ $14K.


Uhhh, so your solution would require them to loose even more money, for selling vehicles for less then it costs to make them, or to do what they already do.

Ford Focus, $14,995, 35 MPG Highway  (2007 sales:  133,043)
Chevy Aveo:  $12,625  34 MPG Highway  (2007 Sales:  25,164)


The Big 3 have made "Economy Cars" since the late 1970's.  But the problem is that nobody wants them.  Luxury Cars, Pickups, and SUV's dominate the market. 

Myself, I suffered with them for far to long.  Chevy Sprint's, VW Beetles (the 60's versions), Toyota Corolla's, even a Geo Metro.  Most of my cars the last 20 years have been Econo Boxes.  But not I own an Intrepid and a Silverado.  And if told I could turn in my 99 Silverado for a new Chevy Aveo free of charge, I would tell them to keep it.  Because there is no way I am going back into another Soup Can car.

The Big 3 have made "Economy Cars" since the late 1970's.  But the problem is that nobody wants them.  Luxury Cars, Pickups, and SUV's dominate the market. 



When the price of a gallon of gas ratchets up to six bucks a gallon and never comes back down, THEN they'll want 'em!  They might even want more...UGH...public transportation!
8-P

Here's my opinion....

GM Should suspend Pontiac and Buick until they get their heads above water.

Ford should suspend Mercury and join with Nissan until they get back on their feet.

Chrysler should've stayed with Diamler-Benz or join with Volkswagen.
No, Chrysler was still losing money under Dailmer and Dailmer forced Chrysler too overstock their dealers with cars or trucks that dealers couldn;t even sell. You know what I was thinking about it today if Chrysler joined with VW instead of Dailmer and I think it would have made more sense 10 years ago if Chrysler was going to have an alliance with a German auto maker it should have been VW and not Dailmer Benz.

Nissan does not want Ford. Its funny though when Nissan was in financial trouble 10 years ago Ford was one of the automakers that they(Nissan) was looking at having an alliance with instead it was "Renault" that Nissan decided to form an alliance with.

I think GM shouldn;t sell Buick in the US at all. I know the Buick brand is successful in China but in trhe US Buick doesn;t sell alot of cars anymore.

That is true, but look at the numbers of car's sold for 2007:

Toyora Corolla/Matrix:  120,484  Sales Ranking:  #6
Chevy Silverado:         202,151   Sales ranking:  #2
Ford F150:                228,343    Sales Ranking: #1

So for every Corolla, 4 Big Trucks of just 2 models were sold.  And this ranking was only comparing Pickups and cars.  Here are some of their sales figures:

Ford Expedition:  108,535
Toyota Four Runner:  162,683
Lexus GX-RX-LX:  120,024  (RX alone was 54,879)
Honda CR-V:   167,223

And believe it or not, this has not slowed down the hunger for SUV's.  While sales are down across the board, SUV sales as a percentage has increased almost 3% this year.

Uhhh, so your solution would require them to loose even more money, for selling vehicles for less then it costs to make them, or to do what they already do.

Ford Focus, $14,995, 35 MPG Highway  (2007 sales:  133,043)
Chevy Aveo:  $12,625  34 MPG Highway  (2007 Sales:  25,164)


The Big 3 have made "Economy Cars" since the late 1970's.  But the problem is that nobody wants them.  Luxury Cars, Pickups, and SUV's dominate the market. 

Myself, I suffered with them for far to long.  Chevy Sprint's, VW Beetles (the 60's versions), Toyota Corolla's, even a Geo Metro.  Most of my cars the last 20 years have been Econo Boxes.  But not I own an Intrepid and a Silverado.  And if told I could turn in my 99 Silverado for a new Chevy Aveo free of charge, I would tell them to keep it.  Because there is no way I am going back into another Soup Can car.

What? The Mazda 6(2009 model), Toyota Camry, and Honda Accord don;t have enough room for you?

Luxury Cars sales are down this year across the board nearly. Lexus, Acura, Lincoln, BMW, and Caddy are all down sales wise this year. I think Infinti is flat sales wise for the year and I think maybe Mercedes might be near flat sales wise for the year.

SUV's(including pick-ups I believe) are down 22% sales wise this year.

You forgot about the Honda Civic in your sales stats there for 2007.

Uhhh, so your solution would require them to loose even more money, for selling vehicles for less then it costs to make them, or to do what they already do.

Ford Focus, $14,995, 35 MPG Highway  (2007 sales:  133,043)
Chevy Aveo:  $12,625  34 MPG Highway  (2007 Sales:  25,164)


No, just the opposite.
I would have them get rid of the divisions and makes/models that are wasteful to begin with. The problem with most of the US automakers (and GM in particular) is that they're just too damn big. About one third of GM models are just redundant. Too many divisions making the same mediocre or crappy car, competing for the same market, against themselves and other foreign models. Why produce three or four of what is basically the same car, when one (done well, mind you) will do.

In doing so, they will be able to actually produce a car (that is ONE of them, not three of them with three different badges and three times the cost) and actually make a profit selling that ONE car at a price they were previously losing money on when they were trying to make and sell three different versions of it.
Not radical thinking, just common business sense.


The Big 3 have made "Economy Cars" since the late 1970's.  But the problem is that nobody wants them.  Luxury Cars, Pickups, and SUV's dominate the market. 


I'd hardly call the Vega, the Pinto, the Chevette (shove-itt), Omni/Horizon or the Gremlin an honest attempt or effort by the US automakers to produce a competent economy car.  ::)
Even the X & J cars, the K cars (all the alphabet cars) US Ford Escort of the 80's, junk at best, gone now, thank god.

Problem is to this day, the US automakers have NEVER really made an honest effort to make a decent economy car PERIOD.

No wonder no one wants them, they were marginal at best, at worse pieces of warm poo compared to the Japanese or European models.

The Chevy Aveo, Geo Metro or Sprints you've mentioned, halfway decent in the history as small GM cars go, problem is, again, not made by GM, the cars were made by Daewoo and Suzuki. Highlighting the issue, GM, Ford and Chrysler have always farmed out any of their marginally successful econoboxes (Metro/Sprint, Festiva/Festiva, Colt/Champ) to foreign automakers 'cause they are not able to produce a competent one themselves and make a profit.
So they don't even try.

And heck yeah, SUV and luxury cars sell better, they have a hell of a lot more profit built into them, plus that the only thing they know how to make!!
US automakers have pretty much proved to/brainwashed the US market that they can't make a decent small car, so why would a US buyer buy one from them?
Duh, an SUV or pickup isn't the most difficult thing to make, not talking about the most advanced designs as far as transportation goes. Steel ladder frame, rear drive, big V8, big bed. Big deal.  ::) Take off the ecu's, the catalytic converter & engine management, its the same damn thing we were offered back in the 50's and 60's.  SUV's pretty much the same, built on the same truck chassis (and rides like it too) no brainer there.


Myself, I suffered with them for far to long.  Chevy Sprint's, VW Beetles (the 60's versions), Toyota Corolla's, even a Geo Metro.  Most of my cars the last 20 years have been Econo Boxes.  But not I own an Intrepid and a Silverado.  And if told I could turn in my 99 Silverado for a new Chevy Aveo free of charge, I would tell them to keep it.  Because there is no way I am going back into another Soup Can car.


US automakers approach to fuel efficient cars is that they have to be these little "soupcans" (as you put it) when thats just not the case. If you've driven in a Mazda 3, or VW Polo or Honda Fit, you'd know darn well we don't have to put up with the "tin can" mentality that US carmakers seem to think we want or will put up with, it simply isn't so.

If we can get them to thin out their overpriced and paid management, get rid of under-performing and unprofitable divisions (Buick, Pontiac, Mercury) get them to wake up to the 21st century, and what actually can be done with money put into proper planning, design, manufacture and marketing we'll see a better day. Instead of wasting money on the old way of doing things (US automakers are STILL stuck in the 50's IMHO), we'll see how well they can do. VW, FIAT and Honda has done it, why can't GM or Ford?

Problem is, US automakers (again GM in particular) need to change and are just too big for their own good. Its like trying to steer a aircraft carrier with a hand tiller. Ain't going to happen. They need to slim down to change course first.

tell ya, when i sell my soul and want to drive a car, i use zipcar -- a very overpriced service (to be fair, i'm sure their overhead is stunning) and their whole fleet is foreign compacts... toyota matrix, honda civics, mini-coopers... all very enjoyable cars to drive, compact but you never get that compact claustrophobic feeling. they engineer them to feel spacious, not least with recessed instrument panels; little touches like that add a lot to the psychological effect of having more room, the same way mirrors make a room seem larger.

here's a current honda civic dash:

http://us.autos1.yimg.com/img.autos.yahoo.com/izp/honda_civichybrid_cvtatpzev_2008_dashboard_dashboard_640x480.jpg

notice the speedo light is practically on the windshield. as a driver you focus on it a lot and it will psychologically create the impression of greater space. the whole dash curves out toward the windshield, creating more psychological space for the driver and passenger.

then there's...

http://z.about.com/d/cars/1/0/9/b/fmc_08focus_dash.jpg

a ford focus puts everything in your lap. it almost looks like it's gonna come out and crush you. in a car like this you're constantly going to be reminded you're in a small car. and the whole dash is flat, gives the feeling of being pressed against a wall. ford is stupid about small car design, and it shows.

on the other hand, i liked the AMC gremlin... :D

No, just the opposite.
I would have them get rid of the divisions and makes/models that are wasteful to begin with. The problem with most of the US automakers (and GM in particular) is that they're just too damn big. About one third of GM models are just redundant. Too many divisions making the same mediocre or crappy car, competing for the same market, against themselves and other foreign models. Why produce three or four of what is basically the same car, when one (done well, mind you) will do.

In doing so, they will be able to actually produce a car (that is ONE of them, not three of them with three different badges and three times the cost) and actually make a profit selling that ONE car at a price they were previously losing money on when they were trying to make and sell three different versions of it.
Not radical thinking, just common business sense.
I'd hardly call the Vega, the Pinto, the Chevette (shove-itt), Omni/Horizon or the Gremlin an honest attempt or effort by the US automakers to produce a competent economy car.  ::)
Even the X & J cars, the K cars (all the alphabet cars) US Ford Escort of the 80's, junk at best, gone now, thank god.

Problem is to this day, the US automakers have NEVER really made an honest effort to make a decent economy car PERIOD.
No wonder no one wants them, they were marginal at best, at worse pieces of warm poo compared to the Japanese or European models.

The Chevy Aveo, Geo Metro or Sprints you've mentioned, halfway decent in the history as small GM cars go, problem is, again, not made by GM, the cars were made by Daewoo and Suzuki. Highlighting the issue, GM, Ford and Chrysler have always farmed out any of their marginally successful econoboxes (Metro/Sprint, Festiva/Festiva, Colt/Champ) to foreign automakers 'cause they are not able to produce a competent one themselves and make a profit.
So they don't even try.


No, The Ford Focus in 2000 was rated on par with the Honda Civic(at the time) as far as driveability goes it was just the recalls on the Focus(too many of them) that shot Ford in the foot. I agree though GM and Chrysler haven't made a seroius effort to make a compact or subcompact up to the par of the Japanese or Europeans(VW.)

I like the part where they told the autofolk to have a business plan before they could get a bailout.  They should've done that with AIG and the banks too :P

I like the part where they told the autofolk to have a business plan before they could get a bailout.  They should've done that with AIG and the banks too :P
Yeah Paulson and Congress learned their lesson the hard way I guess.

Yeah Paulson and Congress learned their lesson the hard way I guess.
i think it was just congress. paulson probably was just like, "sure, and would you like a few extra billion for your trouble?"  ::)

i think it was just congress. paulson probably was just like, "sure, and would you like a few extra billion for your trouble?"  ::)


Congress should NEVER have passed the first bailout bill.  Socializing losses is contrary to all my fiscally conservative beliefs :P

Congress should NEVER have passed the first bailout bill.  Socializing losses is contrary to all my fiscally conservative beliefs :P
i don't think ANYONE, liberal or conservative, likes the idea of bailing out big mismanaged industries. it combines the worst of the right AND the left. ugh.

i don't think ANYONE, liberal or conservative, likes the idea of bailing out big mismanaged industries. it combines the worst of the right AND the left. ugh.


I think it would have been awesome if the Obama had said "ZOMFG WTF is up with this bailout!  I vote nay!"

Unfortunately, it did not happen, so now we taxpayers will have to generate some more fake money :P

I think it would have been awesome if the Obama had said "ZOMFG WTF is up with this bailout!  I vote nay!"

Unfortunately, it did not happen, so now we taxpayers will have to generate some more fake money :P
yes, another disappointing move from the obaminator. :( i think it's weird how if you were a politician who opposed the bailout it put you in ron paul, cynthia mckinney territory.

Ron Paul would've been a fun guy to put into some sort of power :D

I think it would have been awesome if the Obama had said "ZOMFG WTF is up with this bailout!  I vote nay!"

Unfortunately, it did not happen, so now we taxpayers will have to generate some more fake money :P


I think I can scrounge up some of my "Simpson's" monopoly money.  I'd demand that I get a receipt from the government. :D

These are important issues.  And each have their reasons for how they are.

As far as "Big Cars Vs. Economy Cars", there is nobody to blame for that but the consumers.


I completely disagree.  It was the Big Three who launched product lines that were completely undiversified and consisted of gas guzzling trucks and SUVs.  The Foreign-based guys (Honda, Toyota, et. al.) also sold big guzzlers, but put out a balanced product line that serves them, the consumers, and our country well.

I remember back about 9 years or so ago... Ford had just launched the Ford Excursion, a ridiculously big vehicle aimed at the consumer market.  GM was toying with the idea (I saw the drawings at a supplier's plant) of a Chevy Suburban that had an extra set of doors on each side.  I remember laughing my azz off because the drawings showed that some weight-reduction technology, laser welding, was anticipated for the extended-length vehicle.  What a riot!  Like a Sumo wrestler drinking a diet coke.  But this was the thinking at GM.  Fortunately that product never saw the light of day.

Additionally, the Big Three have spent millions to fight Corporate Fuel Economy standards.

We do not see Toyota or Honda sticking their hands out for a bailout.  If they can manufacture cars in the USA profitably, there is no reason why the Big 3 can't.

I completely disagree.  It was the Big Three who launched product lines that were completely undiversified and consisted of gas guzzling trucks and SUVs.  The Foreign-based guys (Honda, Toyota, et. al.) also sold big guzzlers, but put out a balanced product line that serves them, the consumers, and our country well.

I remember back about 9 years or so ago... Ford had just launched the Ford Excursion, a ridiculously big vehicle aimed at the consumer market.  GM was toying with the idea (I saw the drawings at a supplier's plant) of a Chevy Suburban that had an extra set of doors on each side.  I remember laughing my azz off because the drawings showed that some weight-reduction technology, laser welding, was anticipated for the extended-length vehicle.  What a riot!  Like a Sumo wrestler drinking a diet coke.  But this was the thinking at GM.  Fortunately that product never saw the light of day.

Additionally, the Big Three have spent millions to fight Corporate Fuel Economy standards.

We do not see Toyota or Honda sticking their hands out for a bailout.  If they can manufacture cars in the USA profitably, there is no reason why the Big 3 can't.


...and when they did make economy cars.. they were pieces of crap!

Have you ever driven a Ford Focus? It's horrible. I borrowed a 1 year old Focus for a week whilst my 10 year old sedan was in the shop. The brakes were terrible, the vehicle was sluggish and the mileage was only about 3mpg better than my car (which had an engine more than twice as large).

...and when they did make economy cars.. they were pieces of crap!

Have you ever driven a Ford Focus? It's horrible. I borrowed a 1 year old Focus for a week whilst my 10 year old sedan was in the shop. The brakes were terrible, the vehicle was sluggish and the mileage was only about 3mpg better than my car (which had an engine more than twice as large).

It's still an improvement over the Pinto!  The Pinto hatchback was the one that if got rear-ended, four steel bolts would puncture the gas tank, and KER-BLOOEY!!!
:o

It's still an improvement over the Pinto!  The Pinto hatchback was the one that if got rear-ended, four steel bolts would puncture the gas tank, and KER-BLOOEY!!!
:o


Sounds like every Fiat I've ever driven.  ;D

Sounds like every Fiat I've ever driven.  ;D

Nah, FIAT's were known for certain death from quick rusting chassis and body panels.

It wasn't uncommon to open and close a FIAT door with wet hand at night, to come out the next morning to see the entire door covered with light rust.  :D

FIAT was one of the few automotive companies that offered an ENTIRE seprate body, fenders, doors and all at a deep discount to a new buyer at the time of purchase of a new car, 'cause they'd certainly need it in the next four years.
I guess rust protection and galvanized steel wasn't something the Italians believed in back in the 70's and 80's...

tell ya, when i sell my soul and want to drive a car, i use zipcar -- a very overpriced service (to be fair, i'm sure their overhead is stunning) and their whole fleet is foreign compacts... toyota matrix, honda civics, mini-coopers... all very enjoyable cars to drive, compact but you never get that compact claustrophobic feeling. they engineer them to feel spacious, not least with recessed instrument panels; little touches like that add a lot to the psychological effect of having more room, the same way mirrors make a room seem larger.

here's a current honda civic dash:

http://us.autos1.yimg.com/img.autos.yahoo.com/izp/honda_civichybrid_cvtatpzev_2008_dashboard_dashboard_640x480.jpg

notice the speedo light is practically on the windshield. as a driver you focus on it a lot and it will psychologically create the impression of greater space. the whole dash curves out toward the windshield, creating more psychological space for the driver and passenger.

then there's...

http://z.about.com/d/cars/1/0/9/b/fmc_08focus_dash.jpg

a ford focus puts everything in your lap. it almost looks like it's gonna come out and crush you. in a car like this you're constantly going to be reminded you're in a small car. and the whole dash is flat, gives the feeling of being pressed against a wall. ford is stupid about small car design, and it shows.

on the other hand, i liked the AMC gremlin... :D
goddammit, i demand acknowledgment and recognition of my awesomely great dashboard post.

It's still an improvement over the Pinto!  The Pinto hatchback was the one that if got rear-ended, four steel bolts would puncture the gas tank, and KER-BLOOEY!!!
:o


I resemble that remark.

Mister Smart, I once owned a Ford Pinto.  And you, sir, are no Ford Pinto.    ;D ;D

Nah, FIAT's were known for certain death from quick rusting chassis and body panels.

It wasn't uncommon to open and close a FIAT door with wet hand at night, to come out the next morning to see the entire door covered with light rust.  :D

FIAT was one of the few automotive companies that offered an ENTIRE seprate body, fenders, doors and all at a deep discount to a new buyer at the time of purchase of a new car, 'cause they'd certainly need it in the next four years.
I guess rust protection and galvanized steel wasn't something the Italians believed in back in the 70's and 80's...


FIAT = "Fix It Again Tony"   ;)

The Italians were not the only ones who were slow to adopt galvanized steel.  Honda was also a laggard with adopting this technology, and they were one of the last manufacturers to adopt fuel injection on a productwide basis. (Despite their small engine manufacturing prowess)

...and when they did make economy cars.. they were pieces of crap!

Have you ever driven a Ford Focus? It's horrible. I borrowed a 1 year old Focus for a week whilst my 10 year old sedan was in the shop. The brakes were terrible, the vehicle was sluggish and the mileage was only about 3mpg better than my car (which had an engine more than twice as large).


Quit yer bitchin' or else I'll make you drive our VW! ;D


FIAT = "Fix It Again Tony"   ;)


In a similar vein, we used to say that Ford stood for "F*cked over rebuilt Dodge".

tell ya, when i sell my soul and want to drive a car, i use zipcar -- a very overpriced service (to be fair, i'm sure their overhead is stunning) and their whole fleet is foreign compacts... toyota matrix, honda civics, mini-coopers... all very enjoyable cars to drive, compact but you never get that compact claustrophobic feeling. they engineer them to feel spacious, not least with recessed instrument panels; little touches like that add a lot to the psychological effect of having more room, the same way mirrors make a room seem larger.

here's a current honda civic dash:

http://us.autos1.yimg.com/img.autos.yahoo.com/izp/honda_civichybrid_cvtatpzev_2008_dashboard_dashboard_640x480.jpg

notice the speedo light is practically on the windshield. as a driver you focus on it a lot and it will psychologically create the impression of greater space. the whole dash curves out toward the windshield, creating more psychological space for the driver and passenger.






That looks SOOOOO familiar to me (except a little cleaner  :D ;D ;D ) because we have a 2008 Honda Civic.




Cat

Quit yer bitchin' or else I'll make you drive our VW! ;D


I'm going to say this one more time.

You guys don't own a car... you own a Volkswagen.

I'm going to say this one more time.

You guys don't own a car... you own a Volkswagen.


Guess you remember the Yugo?  You push . . . you go.

The public is spoiled these days with cars that actually run. >:(

My car runs, it's just a bit bulimic :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50IgzksUqpQ



Cat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50IgzksUqpQ



Cat


I love the Da Yoopers.  It's a true holiday classic for anyone with clunkers. ;D

I resemble that remark.

Mister Smart, I once owned a Ford Pinto.  And you, sir, are no Ford Pinto.    ;D ;D

You had a Pinto?  I thought your first car would have been a souped-up GTO with dual exhaust, raised suspension and a Playboy air freshener--a Wadd car!
:P


Sounds like every Fiat I've ever driven.  ;D

My dad had a couple of Fiats in the early '70s.  He'd been to Italy in grad school and he thought they were nifty.  Unfortunately, the Fiat wasn't your ideal car for New Hampshire winters.  He'd yell and cuss trying to get the f**ker started on a 5 degree morning, and then he'd skid into the snowbank on the way down the hill!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/BangHead.gif

I'm going to say this one more time.

You guys don't own a car... you own a Volkswagen.


Yep, and now the engine light is on again.  Funny thing is, I feel SAFER when the engine light is on because it doesn't act as stupid as it usually does.

You had a Pinto?  I thought your first car would have been a souped-up GTO with dual exhaust, raised suspension and a Playboy air freshener--a Wadd car!
:P


Johnny Wadd drove his wife's green Chevy Malibu, which he and his girlfriend painted red with a gray top (using spray cans, no less!) to disguise it when he went on the run from the homicide cops and The Mob. A decidedly un-Wadd-like ride.   :-\\

My Pinto wagon did have a couple of Waddworthy features, though.  Like a fake fur dashboard, and a green shag rug in back.  The rear seat was, of course, always in the "down" position so that i had plenty of storage space.

As an aside, I have an acquaintence whose car has custom license plates that read "WADD".   ;D ;D

Guess you remember the Yugo?  You push . . . you go.

The public is spoiled these days with cars that actually run. >:(

Hey, just found this, goodbye, no more the Yugo has been in production all this time. Just now going out of production, just this month!

Heck, the Yugo survived 30 years!  :o Dang, what the heck does that say about the Shove-itt (sorry Chevette), Pinto and other less than worthy econoboxes our US makers have given us?

goddammit, i demand acknowledgment and recognition of my awesomely great dashboard post.


Your excellence in picture selection and usage is duly recognized.

The new Ford Focus isn't bad - Nicole has one. Aside from no cruise control and handling (and sounding) like a go-cart, I have no complaints. The dash is boxy, though.

Ant

Johnny Wadd drove his wife's green Chevy Malibu, which he and his girlfriend painted red with a gray top (using spray cans, no less!) to disguise it when he went on the run from the homicide cops and The Mob. A decidedly un-Wadd-like ride.   :-\\


Well, it's a question of priorities, ain't it?  If Johnny and the old lady didn't spend so much cash on blow, maybe they could've bought a more "Wadd-like ride."  Then again, kicking the nose candy habit would also be "decidedly un-Wadd like," would it not?
???

And veering even farther off topic...

The porn stars of yore were way underpaid.  These folks didn't get rich.  Harry Reems, an industry legend, got what $400 for "Deep Throat"?  Nowadays, any no-talent idiot with the right anatomy and a domain name can pull down ten grand a week!  WTF?

Hey, just found this, goodbye, no more the Yugo has been in production all this time. Just now going out of production, just this month!

Heck, the Yugo survived 30 years!  :o Dang, what the heck does that say about the Shove-itt (sorry Chevette), Pinto and other less than worthy econoboxes our US makers have given us?


Something had to keep the Yugoslavian economy afloat. 

Didn't Chevy have a recall at one time for the pinto?  I remember Crown Vics having the exploding gas tanks on impact.  Cops could give those suckers away fast enough.

Something had to keep the Yugoslavian economy afloat. 

Didn't Chevy have a recall at one time for the pinto?  I remember Crown Vics having the exploding gas tanks on impact.  Cops could give those suckers away fast enough.


Ford made Pintos.  It was the earlier models of the above-mentioned Pinto hatchback model that could could potentially explode upon rear-end impact due to faulty engineering.  Another problem was the doors could also become jammed shut in a collision where the frame was bent...but, hey, if the gas tank exploded first, the point was moot!  Only a couple of Pintos actually did explode in accidents, but there was hysteria about it prior to the recall.  The main problem with the Pinto, htchback or wagon, was it just wasn't a very good car.  It was a sh*tbox in the vernacular! 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sagrin.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

Whenever I think of a Pinto, I think of this scene from the movie Top Secret.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Glcj0szvevU&feature=PlayList&p=2C4DFBA8ECD2566E&index=7


Ok, I'm going off a tangent for a minute.

I knew this family of 4. The father must have been at least 6 feet tall and just about as wide. The mother was about normal size. The oldest daughter was like her father-tall and wide. The youngest daughter was thin but tall. All four of them used to get into a little Pinto.  :o :o :o  It kind of reminded me of the clowns getting into the little itty bitty car. Yeah, that Pinto was VERY low to the ground.



Cat

Ford made Pintos.  It was the earlier models of the above-mentioned Pinto hatchback model that could could potentially explode upon rear-end impact due to faulty engineering.  Another problem was the doors could also become jammed shut in a collision where the frame was bent...but, hey, if the gas tank exploded first, the point was moot!  Only a couple of Pintos actually did explode in accidents, but there was hysteria about it prior to the recall.  The main problem with the Pinto, htchback or wagon, was it just wasn't a very good car.  It was a sh*tbox in the vernacular! 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sagrin.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto


Yeah well they had to go back and do it right.  The Escort was a pretty dan good hunk of tin.

Yeah well they had to go back and do it right.  The Escort was a pretty dan good hunk of tin.


Don't understand what you are saying.  The escort was good or bad?

I had a 1996 ford escort and that baby ran for 5 years with NO problems.  Then I got a new maxima and it was a piece of junk. Go figure.

Don't understand what you are saying.  The escort was good or bad?

I had a 1996 ford escort and that baby ran for 5 years with NO problems.  Then I got a new maxima and it was a piece of junk. Go figure.

The Escort replaced the Pinto in '81.  I mostly remember the boxy '80s models.  Reliable, but not much comfort or glamour!  My stepbrother's first car was a beat-up maroon '85 Escort, which he drove into the ground and donated to the fire dept. for jaws-of-life practice!
;D

Lots of talk about this in Canada. I personally say to hell with it. I know jobs will be lost, but rather than giving corporate welfare to idiots who should have already been switching to non-fossil fuel driven vehicles, use that money to put people to work elsewhere.

Lots of talk about this in Canada. I personally say to hell with it. I know jobs will be lost, but rather than giving corporate welfare to idiots who should have already been switching to non-fossil fuel driven vehicles, use that money to put people to work elsewhere.

I'm with Michael Moore here.  Call it a national emergency and let the government dictate to the companies what to manufacture, like they did in WWII.  We let the business executives own the political system and it's been our downfall.

BTW, in Canada the Ford Pinto was the Mercury Bobcat.  Exact same piece of junk!

Don't understand what you are saying.  The escort was good or bad?

I had a 1996 ford escort and that baby ran for 5 years with NO problems.  Then I got a new maxima and it was a piece of junk. Go figure.


It was a comeback for Ford.  Matter of fact some of those 1996 Escorts are still out on the road.

It was a comeback for Ford.  Matter of fact some of those 1996 Escorts are still out on the road.


Truedat!  Whenever I hear people complaining about American cars and how they just had to buy foreign to buy quality I talk about the Escort, one of the best of the economies. I had a Tempo that still remains one of my favorite cars, I got it from a friend, who got it from his father.

Truedat!  Whenever I hear people complaining about American cars and how they just had to buy foreign to buy quality I talk about the Escort, one of the best of the economies. I had a Tempo that still remains one of my favorite cars, I got it from a friend, who got it from his father.
Um watch it the Escort had a Mazda engine in it and was based on the Mazda Protege platform I believe.

Something to be said about older cars in general, foreign or domestic. They just kept on trucking. How about those old beetles eh? Probably the only car with 40 years behind it you'll see so frequently on the roads even today. The buggers still run.

Truedat!  Whenever I hear people complaining about American cars and how they just had to buy foreign to buy quality I talk about the Escort, one of the best of the economies. I had a Tempo that still remains one of my favorite cars, I got it from a friend, who got it from his father.


Escorts never die, they just retire.  Ford had a winner with those. :)

Of the remaining holdouts from the '80s fleet, I see more Hondas and Toyotas than any American car.  Here in the Northeast, of course, road salt curbs car longevity.  My '91 Integra's engine and transmission were fine at  170,000 miles, but the body was shot to sh*t.  I had sheet metal pop-riveted onto the fenders and whatnot, but it was losing battle.  Had to send the old boy to the great scrap heap in the sky back in '07; it just wasn't gonna pass inspection again!
:\'(

Um watch it the Escort had a Mazda engine in it and was based on the Mazda Protege platform I believe.


So you look to which country get the profits.  If you buy a Mazda, then final profit goes to Japan, if you buy an American brand, even with foreign parts(and the all have foreign parts since we have sold out to them in every way) than the final profit stays in America.  Sig is a mechanic, his friends are mechanics, their friends are mechanics.  They all buy American.  They chew on what has become of the American Auto industry, and cannot stand to listen to people who think to buy quality you have to buy outside of the US auto industry, because it is not truth, it is fashion.

So you look to which country get the profits.  If you buy a Mazda, then final profit goes to Japan, if you buy an American brand, even with foreign parts(and the all have foreign parts since we have sold out to them in every way) than the final profit stays in America.  Sig is a mechanic, his friends are mechanics, their friends are mechanics.  They all buy American.  They chew on what has become of the American Auto industry, and cannot stand to listen to people who think to buy quality you have to buy outside of the US auto industry, because it is not truth, it is fashion.
The reason why I bought Japanese on my first car purchase was because of quality yes. The last 2 times I bought Japanese was because I actually liked them( liked those cars and wanted to buy them.) BTW, my 2 Mazda's that I bought were made by UAW workers in a plant that Ford Motor Company owns. Believe me I read Consumer Reports, I read the Detroit News(the auto insider section), and I read the autochannel.com articles so I know well whats going on in the auto industry. Yes I know Ford is equal to Honda or Toyota in quality now but GM is a mixed bag in reliability as is Chysler(more hit or miss than GM in the reliability department.)

When Ford used to own 33% of Mazda from 1996 up till last week Ford made money off of Mazda so don;t say Mazda was 100% Japanese Company and the profits went to Japan totally for those 12.5 years.

I think your are a Domestic Car Fan, I grew up on Domestic Cars my parents have bought domestic forever but I just never went for the Domestic Car Company's that my parents bought from.

When Ford used to own 33% of Mazda from 1996 up till last week Ford made money off of Mazda so don;t say Mazda was 100% Japanese Company and the profits went to Japan totally for those 12.5 years.



I never said that 100% of Mazda went to Japan.  No one is, or gets 100% of anything.  There is a lot of give and take, but consumers who want to insist that the have to buy foreign to get quality are as disingenuous as those who have to buy SUVs for safety.  The United States can not feed, clothe, or shelter its citizens any longer, we are dependent on foreign sources for our necessities. The US corporations sold out the US citizens, but the citizens let them do it. The citizens are at fault because they insist on bundling up American dollars and shipping them out of the country.  It isn't because of quality, it is because of fashion, and now we are all feeling the pinch. 

Safety?  Learn to drive a frikkin' car!  That's your best safety feature.  As the old saying goes, the most important part of an automobile is the nut behind the wheel!  Sheesh, I live in a college town.  Mater and Pater send little Wilborforce to Amherst with his own Grande Cherokee and every dog in Hampshire County has to learn to climb trees!  You either bone up on your defensive driving or get your own dumptruck for self-preservation!
::)

There's nothing that warms the heart quite like rewarding a corporation for failure.

I really hope Obama wises up and doesn't bail out the Big 3.  Bush made the mistake of bailing out Wall Street (with the support of Obama and McCain), and now it looks like Obama might bail out the Big 3.  Granted, Bush seems equally eager to do so.

We really do need more Libertarians in office....

Safety?  Learn to drive a frikkin' car!  That's your best safety feature.  As the old saying goes, the most important part of an automobile is the nut behind the wheel!  Sheesh, I live in a college town.  Mater and Pater send little Wilborforce to Amherst with his own Grande Cherokee and every dog in Hampshire County has to learn to climb trees!  You either bone up on your defensive driving or get your own dumptruck for self-preservation!
::)


No sh*t, huh!!! I once bought a nice Lumina wagon off of a lady in Cohasset.  She said she had planned on giving it to her daughter(17), but she didn't want it, she wanted a pickup truck, so they bought her one, brand new, because (of course) "she's a good kid"  I have had it up to here with that one. In suburbia all the entitled, arrogant, thugs are "really a good kid" and in the inner city all the arrogant, ignorant, thugs are "just turning his/her life around". 

There's nothing that warms the heart quite like rewarding a corporation for failure.

I really hope Obama wises up and doesn't bail out the Big 3.  Bush made the mistake of bailing out Wall Street (with the support of Obama and McCain), and now it looks like Obama might bail out the Big 3.  Granted, Bush seems equally eager to do so.

We really do need more Libertarians in office....


There is absolutely no case to bail out the Big 3.  All this talk that "bankruptcy will be the end of the world" is hogwash.

Do the restructuring as a "packaged bankruptcy" and the business continues... costs are slashed... and life goes on.  of course, the stockholders in the company are wiped out but que sera, sera, I say.

Rick Waggoner should be summarily fired.  He has been in charge of GM since 2000 and presided over the expansion of Hummer, the destruction of Saturn, and the continuation of GM's fixation with oversized SUV's.  Heck, I would pay good money to get to be the guy who tells him we're gonna let them go bankrupt and his stock options are worthless.  Hit the road Rick... Don't let the tailgate hit you in the ass.

No sh*t, huh!!! I once bought a nice Lumina wagon off of a lady in Cohasset.  She said she had planned on giving it to her daughter(17), but she didn't want it, she wanted a pickup truck, so they bought her one, brand new, because (of course) "she's a good kid"  I have had it up to here with that one. In suburbia all the entitled, arrogant, thugs are "really a good kid" and in the inner city all the arrogant, ignorant, thugs are "just turning his/her life around". 


I didn't get no car when I was 17!  The other kids in the 'burbs got to go out cruising.  I could only go out...pacing.  Had to walk to work too!  Of all things, work!
:D

There is absolutely no case to bail out the Big 3.  All this talk that "bankruptcy will be the end of the world" is hogwash.

Do the restructuring as a "packaged bankruptcy" and the business continues... costs are slashed... and life goes on.  of course, the stockholders in the company are wiped out but que sera, sera, I say.

Rick Waggoner should be summarily fired.  He has been in charge of GM since 2000 and presided over the expansion of Hummer, the destruction of Saturn, and the continuation of GM's fixation with oversized SUV's.  Heck, I would pay good money to get to be the guy who tells him we're gonna let them go bankrupt and his stock options are worthless.  Hit the road Rick... Don't let the tailgate hit you in the ass.


100% agreed...

There is absolutely no case to bail out the Big 3.  All this talk that "bankruptcy will be the end of the world" is hogwash.

Do the restructuring as a "packaged bankruptcy" and the business continues... costs are slashed... and life goes on.  of course, the stockholders in the company are wiped out but que sera, sera, I say.

Rick Waggoner should be summarily fired.  He has been in charge of GM since 2000 and presided over the expansion of Hummer, the destruction of Saturn, and the continuation of GM's fixation with oversized SUV's.  Heck, I would pay good money to get to be the guy who tells him we're gonna let them go bankrupt and his stock options are worthless.  Hit the road Rick... Don't let the tailgate hit you in the ass.
You know I'm not a GM fan but Rick Wagoner is the best guy they have had in charge in awhile. I mean Roger Smith in the 80's was a disaster completely. I mean there have been hit product since he(rick Wagoner)has been there like the CTS, 08+ Malibu, and the Lambaba trio(outlook, Acadia, and Enclave.)

Rick even admitted they concentrated their efforts on SUV's too much and didn;t much put effort in their cars until now. Another words they rode the SUV wave too much.

As for Saturn they have never made money for GM anyway so Rick really didn;t destory Saturn at all, in fact Saturn has their best line-up out right now.

If the Domestic Big 3 go under we will go into a depression as a US nation.

You know I'm not a GM fan but Rick Wagoner is the best guy they have had in charge in awhile. I mean Roger Smith in the 80's was a disaster completely. I mean there have been hit product since he(rick Wagoner)has been there like the CTS, 08+ Malibu, and the Lambaba trio(outlook, Acadia, and Enclave.)

Rick even admitted they concentrated their efforts on SUV's too much and didn;t much put effort in their cars until now. Another words they rode the SUV wave too much.

As for Saturn they have never made money for GM anyway so Rick really didn;t destory Saturn at all, in fact Saturn has their best line-up out right now.

If the Domestic Big 3 go under we will go into a depression as a US nation.


Saturn's entire lineup is nothing but clones of other GM vehicles.  It used to be that when you bought a Saturn you could get a unique vehicle.  But no more.  Instead of selling Auras, GM would have been in much better shapoe selling a spiffier Malibu (which is the basis for the Aura anyway).  At this stage of the game, little is lost by whacking the Saturn brand.  Which is sad because I bought a Year One Saturn Coupe back in 1991 and it was a great car, plastic body and all. 

Wagonner admits he rode the SUV wave?  Fine, but that is no "get out of jail free" card.

The CTS is a nice car but in the end it is a niche distraction.  GM needed to develop successful mass market vehicles and they failed to do so.

No depression if a "packaged bankruptcy" is done.  Heck, if Congress is hell-bent on putting up public money for these companies then we should nationalize them.  I have absolutely no desire to put up public money so that the stockholders of GM are saved.  Mind you I am a staunch University of Chicago economist, which means that I would rather cut off my right, well, arm than to nationalize anything.

Saturn's entire lineup is nothing but clones of other GM vehicles.  It used to be that when you bought a Saturn you could get a unique vehicle.  But no more.  Instead of selling Auras, GM would have been in much better shapoe selling a spiffier Malibu (which is the basis for the Aura anyway).  At this stage of the game, little is lost by whacking the Saturn brand.  Which is sad because I bought a Year One Saturn Coupe back in 1991 and it was a great car, plastic body and all. 

Wagonner admits he rode the SUV wave?  Fine, but that is no "get out of jail free" card.

The CTS is a nice car but in the end it is a niche distraction.  GM needed to develop successful mass market vehicles and they failed to do so.

No depression if a "packaged bankruptcy" is done.  Heck, if Congress is hell-bent on putting up public money for these companies then we should nationalize them.  I have absolutely no desire to put up public money so that the stockholders of GM are saved.  Mind you I am a staunch University of Chicago economist, which means that I would rather cut off my right, well, arm than to nationalize anything.


While I agree with the rest of your post, I drive a Saturn, and I have to say that they've come a long way.  They're not Tupperware on wheels anymore like they were in the 90s.

Granted, I drive an Astra, which is a captive import made in Belgium and sold under the Opel, Vauxhall, and Holden brands in addition to Saturn, so it's really not a GM car at all.

Saturn's entire lineup is nothing but clones of other GM vehicles.  It used to be that when you bought a Saturn you could get a unique vehicle.  But
No depression if a "packaged bankruptcy" is done.  Heck, if Congress is hell-bent on putting up public money for these companies then we should nationalize them.  I have absolutely no desire to put up public money so that the stockholders of GM are saved.  Mind you I am a staunch University of Chicago economist, which means that I would rather cut off my right, well, arm than to nationalize anything.
[The brand name of GM is "tarnished" if a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy happens. Nobody is gonna buy a car from a company that is in bankruptcy.

The brand name of GM is "tarnished" if a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy happens. Nobody is gonna buy a car from a company that is in bankruptcy.


Good point...  but there are other things that can happen as well.  I hear China is interested in buying one of the Big 3.  I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Rick even admitted they concentrated their efforts on SUV's too much and didn;t much put effort in their cars until now. Another words they rode the SUV wave too much.



Which is why he should be gone.

The brand name of GM is "tarnished" if a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy happens. Nobody is gonna buy a car from a company that is in bankruptcy.


A chapter 7 bankruptcy of course, that's a liquidation.  I am advocating a packaged Chapter 11.

Bankruptcy does not spell the end of a brand.  Texaco went bankrupt in the 1980's and emerged whole.  Polaroid went bankrupt and still exisits to this day.  The Trump brand went bankrupt and Donald is bigger than ever.

All of this "bankruptcy is the end of the world" stuff is trash talk by the Big 3.  The same guys who never would have given up their private jets if the Congress had not shamed them into travelling economically.

What they really want is for the state to pay them to make crap cars half the people can't afford and half the people don't want!
Just like back in the USSR!
::)

What they really want is for the state to pay them to make crap cars half the people can't afford and half the people don't want!
Just like back in the USSR!
::)


"We pretend to work.  They pretend to pay us."
- UAW, 2009.

Hey, if these guys in Detroit don't get their sh*t together, you kids are going to be driving little teeny-tiny golf cart battery-powered tinfoil cars from China!

I keep hearing the right-wing pundits go on about how a bunch of government bureaucrats can't run a car company.  It's a little late for that rhetoric.  The question now is, "Can they do worse than Rick Wagoner and those bozos?"  Probably not!
::)

Also, this "Too big to fail" BS has gotta stop.  You already failed.  The question is, are you too big NOT to get a handout from the taxpayers?

Here is a good argument for the Government to bail out the Big 3.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SRyG6UR2A



Cat

Damn, airbags wouldn't be much help in that.

Here is a good argument for the Government to bail out the Big 3.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SRyG6UR2A



Cat


Not really...  I mean, yeah, that car obviously isn't safe to drive, but the standards we have for safety apply to every manufacturer.  A Chinese manufacturer would not be allowed to sell a car that unsafe here.  If a Chinese company bought one of the Big 3, it's doubtful they would move all production to China, but even the production that did would be required to meet our standards in order to be sold here.

If anything, China would probably do a good job of breaking up the stranglehold that unions have on our auto industry.  The UAW needs to fall.

Not really...  I mean, yeah, that car obviously isn't safe to drive, but the standards we have for safety apply to every manufacturer.  A Chinese manufacturer would not be allowed to sell a car that unsafe here.  If a Chinese company bought one of the Big 3, it's doubtful they would move all production to China, but even the production that did would be required to meet our standards in order to be sold here.

If anything, China would probably do a good job of breaking up the stranglehold that unions have on our auto industry.  The UAW needs to fall.


Oh please. Yeah, this country has standards, that is why we keep hearing about lead in toys, poison in milk, pet food, tooth paste, etc. etc. Sure we have standards.  ::)



Cat

Looks like it's a moot point anyway. $15,000,000,000 +.

Big Oil should bailout the Big Three.

Ant

Oh please. Yeah, this country has standards, that is why we keep hearing about lead in toys, poison in milk, pet food, tooth paste, etc. etc. Sure we have standards.  ::)



Cat


As scary as this sounds, we apply standards much more rigorously toward cars than toward food or toys.  Take from that what you will....  lol

If anything, China would probably do a good job of breaking up the stranglehold that unions have on our auto industry.  The UAW needs to fall.




But not too far.  Unions are a necessary evil.  Without them workers wouldn't have any protection.  What needs to happen is for workers to take more control of their unions.  Inept and/or corrupt management in any sphere is not good.

But not too far.  Unions are a necessary evil.  Without them workers wouldn't have any protection.  What needs to happen is for workers to take more control of their unions.  Inept and/or corrupt management in any sphere is not good.


Right.

I'm not a fan of the UAW because I honestly don't believe the guys in Champagne; IL need to be making $80,000 a year tightening lug nuts. That being said, without any protection they'd be making $6.50 an hour tightening lug nuts.

Right.

I'm not a fan of the UAW because I honestly don't believe the guys in Champagne; IL need to be making $80,000 a year tightening lug nuts. That being said, without any protection they'd be making $6.50 an hour tightening lug nuts.

You said it!  When I was a kid, 80K was a handsome salary.  It was what doctors got paid.  Nowadays if you've got a mortgage and four kids to put through college, it's not a whole heck of a lot of dough.  I wouldn't sneeze at it, mind you!  Besides, if your hauling ass down the interstate at 90 mph, wouldn't you rather have the lug nut tightner guy take a little extra time and make a little more money...or would you rather have:  "I only took this job 'cos I got canned from Wal-Mart when they caught me smoking a joint at the loading dock!"

The wage figures attributed to UAW members are not accurate.  UAW guys make a bit more than their counterparts in non-union auto shops, but not all that much, active workers that is.  The difference between those ###'s and the gross stats we hear has to do with all the pensions and heath benefits for the legions of retired big 3 workers, a good part of which was not put in trust by management.  Being retired I am in a similar situation.  I took early retirement at half pay an full heath insurance, but the Vt. State Colleges never put money away to cover those expenses even though they knew they would incur them for a %age of their employees, so they have to pay them out of current budgets.  Its just bad management - one more dance.

The wage figures attributed to UAW members are not accurate.  UAW guys make a bit more than their counterparts in non-union auto shops, but not all that much, active workers that is.  The difference between those ###'s and the gross stats we hear has to do with all the pensions and heath benefits for the legions of retired big 3 workers, a good part of which was not put in trust by management.  Being retired I am in a similar situation.  I took early retirement at half pay an full heath insurance, but the Vt. State Colleges never put money away to cover those expenses even though they knew they would incur them for a %age of their employees, so they have to pay them out of current budgets.  Its just bad management - one more dance.


The attempt to blame the UAW is a the most pitiful attempt at union-bashing I've ever seen!  Does anybody really think the unions wrecked the Big Three, I mean, excluding boneheads who think Sean Hannity is an oracle!
::)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081210/ap_on_go_co/congress_autos

Republican win?

Sucks that a bailout can even be argued to be necessary...sigh.

The attempt to blame the UAW is a the most pitiful attempt at union-bashing I've ever seen!  Does anybody really think the unions wrecked the Big Three, I mean, excluding boneheads who think Sean Hannity is an oracle!
::)


But the unions really are partially to blame for this.  I understand the desire to protect workers, but no union can escape the fact that our workers are competing with workers in places like Mexico.  It's just more cost-effective to farm out production to countries like that, and no union can change that -- in fact, they actually worsen the comparison.

What Honda, Toyota, and Mercedes are doing is about the best we can hope for.  There are a handful of production facilities in America for foreign automakers, but the only reason they are here is because we slap heavy tariffs on their cars if a certain amount of production isn't done here.  The Big 3 seem headed in a similar direction when it comes to outsourcing production, and with the unions around, I can't blame them.  Even Michael Moore pointed out that GM has recently built a huge factory in Russia.  If we bail out GM, a good amount of this money will go to places like Russia rather than stay here and protect jobs here.

So really, it makes the most sense to let the market clear itself, so that the unions will fall, and the Big 3 will outsource as needed.  It's not a pleasant outcome, but it's pretty much inevitable.

But the unions really are partially to blame for this.  I understand the desire to protect workers, but no union can escape the fact that our workers are competing with workers in places like Mexico.  It's just more cost-effective to farm out production to countries like that, and no union can change that -- in fact, they actually worsen the comparison.

What Honda, Toyota, and Mercedes are doing is about the best we can hope for.  There are a handful of production facilities in America for foreign automakers, but the only reason they are here is because we slap heavy tariffs on their cars if a certain amount of production isn't done here.  The Big 3 seem headed in a similar direction when it comes to outsourcing production, and with the unions around, I can't blame them.  Even Michael Moore pointed out that GM has recently built a huge factory in Russia.  If we bail out GM, a good amount of this money will go to places like Russia rather than stay here and protect jobs here.

So really, it makes the most sense to let the market clear itself, so that the unions will fall, and the Big 3 will outsource as needed.  It's not a pleasant outcome, but it's pretty much inevitable.


If the bail out comes without the Obama team that is what will happen.  I do believe that the O-Team would add the condition that job loss be kept at a minimum in the USA jobs.  The bush team only cares about what their portfolios will look like, and they like seeing low wages and no benefits.  That cost-effective sh*t is just that.  What they are doing is maximizing CEO/Management profits at the expense of the wage earner.  They do not lower costs when they lower wages and benefits, they just pocket the difference.

^ Ah, that's probably why the Bush admin is trying to push the bill so hard, but a lot of the Republican senators are balking at it even though they apparently support the bill as a whole, because they think additional provisions have to be implemented...

So confusing.  Too bad they can't just let the companies epic fail and rebuild :P

If the bail out comes without the Obama team that is what will happen.  I do believe that the O-Team would add the condition that job loss be kept at a minimum in the USA jobs.  The bush team only cares about what their portfolios will look like, and they like seeing low wages and no benefits.  That cost-effective sh*t is just that.  What they are doing is maximizing CEO/Management profits at the expense of the wage earner.  They do not lower costs when they lower wages and benefits, they just pocket the difference.


I'm not disagreeing with you on their intentions, but no matter what Obama has in his plans, he can't escape globalization.  Continuing the dysfunctional relationship between the UAW and the Big 3 isn't going to make them more competitive with the Japanese and European companies.  They will continue to lose market share and profitability as long as labor is cheaper elsewhere and management is shrewder.

I'm not disagreeing with you on their intentions, but no matter what Obama has in his plans, he can't escape globalization.  Continuing the dysfunctional relationship between the UAW and the Big 3 isn't going to make them more competitive with the Japanese and European companies.  They will continue to lose market share and profitability as long as labor is cheaper elsewhere and management is shrewder.


Which is why the labor movement has to get rid of its old guard and its prejudices and go global. The biggest problem with unions is its membership allows their leaders to become firmly entrenched and as self serving as corporate management.  The leaders of the unions are management and have to scrutinized as such.

Which is why the labor movement has to get rid of its old guard and its prejudices and go global. The biggest problem with unions is its membership allows their leaders to become firmly entrenched and as self serving as corporate management.  The leaders of the unions are management and have to scrutinized as such.


Very true.  Actually they need to go back to the "older guard".  I'm referring to the ideas of the IWW, one big union (the last "W" refers to World).  I have always maintained that as capital goes global, so must labor.  Admittedly, that ain't easy when your talking Russia or China, but there is no reason why the US labor movement shouldn't or couldn't work with Mexican unions, or Brazilian etc.  Remember labor history.  When capityal was local, so were unions. As capital became national, unions did  to.  The time for an international labor movement is at hand.

Very true.  Actually they need to go back to the "older guard".  I'm referring to the ideas of the IWW, one big union (the last "W" refers to World).  I have always maintained that as capital goes global, so must labor.  Admittedly, that ain't easy when your talking Russia or China, but there is no reason why the US labor movement shouldn't or couldn't work with Mexican unions, or Brazilian etc.  Remember labor history.  When capityal was local, so were unions. As capital became national, unions did  to.  The time for an international labor movement is at hand.

Yessir! We need the Wobblies!  Professional guilds are a fine thing, but as Big Bill Haywood said of the AFL, what you've got is a club, not a union.  Whether your labor is skill or unskilled, whether you're employed or unemployed, you need representation in the perpetual struggle against the capitalists.

I mean the real capitalists.  A few penny ante shares in the stock market do not make you a capitalist--a lesson hard-learned over the past few months.

I'm hoping organized labor will be an easier sell now that all the playskool capitalists lost their 401K plans! 

Which is why the labor movement has to get rid of its old guard and its prejudices and go global. The biggest problem with unions is its membership allows their leaders to become firmly entrenched and as self serving as corporate management.  The leaders of the unions are management and have to scrutinized as such.


I'm not sure I follow you.  There are unions in various countries, but the likelihood of unions actually raising wages in an industry globally are pretty slim.  There's obviously a huge gap in pay between what a Detroit worker gets and what a Mexican worker gets for the same job.  As long as vast differences in cost of living and standard of living exist, unionization seems like an act of futility -- at least for low skill labor.

If the government is willing to spend so much on the Big 3, they would be better off investing it in training GM workers in higher skilled trades that are less vulnerable to outsourcing.  That would be a better long term solution rather than bailing out dying companies.

The union I was a member of in the UK has two Memorandums of Understanding with unions in North America.  Quote from the website:

"Amicus has a strong links with the two largest unions in North America, the United Steelworkers (USW) http://uswa.org/uswa/program/content/index.php and the International Association of Machinists (IAMAW) http://www.iamaw.ca/  Amicus has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with both unions with the intention to build cooperation and union power. By establishing positive links with other unions we can work together to fight multinationals who have ruthless disregard for workers rights in the pursuit of greater profits."

It is intended to prevent multinational companies threatening workers in one country that they will take the work to another country if they don't co-operate.

Well, that about wraps it up for the latest failout. 

It's like Congress - much like the first round of the $700B bailouts that didn't get passed until $150B in pork got added to the bill - is playing the role of an attendee at a Rage Against The Machine concert. "Frack you, I won't do what you tell me."  With about the same effect when it comes to effecting real change.  It's like Junior High, except these idiots are playing with real ammo and real money.

More water under the bridge.  When GM, F, and (Chrysler) go b00bies-up in a few weeks, every financial institituion that wrote CDSes against the event is going to implode along with them.  Top it off with the Madoff scandal for which I've just spawned another thread, it looks like the world burns to ash between now and Christmas.

To that end, we've got another 3-4% drop in the overnight markets while most of the world sleeps; we're already about 2/3 of the way to lock limit down on the S&P futes.  Tomorrow could well suck galactic superclusters through buckytubes, even by the standards of the past few weeks.

The only positions worth taking on in size are those involving canned food and ammunition.  At least we'll get to watch the rest of the world burn with us.

While the Republicrats and Demopublicans sing Rage Against The Machine tunes at each other, I'm listening to Stealer's Wheel.  "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you."

well that's a little fatalistic, don't you think? and bear in mind, this is coming from someone who thinks the government is engaged in an organized campaign to spray the population with pesticides in preparation for herding us into work camps.

i'm not entirely buying the economic panic stuff. i think the economy has long been founded on ridiculous BS -- consumption, debt, service economics, smoke and mirrors -- and this is the pain of separating ourselves from that and putting ourselves on a more sustainable course. also, don't forget, we've had the biggest idiot in the history of the white house running things for the last eight years. i'm not trying to get all hopey, but ANYone other than that nimrod is bound to be a remarkable improvement.

doom and gloom are fun for a while but i think pretty soon here we're gonna collectively decide we'd rather live than die and we're gonna start actually fixing some of this stuff. if we don't, well, that's just fudgeing stupid of us, isn't it?

Well said, Tia. 

karmaditto

The politicians have demonstrated they're concerned with protecting international capitalists and they don't give a rat's ass about companies that actually make things.  It's downright treasonous!
::)

OK, so I overstated it a bit.

The markets failed to implode largely because of this morning's announcement that with the failout bill dead, some of the banks' looted TARP funds will be re-looted to benefit the automakers, we made it to the weekend.  That'll keep 'em afloat for another 2-3 months, after which it'll look like the Democrats' fault. Of course, since it was the Republicans' fault that the original auto failout bill didn't pass the Senate, there's still no political benefit for the 'pubs in this.  I think the only real debate over the past 48 hours was about which gang of thugs gets to control the $15B in auto bailout money.


doom and gloom are fun for a while but i think pretty soon here we're gonna collectively decide we'd rather live than die and we're gonna start actually fixing some of this stuff. if we don't, well, that's just fudging stupid of us, isn't it?


For a good time, read Jared Diamond's Collapse; it's not as good as Guns, Germs, and Steel, but it's a nice overview of why different civilizations muddle through, and why others collapse. 

We don't know if ours is past the tipping point or not.  But when a civilization does get past its tipping point, there's not a damn thing that anyone can do about it. 

i actually read guns germs and quite a lot of collapse. my favorite bit is the easter islanders, who responded to a lumber shortage by cutting down more trees so they could roll more giant statues around and stand them up so they could more effectively pray for more trees. ;D

i hope we're smarter than that but yeah, we may not be. what i'm hearing about the pubbies' opposition to the auto bailout is that they're gunning to bust the UAW.

really, in a way, i might be being more conspiratorial than you. when i keep seeing the media panicking and genuflecting over the economy, with different people from different news channels using the same cliche talking points -- we're gonna kick the can down the road! -- it makes me wonder if someone high up wants people to be worried about their jobs. i think there are very powerful folks who get it in their mind they'd like to do something -- go to war in iraq, say, or move massive amounts of public funds into private hands -- and they mess with the people's minds to make it easier. they just got through making people hopping mad at arabs but now they don't want people mad, because at this point an angry population in the US would actually take it out on our own government. so they switch up, and where a few years ago we were supposed to be hungry for blood, now we're supposed to be frightened and docile while they give our tax money to rich people by the shovelful. (ok, they're actually borrowing the money, but you know what i mean...)

i actually read guns germs and quite a lot of collapse. my favorite bit is the easter islanders, who responded to a lumber shortage by cutting down more trees so they could roll more giant statues around and stand them up so they could more effectively pray for more trees. ;D

i hope we're smarter than that but yeah, we may not be. what i'm hearing about the pubbies' opposition to the auto bailout is that they're gunning to bust the UAW.

really, in a way, i might be being more conspiratorial than you. when i keep seeing the media panicking and genuflecting over the economy, with different people from different news channels using the same cliche talking points -- we're gonna kick the can down the road! -- it makes me wonder if someone high up wants people to be worried about their jobs. i think there are very powerful folks who get it in their mind they'd like to do something -- go to war in iraq, say, or move massive amounts of public funds into private hands -- and they mess with the people's minds to make it easier. they just got through making people hopping mad at arabs but now they don't want people mad, because at this point an angry population in the US would actually take it out on our own government. so they switch up, and where a few years ago we were supposed to be hungry for blood, now we're supposed to be frightened and docile while they give our tax money to rich people by the shovelful. (ok, they're actually borrowing the money, but you know what i mean...)


Of course civilizations rise and fall, but I don't think you c an compare Easter Island, an isolated spec in the south pacific, to our worldwide civilization.  The U.S. might decline a bit in the pecking order due to the greed of transnational capital (which owes no allegiance to any country), but that is different from the collapse of civilization.  And I would point out that the left in this country has been pointing this out since the mid 1960's if not earlier (see Andre Gundar Frank's Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America).  

I agree that the powers that be are perfectly capable of manipulating public opinion to suit there purposes.  Jesus H Christ, Utah Phillips pointed that out years ago in one of his stories when he talked about the public schools building little "levers and buttons" into us to "elicit massive response for or against" whatever it wanted through the media.

OK, so now, since the repugs in the Senate have killed new legislation, Bush will will dip into what is left of the TARP $$$ to "kick the can" down the road.  Just a bit more of the mess Obama will have to confront.  But he seems like he has some ideas as to how.  In terms of the auto ind. there are new technologies in place, although not widely available, to ween us from gas.  Both Israel and Japan are working with a U.S. co. to make electric power stations a reality, and one of the Jap. companies is making the cars.

More power to Gettelfinger for putting the brakes on the attempt to gut the UAW.  

Well I'm about to say something that will get both sides mad at me, and that is I think both sides have been strip mining the American auto industry.

On one hand you have Management. No one should be paid more cash out of the till than the president of the US. Multi-million dollar salaries and bonus are just raiding the till.

On the other you have Labor. It would be great for everyone to be paid 80-150k a year. However is what they're doing worth more pay than say a teacher making 35k?

My solution? Go to a share system like the Alaskan Crab fishermen. Then salaries would be proportional to the success of the company.


The 80-150K auto worker is a myth.  Why can't people get that straight?  These figures divide total labor and benefit costs between the number of current workers.  That means that the cost of all those retired auto workers get thrown into the pot, not just what current workers are earning.

The 80-150K auto worker is a myth.  Why can't people get that straight?  These figures divide total labor and benefit costs between the number of current workers.  That means that the cost of all those retired auto workers get thrown into the pot, not just what current workers are earning.


It also adds in benefit dollars.  Most people believe that the workers are bringing that money home in their pockets.  The people complaining about the union not giving in to the demand that wages are reduced to those of what the non-union companies pay should be more upset that the fight should be about raising the level of wages to that of union workers.  They are also silent of the fact that though the rank and file are being asked to roll back their wage and compensation plan, management absolutely refuses to do the same.

It also adds in benefit dollars.  Most people believe that the workers are bringing that money home in their pockets.  The people complaining about the union not giving in to the demand that wages are reduced to those of what the non-union companies pay should be more upset that the fight should be about raising the level of wages to that of union workers.  They are also silent of the fact that though the rank and file are being asked to roll back their wage and compensation plan, management absolutely refuses to do the same.


Wage-earners still vote Republican...I guss 'cos they're "values voters" or something.
:D

Wage-earners still vote Republican...I guss 'cos they're "values voters" or something.
:D


That is spelled  I-D-I-O-T-S

Wage-earners still vote Republican...I guss 'cos they're "values voters" or something.
:D

That is spelled  I-D-I-O-T-S


Both true, but that raises the question as to why Repugs go to such lengths to punish them?

Check this out from toady's Rutland Herald

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20081214/FEATURES02/812140336

Next to Michigan, Ohio has the 2nd-worst unemployment in America.

The U.S. Auto Industry has been suffering since the 70's! Chrysler should've called it quits back then and NAFTA should've never existed! That's what fudgeed-up the Rust Belt!

It isn't all NAFTA.  The automotive industry is inbred and laden down with cement heads for whom innovation is a dirty word.  Simple innovations like seatbelts and higher MPGs have had to be rammed down their throats.  I blame it in corporate greed, incompetence, brought on by the said inbreeding that has brought us to this debacle.

Next to Michigan, Ohio has the 2nd-worst unemployment in America.

The U.S. Auto Industry has been suffering since the 70's! Chrysler should've called it quits back then and NAFTA should've never existed! That's what fudged-up the Rust Belt!


NAFTA does not explain the rise of Toyota, Honda, and BMW who all have been successful making automobiles in the United States, using parts largely supplied by USA-based suppliers.

i actually read guns germs and quite a lot of collapse. my favorite bit is the easter islanders, who responded to a lumber shortage by cutting down more trees so they could roll more giant statues around and stand them up so they could more effectively pray for more trees. ;D

i hope we're smarter than that but yeah, we may not be. what i'm hearing about the pubbies' opposition to the auto bailout is that they're gunning to bust the UAW.

My favorite bit is the Detroit automakers, who responded to $4.50 gasoline by building more giant SUVs, and when a debt deflation wiped out commodity prices, they asked for funds that would enable them to retrool their assembly lines for environmentally-friendly and ecologically-sensitive personal transportation appliances... just in time for $1.50 gasoline.


Of course civilizations rise and fall, but I don't think you can compare Easter Island, an isolated spec in the south pacific, to our worldwide civilization. 


We'll fail, we'll just fail differently.  Interconnection has its own risks - consider how interconnected the supply chains are for everything from industrial production to food distribution.  We've seen some signs of recovery in the shipping industry over the past week or two, but due to the credit seizure, there was a period of time in which bulk carriers couldn't get letters of credit; ships didn't sail, and the cost of hiring a ship was less than ship's value as scrap metal. 

The US is a net food exporter.  If ships full of wheat don't sail, millions of people die.  Problem is, the only reason we're so damn good at producing food is because we're net importers of other bulk commodities, like petrochemicals (both for use as fertilizer and as fuel).  There's another entire supply chain involving metals and manufactured goods -- the tractor may be assembled in Canada or Mexico and driven across the border to the US, but most of its components were made in China and shipped in, again, by bulk carrier.

It probably won't come to that, but make no mistake that it can.  What you gain with an interdependent world is one in which trading partners are less likely to go to war with each other.  That interdependence comes at a cost:  Easter Island's collapse affected only the Easter Islanders.  If that global trade system fails, better dig out those manuals for Pioneer living, because everyone's about to start playing the world's biggest game of Oregon Trail.

Both true, but that raises the question as to why Repugs go to such lengths to punish them?

Check this out from toady's Rutland Herald

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20081214/FEATURES02/812140336



If you're poor and out of work, then it's your fault.  Get right with God and stop listening to those sissy European-style welfare state pundits, and you'll be just fine.  The only problem we have here is a failure to let the free markets run as freely as they need run.  As soon as government gets its tentacles in the free market, the Ayn Rand utopia falls all apart!

Required reading:

Is GM's Bankruptcy Inevitable?

Actually, just about everything on this blog should be required reading.  But as for the bailout, this one's a must-read.

On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors - John DeLorean

If you're poor and out of work, then it's your fault.  Get right with God and stop listening to those sissy European-style welfare state pundits, and you'll be just fine.  The only problem we have here is a failure to let the free markets run as freely as they need run.  As soon as government gets its tentacles in the free market, the Ayn Rand utopia falls all apart!



Part of the free market is that organized labor having a free hand to bargain with free capital.

Part of the free market is that organized labor having a free hand to bargain with free capital.


These guys aren't even up to BS-ing about the market versus labor.

It's just, "Gimmie the money!"

Or?

Or what?  Just gimmie the money!"

Part of the free market is that organized labor having a free hand to bargain with free capital.


I fully agree with you on this Don Carlos.

Free capital means no government bailout.  In the absence of a government bailout, the government has no place asking the unions to give up concessions.  Let the market work all that stuff out, as apparently it has been doing for the past few decades.

Of course what we have here is the union openly asking for government money, but refusing to ante up themselves.

Of course what we have here is the union openly asking for government money, but refusing to ante up themselves.




It isn't the union asking for government money, it is management.  The unions have given concessions in the past contracts, but management hasn't.  Anyone who believes that "work for a dollar" crap is a fool.  They say they will take a salary of one dollar, Iaccoca did the same thing, then took a $5million(after tax)Christmas bonus, housing allowance, healthcare, living expenses, and stock options.  How about having management follow the Japanese who make 1/3 of what their American counterparts make.  We should also take note that Japan has universal health care so if workers are asked to follow the Japanese model that should be included. Oh yeah, and to put a kid through college in Japan is about 10,000 a year(total before grants, scholarships, and loans) so let's see what we can do about that here, too.

That's a hidden benefit of universal health care that's I wrote about in a college essay. Suddenly those companies in the US that pay for HC would find themselves without that financial burden, and the American worker would find themselves more competitive. Meanwhile everyone would find themselves with healthcare. People scoffed at the idea of UHC because it would cost around 160-200 billion a year. Considering how much money we're throwing (1Tril+) at the private sector trying to get the economy restarted, that may not be such a bad deal.


In fact it's a fan-dam-tastic idea.  I'm amazed at the pundits who are saying that the eco crisis will force Obama to put some of his reforms on the back burner.  Many, if not all of them, including universal health insurance, would help ameliorate the crisis, and not just in the auto industry.


I fully agree with you on this Don Carlos.

Free capital means no government bailout.  In the absence of a government bailout, the government has no place asking the unions to give up concessions.  Let the market work all that stuff out, as apparently it has been doing for the past few decades.

Of course what we have here is the union openly asking for government money, but refusing to ante up themselves.


But we haven't had a "free market" in decades, and that's a good thing.  In fact there never was such a thing.  The state has always intervened in one way or another.  Taxation is one way, which precedes capitalism.  Holding unions as conspiracies, which was the case in the U.S. until the early 19th century, is another.  Using the national guard to break strikes, as with the Pullman strike, is another.  Allowing companies to employ private armies to do so, as with the Homestead strike and many more, is another.  And by the way, even Adam Smith wrote, in The wealth of Nations that capitalists (he called them businessmen) hated competition and would always conspire to stifle it.  Adam never shrugged.

That's a hidden benefit of universal health care that's I wrote about in a college essay. Suddenly those companies in the US that pay for HC would find themselves without that financial burden, and the American worker would find themselves more competitive. Meanwhile everyone would find themselves with healthcare. People scoffed at the idea of UHC because it would cost around 160-200 billion a year. Considering how much money we're throwing (1Tril+) at the private sector trying to get the economy restarted, that may not be such a bad deal.


Pretty much...  I'm against these bailouts, but I'm in favor of socialized healthcare.

Pretty much...  I'm against these bailouts, but I'm in favor of socialized healthcare.


Agree.

What next...bail out us?

It isn't the union asking for government money, it is management.  The unions have given concessions in the past contracts, but management hasn't.  Anyone who believes that "work for a dollar" crap is a fool.  They say they will take a salary of one dollar, Iaccoca did the same thing, then took a $5million(after tax)Christmas bonus, housing allowance, healthcare, living expenses, and stock options.  How about having management follow the Japanese who make 1/3 of what their American counterparts make.  We should also take note that Japan has universal health care so if workers are asked to follow the Japanese model that should be included. Oh yeah, and to put a kid through college in Japan is about 10,000 a year(total before grants, scholarships, and loans) so let's see what we can do about that here, too.


If bank tellers were unionized the Republicans would have forced the banks to bust the union before bailing them out.  Nothing fills the ruling classes with so much contempt as the producing classes challenging their supremacy.  It's as true today as it was in Andrew Carnegie's time.

Of course, the difference is Carnegie felt guilty about his avarice and started investing his money for the public good. 
::)

The work-for-a-dollar thing is just PR.  If I was in charge, I'd give these diamond-studded punks a chance to prove they're loyal to the company.  It would be like the Joe Pesci movie "The Super."  The execs can either resign or they can agree to live on the salary of an assembly line worker until the company is solvent.  And NO executive perks or bonuses, I'll be watching!

It isn't the union asking for government money, it is management. 

I beg to differ.  Ron Middlefinger wasn't there in the congressional chambers giving celebrity autographs.  He was testifying how bad the industry needs the bailout.  He knows that if/when the companies file for Chapter 11, his contracts will be useful for nothing more than toilet paper.

So Bush caved!  After refusing to use the TARP $$$ he came up with 17+ billion in loans.  Check out Paul Krugman's latest.  I can't link it because he is syndicated from the NY Times, but he points out that the TARP bailouts of the banks imposed no conditions on the bankers' salaries or bonuses. Interesting.

So Bush caved!  After refusing to use the TARP $$$ he came up with 17+ billion in loans.  Check out Paul Krugman's latest.  I can't link it because he is syndicated from the NY Times, but he points out that the TARP bailouts of the banks imposed no conditions on the bankers' salaries or bonuses. Interesting.


Bush is a lame duck who's goose is overcooked!

I beg to differ.  Ron Middlefinger wasn't there in the congressional chambers giving celebrity autographs.  He was testifying how bad the industry needs the bailout.  He knows that if/when the companies file for Chapter 11, his contracts will be useful for nothing more than toilet paper.


The union wants the bailout, yes, but they are also saying that they will not give more than they have already given and if it comes to that than we will all suffer together.

The union wants the bailout, yes, but they are also saying that they will not give more than they have already given and if it comes to that than we will all suffer together.


Which brings me to my original position on this thread.  Screw 'em all.

Nobody bailed out the airline unions.  Nobody bailed out the steel unions.  So why should we bail out the autoworker unions?

Bush should have stuck to his guns and pursued an "orderly bankruptcy".  But Bush II never has been a government-hands-off-business guy anyway (as opposed to his Old Man, who would never have intervened in business the way Jr has)

Bush should have stuck to his guns and pursued an "orderly bankruptcy". 


Nonsense.  The whole point of the talk about "orderly bankruptcy" was to drive the price of the auto stocks down by 20-30% on Thursday, and then bail them out on Friday morning (driving them back up 20-30%) before the markets opened. 

The only consistent pattern over the past few months has been this:

1) Pump and dump.  A government official responsible for public confidence says everything's going fine, giving his friends (and the winning lobbyists' friends) an opportunity to exit any long positions and/or short the stock.  The next day (typically a Friday after the market close), the same official is shocked, shocked, at the declaration of bankruptcy and/or nationalization.

2) Dump and pump.  A government official responsible for a bailout talks a company's stock down, giving his friends (and the winning lobbyists' friends) an opportunity buy the stock.  The next day, the same official announces a bailout, and everyone sells at a profit.

Free markets are used by buyers and sellers as a mechanism to discover prices.  But these are not free markets; their only remaining purpose is to transfer funds from the taxpayer to politically-favored individuals and organizations.  The price-discovery function of markets (namely the sharp intraday drops in F and GM last Thursday at the utterance of the phrase "orderly bankruptcy") exists only as an exploitable means by which the funds may be laundered. 

The trick is not to believe the unregulated free market utopia can come to pass any more than the stateless Marxist utopia can come to pass.  Whether you place the blame on the corporate execs or the politicians is six and one-half dozen of the other. 

Two things might help here:

Integral campaign finance reform and integral lobbying reform.

I say "integral" as opposed to some tinkering half-assed effort like McCain-Feingold which only makes the problems worse.
::)

The trick is not to believe the unregulated free market utopia can come to pass any more than the stateless Marxist utopia can come to pass.  Whether you place the blame on the corporate execs or the politicians is six and one-half dozen of the other. 

Two things might help here:

Integral campaign finance reform and integral lobbying reform.

I say "integral" as opposed to some tinkering half-assed effort like McCain-Feingold which only makes the problems worse.
::)


Max, here is the LyricBoy campaign finance reform proposal.  It is quite simple in nature.  Here goes.


You can only contribute to a candidate that you can actually vote for.  For example, being a Picksburgher, I could not contribute money to whoever is running to be a Senator in New York. But I could contribute to any national election candidate, or of course anyone running to represent my district or state.
The above rule thus prevents companies, and unions from contributing to campaigns.  Since companies and unions are entities that do not vote in elections.
Above rules do not abolish PACs.  I could give my money to a PAC, but it must completely account for my contributions and make sure that they only go to elections for which I can vote
Subject to the above, I can give all the money I want to a campaign that is one that I can physically vote for.  Sky's the limit.

The effect of these rules is that they would eliminate out-of-jurisdiction meddling in elections.  Yet they preserve the right for me to spend all my money for the local dog catcher if I so choose.

Toyota is posting huge losses this quarter  Damn those workers, if they didn't expect to be paid for work the company wouldn't be in this fix  ::)

Max, here is the LyricBoy campaign finance reform proposal.  It is quite simple in nature.  Here goes.


You can only contribute to a candidate that you can actually vote for.  For example, being a Picksburgher, I could not contribute money to whoever is running to be a Senator in New York. But I could contribute to any national election candidate, or of course anyone running to represent my district or state.
The above rule thus prevents companies, and unions from contributing to campaigns.  Since companies and unions are entities that do not vote in elections.
Above rules do not abolish PACs.  I could give my money to a PAC, but it must completely account for my contributions and make sure that they only go to elections for which I can vote
Subject to the above, I can give all the money I want to a campaign that is one that I can physically vote for.  Sky's the limit.

The effect of these rules is that they would eliminate out-of-jurisdiction meddling in elections.  Yet they preserve the right for me to spend all my money for the local dog catcher if I so choose.



Sounds good, but how much of your resources are you willing to expend routing out corruption in the PACs?  For instance, since company A cannot contribute to candidate B, company A will find ways to launder money through individual C who can contribute to candidate B.

Sounds good, but how much of your resources are you willing to expend routing out corruption in the PACs?  For instance, since company A cannot contribute to candidate B, company A will find ways to launder money through individual C who can contribute to candidate B.


Well you'll NEVER get rid of all money laundering, that's for sure.  Existing money-launder laws would cover your scenario I believe.

My biggest beef about campaign spending is the taking of out-of-jurisdiction money to sway local elections.

The fact that Obama's campaign collected enough contributions to fund most G-8 countries really did not bother me, if people who can vote for him want to spend that kinda dough, more power to them and him.  But my ass really gets chapped when out-of-state money comes in to prop up local elections, or Senate/House elections that are supposed to represent local/state residents.

Is this not a case of overlooking the painfully obvious?!

If we look back to what started this mess... the housing market, which goes back to the rise of interest rates, causing people (and companies) to default on their loans.

Isn't the obvious solution to bring the interest rates back down?  I mean significantly, not 1/4 of a point at a time.  Then people will be able to afford their payments again, automakers will be able to get loans, people will be able to get financing to buy cars...

Is this not a case of overlooking the painfully obvious?!

If we look back to what started this mess... the housing market, which goes back to the rise of interest rates, causing people (and companies) to default on their loans.


A prolonged period of low interest rates following the 9/11 attacks is what artificially inflated the housing market, and with it, it turned out, the stock and commodities markets.  The newly-created money (HELOC funds drawn against and secured by artificially-inflated housing prices) was used to purchase everything from clothing to food to SUVs to flat-screen TVs, thereby inflating earnings growth in every market sector from commodities to retail consumption.  We had an housing bubble, which prompted both an asset bubble and a commodities bubble.

With gas at $4.50/gallon, oil at $150/bbl, and the price of basic foodstuffs tripling, the Fed stepped in with a series of slow and incremental rate increases to slow an incipient inflationary spiral.


Isn't the obvious solution to bring the interest rates back down?  I mean significantly, not 1/4 of a point at a time.  Then people will be able to afford their payments again, automakers will be able to get loans, people will be able to get financing to buy cars...


We're at ZIRP:  Zero Interest Rate Policy.  How much lower than zero do you want?  They cut the last 3/4 of a point last week.  The fed is out of ammunition on the rate front, and has resorted to quantitative easing.  Stick a fork in it, it's done.  Eventually, it'll have to reflate, and you're going to hate that even more than what's happened so far.

The supreme irony is that it looks like once the asset bubble has deflated enough to wipe out the last debtor - and the zero interest rate policy indicates just how hard they've been trying (and failing) to alleviate the damage done by the deflation - they'll be forced by circumstance to reflate to the point that they wipe out the last saver. 

Nobody knows how this plays out.  If we're lucky, we wind up like Japan (who thinks we're toast without planetary aid).  If we're unlucky, we wind up like Zimbabwe (who thinks we're doing a great job).

Is this not a case of overlooking the painfully obvious?!

If we look back to what started this mess... the housing market, which goes back to the rise of interest rates, causing people (and companies) to default on their loans.

Isn't the obvious solution to bring the interest rates back down?  I mean significantly, not 1/4 of a point at a time.  Then people will be able to afford their payments again, automakers will be able to get loans, people will be able to get financing to buy cars...




Lower interest rates are just one tool, not a catch-all.  I remember just as the 2001 recession was unfolding, at my company some wank said "not to worry, the Fed is cutting interest rates".  Everybody listened to him intently and reverentially.

I then went on a dissertation to the group as to how interest rate drops are only one revelant factor, and that if the economy has a really big problem, they will not get the job done.  As the japanese discovered in the late 80's and throughout the 90's.  I did not tell my audience that the economy was going to hell in a hand basket, just told them that a rate drop was no panacea.  Damn, I was right, too.  Ove the next two years my industry (steel) went through an unprecedented meltdown.

Lowering interest rates can be not unlike giving an alcoholic a nice stiff drink in the morning to treat their hangover.

We're at ZIRP:  Zero Interest Rate Policy.  How much lower than zero do you want?  They cut the last 3/4 of a point last week.  The fed is out of ammunition on the rate front, and has resorted to quantitative easing.  Stick a fork in it, it's done.  Eventually, it'll have to reflate, and you're going to hate that even more than what's happened so far.




I'm referring to the index rates that banks use to determine what they charge their customers.  For instance, I'm currently paying 5 1/4% (which is manageable) but I seem to be on the low end of the spectrum, I know people who are paying between 6 and 7.  Still, we're all paying more now than we were in 2003 (when we had intro rates).  So from the perspective of someone who is relying on loans, the rates have gone up, not down.

And I'm not implying that this is the only piece of the puzzle, I'm saying that I'd rather see people and businesses be able to consistently make their payments to get the banks and automakers out of trouble than see the government giving them huge handouts which we may or may not ever get back.

All I'm trying to say is that if these bad debts continue to pile up, we are going to be doing bailouts for the rest of our lives...

Still, we're all paying more now than we were in 2003 (when we had intro rates). 


(Emphasis added.)

*ding ding ding*, we have a winner! 

When the Cable Company says "Broadband, TV, Voice, for $19.99/month*", you look at the asterisk and you see that it means "$19.99/month for the first 6 months, then $99.99/month for the next 6 months, 12-month minimum".  You're actually paying for a year's subscription at $60/month.  Maybe you just want the Internet, use your existing mobile for telephony, and bunny ears for over-the-air TV, and you can get broadband for a lot cheaper than $60/month.  Maybe the Cable Company is trying to screw you into buying something you didn't really want.

When the loan officer says "Sure, we'll loan you $500K at 2% as an intro rate", you look at the words "intro rate", and you find out that it means "whatever prime is in 5 years, +2%, for the next 25 years", and you figure out the present value of the future monthly payments based on that.

Intro rates are just that.  Introductory, or "teaser" rates.  They bore no relation to the actual cost of credit.  They were intended to get people like you to borrow at "1% for the first few years, then at some higher rate a few years down the road."  The assumption was that your home would be worth more at the time of rate adjustment, and that you'd be able to use your better debt-to-equity ratio (although you've put no equity into the house, but the house has gone up in value). 

Now that housing isn't going up 10%/year, no bank still solvent enough to loan money is crazy enough to do so on such terms.  Because every bank that was crazy enough (here's looking at you, Countrywide, IndyMac, WaMu, Fannie, Freddie, Bear, Lehman, Citigroup and friends) isn't not only "not solvent enough" to do so, most of them were so insolvent that they no longer exist.

So, no, you're not going to be getting easy credit any time soon.  And if you really thought that you'd be refinancing at those teaser rates (even without a global economic collapse), you were part of the problem.  Your loan officer neglected to tell you the truth (and in some cases, outright lied) about how teaser rates worked, and you didn't read the fine print and call him on his BS.  Sucks to be you, but at least you didn't know any better, and neither did millions of other people.  If it's any consolation, most of the companies who loaned you that first gob of money are now bankrupt, and you might still get bailed out by either hyperinflation or confiscatory taxation of anyone who didn't join in the housing bubble and who still has some assets left to tax away.

Don't take it personally; you may have helped inflate the housing bubble, but if you hold an ARM and expected to refinance at tease rates, at least you did so because you didn't know any better.  It took bankers - who should have known better - to turn those millions of relatively minor financial mistakes into something that still threatens to wipe out the entire global financial system.  (Seriously, I may come off as a little bitter here, but I've got no beef with borrowers.  You may have screwed up, but at least you didn't destroy the world, and in an alternate reality in which I'd profited from the implosion, I'd be thanking you for helping kick off the disaster.  My trading mistakes are mine and mine alone, and had I been just a little bit more cynical about how stupid the whole thing had become, I might have made a fortune by selling everything for cash and using the cash to against the doomed banks, not merely fiddling, but instead banking egregious coin while Rome burned. :)

But never mind all that.  This isn't a housing thread, it's an automotive bailout thread!  So go out and buy a car.  Because if you're a US taxpayer, your money has already been spent on buying one.  Fed Destined To Become World's Largest Auto Dealership.

(Emphasis added.)

*ding ding ding*, we have a winner! 

When the Cable Company says "Broadband, TV, Voice, for $19.99/month*", you look at the asterisk and you see that it means "$19.99/month for the first 6 months, then $99.99/month for the next 6 months, 12-month minimum".  You're actually paying for a year's subscription at $60/month.  Maybe you just want the Internet, use your existing mobile for telephony, and bunny ears for over-the-air TV, and you can get broadband for a lot cheaper than $60/month.  Maybe the Cable Company is trying to screw you into buying something you didn't really want.

When the loan officer says "Sure, we'll loan you $500K at 2% as an intro rate", you look at the words "intro rate", and you find out that it means "whatever prime is in 5 years, +2%, for the next 25 years", and you figure out the present value of the future monthly payments based on that.

Intro rates are just that.  Introductory, or "teaser" rates.  They bore no relation to the actual cost of credit.  They were intended to get people like you to borrow at "1% for the first few years, then at some higher rate a few years down the road."  The assumption was that your home would be worth more at the time of rate adjustment, and that you'd be able to use your better debt-to-equity ratio (although you've put no equity into the house, but the house has gone up in value). 

Now that housing isn't going up 10%/year, no bank still solvent enough to loan money is crazy enough to do so on such terms.  Because every bank that was crazy enough (here's looking at you, Countrywide, IndyMac, WaMu, Fannie, Freddie, Bear, Lehman, Citigroup and friends) isn't not only "not solvent enough" to do so, most of them were so insolvent that they no longer exist.

So, no, you're not going to be getting easy credit any time soon.  And if you really thought that you'd be refinancing at those teaser rates (even without a global economic collapse), you were part of the problem.  Your loan officer neglected to tell you the truth (and in some cases, outright lied) about how teaser rates worked, and you didn't read the fine print and call him on his BS.  Sucks to be you, but at least you didn't know any better, and neither did millions of other people.  If it's any consolation, most of the companies who loaned you that first gob of money are now bankrupt, and you might still get bailed out by either hyperinflation or confiscatory taxation of anyone who didn't join in the housing bubble and who still has some assets left to tax away.

Don't take it personally; you may have helped inflate the housing bubble, but if you hold an ARM and expected to refinance at tease rates, at least you did so because you didn't know any better.  It took bankers - who should have known better - to turn those millions of relatively minor financial mistakes into something that still threatens to wipe out the entire global financial system.  (Seriously, I may come off as a little bitter here, but I've got no beef with borrowers.  You may have screwed up, but at least you didn't destroy the world, and in an alternate reality in which I'd profited from the implosion, I'd be thanking you for helping kick off the disaster.  My trading mistakes are mine and mine alone, and had I been just a little bit more cynical about how stupid the whole thing had become, I might have made a fortune by selling everything for cash and using the cash to against the doomed banks, not merely fiddling, but instead banking egregious coin while Rome burned. :)

But never mind all that.  This isn't a housing thread, it's an automotive bailout thread!  So go out and buy a car.  Because if you're a US taxpayer, your money has already been spent on buying one.  Fed Destined To Become World's Largest Auto Dealership.


See, I didn't get one of those super low teaser rates... I was paying 4.75 for 5 years and this year it went up to 5.25... not a big deal, still manageable.. luckily, when we bought our house, we had just sold a smaller house so we don't have a huge mortgage anyway...

But I was just weighing the two options:

Option 1: Banks continue to offer the low rates to EXISTING borrowers.  Sure, they won't make as much profit as they may like, but the majority of the future "bad debts" will be rescued.  At least they will get the principal back, and a lower interest.  Which would mean they could afford to make loans to auto companies, etc.

Option 2: Banks do nothing: don't get paid because people can't afford to make their payments, so they lose principal and interest, incur the costs of foreclosures and trying to resell homes that people can no longer afford to buy, and since they're not lending, not making any money, they get a handout from the government.

(Emphasis added.)

*ding ding ding*, we have a winner! 

When the Cable Company says "Broadband, TV, Voice, for $19.99/month*", you look at the asterisk and you see that it means "$19.99/month for the first 6 months, then $99.99/month for the next 6 months, 12-month minimum".  You're actually paying for a year's subscription at $60/month.  Maybe you just want the Internet, use your existing mobile for telephony, and bunny ears for over-the-air TV, and you can get broadband for a lot cheaper than $60/month.  Maybe the Cable Company is trying to screw you into buying something you didn't really want.

When the loan officer says "Sure, we'll loan you $500K at 2% as an intro rate", you look at the words "intro rate", and you find out that it means "whatever prime is in 5 years, +2%, for the next 25 years", and you figure out the present value of the future monthly payments based on that.

Intro rates are just that.  Introductory, or "teaser" rates.  They bore no relation to the actual cost of credit.  They were intended to get people like you to borrow at "1% for the first few years, then at some higher rate a few years down the road."  The assumption was that your home would be worth more at the time of rate adjustment, and that you'd be able to use your better debt-to-equity ratio (although you've put no equity into the house, but the house has gone up in value). 

"Isn't Mrs. Hegel expecting you in consumer ed class?"
--FBDOF

I think every kid in America should learn about this before the age of 18!  The best way to get the con artist off the corner is tell everybody in the neighborhood his game.  I'm sick of this crap...and yet folks continue to fall for it, never mind the fine print!

100% guaranteed approval!  You cannot be turned down!*

*After we determine we are not going to turn you down.
Terms and conditions apply subject to yadda-da yadda-da yadda-da  yadda-da yadda-da yadda-da  yadda-da yadda-da yadda-da  yadda-da yadda-da yadda-da  yadda-da yadda-da yadda-da  yadda-da yadda-da yadda-da  yadda-da yadda-da yadda-da  yadda-da yadda-da yadda-da  yadda-da yadda-da yadda-da .......

See, I didn't get one of those super low teaser rates... I was paying 4.75 for 5 years and this year it went up to 5.25... not a big deal, still manageable.. luckily, when we bought our house, we had just sold a smaller house so we don't have a huge mortgage anyway...

Cool.  You're Doing It Right!  (And when you got that 4.75 rate, the fed funds rate was probably somewhere around 1-2%.  The banks' interest margins aren't that much higher today than they were at the start of the housing bubble, especially given the completely different risk picture they're taking on by lending against real estate today vs. in 2003.  Yes, the spreads are higher, but that's about the only real thing that's keeping them afloat.)


Option 1: Banks continue to offer the low rates to EXISTING borrowers.  Sure, they won't make as much profit as they may like, but the majority of the future "bad debts" will be rescued.  At least they will get the principal back, and a lower interest.  Which would mean they could afford to make loans to auto companies, etc.

Option 2: Banks do nothing: don't get paid because people can't afford to make their payments, so they lose principal and interest, incur the costs of foreclosures and trying to resell homes that people can no longer afford to buy, and since they're not lending, not making any money, they get a handout from the government.


It's a catch-22 for the banks. 

Option 1: Nobody in the free market is buying mortgage-backed securities of any type, because they can't trust that it's worth the paper it's printed on.  Doesn't matter how tight a bank's lending standards are, they're stuck with that paper for the life of the loan.  Just about all the banks would be insolvent, which is why the Fed stepped in -- creating an unfree market, in which it can now treat this paper as if it were cash.

So the bank borrows from the Fed (or, now that the 2-year and 5-year bonds are yeilding almost nothing) the US Treasury at nearly-zero rates, and secures that loan by pledging the mortgages it's already made against the loan.  That's keeping banks afloat (at least on paper, because considering the alternative, we're all willing to temporarily ignore any and all accounting standards), but it's hardly a motivation to write new loans.

The only thing they can do is recapitalize.  Which is the other reason the rate spreads are higher than they were in 2003.  Not by much, but by enough that, by the time people start caring about how well-capitalized a bank really is again, they might be solvent.

Option 2:  Exactly the problem.  Nobody, even the banks, wants to go this route.  They're in the lending business, not the renting-houses-to-people business. 

That's the Catch-22 from the banks' point of view.

From the borrower's point of view, there's a similar Catch-22, and this article sums it up just as accurately.  "In a nutshell those that don’t need the credit can get it and those that do can’t.  This is the perfect credit crisis storm - one which low rates can’t fix."

On the bright side, if the guy's right (and he's been mostly right all along), I'm wrong.  You'll get your refi in a few months when the requirement for a new appraisal is wavied.  That might reflate the bubble just long enough for me to get on the other side of it and get a second chance at making money on the next phase of the implosion.  (Maybe we all get a second chance, even if it only delays the inevitable future in which we all end up eating rat-on-a-stick :)

I prefer the idea of disbanding the Fed Reserve and letting the market clear itself.  Granted, that's not going to happen....

Cool.  You're Doing It Right!  (And when you got that 4.75 rate, the fed funds rate was probably somewhere around 1-2%.  The banks' interest margins aren't that much higher today than they were at the start of the housing bubble, especially given the completely different risk picture they're taking on by lending against real estate today vs. in 2003.  Yes, the spreads are higher, but that's about the only real thing that's keeping them afloat.)

It's a catch-22 for the banks. 

Option 1: Nobody in the free market is buying mortgage-backed securities of any type, because they can't trust that it's worth the paper it's printed on.  Doesn't matter how tight a bank's lending standards are, they're stuck with that paper for the life of the loan.  Just about all the banks would be insolvent, which is why the Fed stepped in -- creating an unfree market, in which it can now treat this paper as if it were cash.

So the bank borrows from the Fed (or, now that the 2-year and 5-year bonds are yeilding almost nothing) the US Treasury at nearly-zero rates, and secures that loan by pledging the mortgages it's already made against the loan.  That's keeping banks afloat (at least on paper, because considering the alternative, we're all willing to temporarily ignore any and all accounting standards), but it's hardly a motivation to write new loans.

The only thing they can do is recapitalize.  Which is the other reason the rate spreads are higher than they were in 2003.  Not by much, but by enough that, by the time people start caring about how well-capitalized a bank really is again, they might be solvent.

Option 2:  Exactly the problem.  Nobody, even the banks, wants to go this route.  They're in the lending business, not the renting-houses-to-people business. 

That's the Catch-22 from the banks' point of view.

From the borrower's point of view, there's a similar Catch-22, and this article sums it up just as accurately.  "In a nutshell those that don’t need the credit can get it and those that do can’t.  This is the perfect credit crisis storm - one which low rates can’t fix."

On the bright side, if the guy's right (and he's been mostly right all along), I'm wrong.  You'll get your refi in a few months when the requirement for a new appraisal is wavied.  That might reflate the bubble just long enough for me to get on the other side of it and get a second chance at making money on the next phase of the implosion.  (Maybe we all get a second chance, even if it only delays the inevitable future in which we all end up eating rat-on-a-stick :)


Well, I'm not too polished on all the financial jargon...but, um, do they charge extra for the stick?
:P

Well, I'm not too polished on all the financial jargon...but, um, do they charge extra for the stick?
:P


Depends on the depression.

The Great Depression of 1929:

Typical menu:

  Rat-onna-stick: 1 cent.
  Ketchup: 9 cents.

Customer: "9 cents for ketchup?  That's highway robbery!"
Barkeep: "You ever try to eat rat-onna-stick without ketchup?"

The Great Depression of 2009:

Typical menu:

  Rat: $1.00.
  Ketchup: $FREE!
  Stick: $8.00.

Barkeep's grandson:  "Not as bad as the old days.  When I took over this bar, I swore I'd never charge anyone for ketchup."
Customer: "$8.00 for a stick?  That's highway robbery!"
Barkeep's grandson:  "You ever tried to eat ketchup-dredged-rat with your bare hands?"

Depends on the depression.

The Great Depression of 1929:

Typical menu:

  Rat-onna-stick: 1 cent.
  Ketchup: 9 cents.

Customer: "9 cents for ketchup?  That's highway robbery!"
Barkeep: "You ever try to eat rat-onna-stick without ketchup?"

The Great Depression of 2009:

Typical menu:

   Rat: $1.00.
   Ketchup: $FREE!
   Stick: $8.00.

Barkeep's grandson:  "Not as bad as the old days.  When I took over this bar, I swore I'd never charge anyone for ketchup."
Customer: "$8.00 for a stick?  That's highway robbery!"
Barkeep's grandson:  "You ever tried to eat ketchup-dredged-rat with your bare hands?"

Do you get fries with it?  Can I have some fries?

Please, sir, may I have some more?
:D

Do you get fries with it?  Can I have some fries?

Please, sir, may I have some more?
:D


Cat - rat - bat... when you're hungry it all tastes the same.  :-\\

Back in '73 me and some chums were canoeing in Ontario (near James Bay) and were fast running out of food as this was a 2-week wilderness trip.  When we landed in Moose Factory, one of my buddies bought a fruit cake.  I HATE FRUIT CAKE. 8-P

But I devoured that sucker.  I was so hungry I woulda eaten a rock at that point, with or without catsup.  :P

Do you get fries with it?  Can I have some fries?


Wrong!  Do it again!  (If you don't eat any rat, you can't have your fries!  How can you have any fries if you don't eat your rat?)

Cat - rat - bat... when you're hungry it all tastes the same.  :-\\

Back in '73 me and some chums were canoeing in Ontario (near James Bay) and were fast running out of food as this was a 2-week wilderness trip.  When we landed in Moose Factory, one of my buddies bought a fruit cake.  I HATE FRUIT CAKE. 8-P

But I devoured that sucker.  I was so hungry I woulda eaten a rock at that point, with or without catsup.   :P


That's waaaay out there.  I've never been up there, but even Ontario natives refer to "Northern Ontario" as places like Thunder Bay and Timmins, hundreds of miles south of James Bay!  Moose Factory?  Why you wanna go messing around up there?  I guess you guys weren't catching no fish!


Wrong!  Do it again!  (If you don't eat any rat, you can't have your fries!  How can you have any fries if you don't eat your rat?)


I'm alright, Jack, keep your hands off of my rat!

Cat - rat - bat... when you're hungry it all tastes the same.  :-\\

Back in '73 me and some chums were canoeing in Ontario (near James Bay) and were fast running out of food as this was a 2-week wilderness trip.  When we landed in Moose Factory, one of my buddies bought a fruit cake.  I HATE FRUIT CAKE. 8-P

But I devoured that sucker.  I was so hungry I woulda eaten a rock at that point, with or without catsup.   :P



Ahem.



Cat

Ahem.



Cat

Catsup?

That's waaaay out there.  I've never been up there, but even Ontario natives refer to "Northern Ontario" as places like Thunder Bay and Timmins, hundreds of miles south of James Bay!  Moose Factory?  Why you wanna go messing around up there?  I guess you guys weren't catching no fish!


Yeah we certainly were not "bass masters".  Whilst canoeing you would have fish literally jumping out of the water and slamming into our canoes, but when we actually tried to catch some, the harvest was slim indeed.

What were we doing up there?  Well we decided to canoe from Lake Superior to Hudson Bay, largely on the Missinaibi and Moose River system, to retrace the route that the old fur traders took while hawking their beaver pelts and whatnot.  By the time you get to Moose Factory, the ground is frozen solid about 4-5" below the surface of the ground... in August.  Fortunately we did not encounter any Polar Bears, which are known to get that far south in the winter.

We then took the Polar Bear Express train back south with all our gear.  8)

Yeah we certainly were not "bass masters".  Whilst canoeing you would have fish literally jumping out of the water and slamming into our canoes, but when we actually tried to catch some, the harvest was slim indeed.

What were we doing up there?  Well we decided to canoe from Lake Superior to Hudson Bay, largely on the Missinaibi and Moose River system, to retrace the route that the old fur traders took while hawking their beaver pelts and whatnot.   By the time you get to Moose Factory, the ground is frozen solid about 4-5" below the surface of the ground... in August.  Fortunately we did not encounter any Polar Bears, which are known to get that far south in the winter.

We then took the Polar Bear Express train back south with all our gear.   8)


That's a ballsy trip, even for young men!  I would think giant subarctic mosquitos would drive your mission mad in August.  You're lucky you didn't run into Deliverance North!
::)

That's a ballsy trip, even for young men!  I would think giant subarctic mosquitos would drive your mission mad in August.  You're lucky you didn't run into Deliverance North!
::)


Let me tell you something.  Mosquitos up there are indeed NASTY.  Darn near ate us alive.  :-\\

At one point in the trip we stopped off at a lumber camp.  The lumberjacks there had not seen any "outsiders" for weeks.  They invited us to share lunch.  Everything was super-high-calorie date bars, meat, potatoes, the whole she-bang.  (Sadly, there was no rat-on-a-stick).  Delicious.  :P

Once we got back in the canoes we were fueled up!  I swear we had those canoes 'planing for the first mile!!!  ;D

Definitely a ballsy trip, specially as I was only 15 at the time.  At some points there are waterfalls with 30' drops, and if you do not pull off at the right portage point, you're SOL.  At one spot we saw the remains of a canoe, folded over like a chinese fortune cookie, in the middle of the rapids.  The canoeist was still inside, having met his fate a couple weeks before.  :o

Ahem.

Cat



Catsup?


Since you both asked so nicely,

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/2005693959854649943_rs.jpg

'sup, Cat?

Let me tell you something.  Mosquitos up there are indeed NASTY.  Darn near ate us alive.   :-\\

At one point in the trip we stopped off at a lumber camp.  The lumberjacks there had not seen any "outsiders" for weeks.  They invited us to share lunch.  Everything was super-high-calorie date bars, meat, potatoes, the whole she-bang.  (Sadly, there was no rat-on-a-stick).  Delicious.  :P

Once we got back in the canoes we were fueled up!  I swear we had those canoes 'planing for the first mile!!!  ;D

Definitely a ballsy trip, specially as I was only 15 at the time.  At some points there are waterfalls with 30' drops, and if you do not pull off at the right portage point, you're SOL.  At one spot we saw the remains of a canoe, folded over like a chinese fortune cookie, in the middle of the rapids.  The canoeist was still inside, having met his fate a couple weeks before.  :o


So you built a fire and et barbecued canoist?
???

Since you both asked so nicely,

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/2005693959854649943_rs.jpg

'sup, Cat?



Not much.  ;D ;D ;D




Cat

and in the "you cant make this stuff up" category, we have

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/07/porn-industry-seeks-federal-bailout/

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Another major American industry is asking for assistance as the global financial crisis continues: Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis said Wednesday they will request that Congress allocate $5 billion for a bailout of the adult entertainment industry.

“The take here is that everyone and their mother want to be bailed out from the banks to the big three,” said Owen Moogan, spokesman for Larry Flynt. “The porn industry has been hurt by the downturn like everyone else and they are going to ask for the $5 billion. Is it the most serious thing in the world? Is it going to make the lives of Americans better if it happens? It is not for them to determine.”



now i'd actually think in a recession porn would be a, if you'll pardon the expression, "growth" industry. who can afford to date? instead we're all gonna be sitting around at home drinking schmidt's red lager and watching dirty movies to save money. it's called "nesting."

now i'd actually think in a recession porn would be a, if you'll pardon the expression, "growth" industry. who can afford to date? instead we're all gonna be sitting around at home drinking schmidt's red lager and watching dirty movies to save money. it's called "nesting."


Oh that trend has been around for decades now :D

Well, the American porn industry is very much like the auto industry:  They make a crummy product and the Germans and Japanese do it better!
8)

Well, the American porn industry is very much like the auto industry:  They make a crummy product and the Germans and Japanese do it better!
8)
i dunno, between the german scheisse stuff, japan's bizarro underage thing and the yank tendency to actually shove cameras UP people i think everyone's porn needs a time-out.

the aussies are apparently up-and-coming pornsters. they're the ones to watch. as for cars, i'm not sure i've ever heard of the australians making a car.

i dunno, between the german scheisse stuff, japan's bizarro underage thing and the yank tendency to actually shove cameras UP people i think everyone's porn needs a time-out.

the aussies are apparently up-and-coming pornsters. they're the ones to watch. as for cars, i'm not sure i've ever heard of the australians making a car.


Don't forget Encyclopedia Dramatica, one click and you get porn!

i dunno, between the german scheisse stuff, japan's bizarro underage thing and the yank tendency to actually shove cameras UP people i think everyone's porn needs a time-out.
Think we all can agree on that, porn is so unimaginative, no mystery at all. Believe it or not we don't need to see EVERYTHING. Kind of kills any exceitement of the unknown. Still it was mentioned on a report that porn DVD sales are off 22% this year from last...

the aussies are apparently up-and-coming pornsters. they're the ones to watch. as for cars, i'm not sure i've ever heard of the Australians making a car.

Not sure about the porn part, never heard of Aussie porn, but cars?

You've never heard of Holden Monaro (aka 2004 to 2006 Pontiac GTO) or Ford Australia Falcon XB (Mad Max interceptor police car). :o
Heck yeah they make 'em! I suppose there are no Australians on this board or they would of let you have it on that. Australia has been making cars just as long as any other country.

They are just as V8 horsepower crazy as Americans, and still make a decent amount of V8 coupes and saloons (sedans) that make some of the old/classic US 60's muscle cars look tame in comparison. They also race them too in competition, V8 Supercars that makes NASCAR seem a silly carousel ride. Toyota, Nissan, and Subaru (the Outback didn't come from nowhere) have factories there to make models just for their market. The Aussie automotive industry is in good shape compared to ours, give them credit for that.

"Out where the river broke,
The bloodwood and the desert oak,
Holden wrecks and boiling diesels
Steam in 45 degrees"

--Midnight Oil
"Beds Are Burning"