BobMichigan1251

If Cars Are the Problem, They Can Also Be the Solution

It would be nice if anyone here knew anything about the actual situation with the union contracts, about how the actual difference between the labor costs at GM and the transplants is about $1, instead of spouting that stupid $73 an hour thing all the time.

We have to decide if we will be a rich nation in the future that actually makes things or if we will be a poor nation that is just a bunch of stock brokers trading asian stocks.


On Dec 16 11:21 AM k9s-4-k8 wrote:

> Much to comment on.
>
> Jim Kingsdale says:
> "......pay a cash rebate to buyers of super-acceptable models that
> are produced (assembled, at least) in the U.S."
>
> This is a typical protectionist proposal I expect to hear from the
> UAW and the Democrat majority in Congress. Cash rebates paid only
> on U.S. built vehicles bypasses international trade laws.
>
>
> Jim Kingsdale says:
> "A “bridge” loan will still be needed by GM to get them through their
> current negative cash flow operating structure. But it will be made
> with the realistic potential of paying off in the future."
>
> The only realistic terms for GM to be relieved of this debt is for
> the U.S. taxpayer to convert it into a grant, or convert it into
> equity which will perform only a bit better than a grant.
>
> Jim Kingsdale says:
> "Moreover, the government should get options on a huge part of the
> equity in GM, thus potentially getting the taxpayers’ money back
> at some point. The company will still need contractual restructuring
> to eliminate legacy costs that now make it uncompetitive. That means
> the bailout funds should come in as part of a pre-packaged restructuring
> that abrogates G.M.’s current legal obligations to its unions, dealers,
> and suppliers."
>
> Either you're suggesting we receive stock in exchange for a $50 billion
> infusion to the UAW,(that's the big 3 deal with the UAW and they
> won't abrogate that deal for anything) or you're just papering over
> one of the major reasons GM will never survive profitably on their
> own without an intravenous drip on taxpayer funds for the remainder
> of this century. Certainly, I don't expect taxpayers will put up
> with that. We will cut our losses after many billions have already
> been flushed on this company.
>
> Jim Kingsdale says:
> "How do we know a government-controlled GM would be smarter than
> the old one? We don’t, but we do know two things. One: new management
> could hardly be dumber than the past management. Two: we’ve just
> elected maybe the smartest President in history - so giving him the
> opportunity to pick the people who will make the GM decisions at
> least provides us with a glimmer of hope. His recent choices for
> leadership positions should give us confidence in his judgement."
>
>
> On the contrary, anyone that thinks they can turn around GM without
> a managed bankruptcy supported with government loans solution, is
> at least as stupid as the former management. As for Barack Obama
> being the smartest President in history? He's not even in the top
> 10. Where do you come up with such crap? Fact of the matter is that
> GM is suffering under the burden of labor expense due to the combination
> of greedy unions and greedy management. Nobody cared a whit about
> shareholders or the long term viability of the company, neither management
> nor the UAW. Automobile manufacturers are beholden to long-term supplier
> contracts and fix costs such as interest on debt for capital investment.
> The unions understand every day they strike costs GM millions. They
> hold tremendous leverage over the company. Management cares about
> year end bonuses. Enough days on strike in any year can dramatically
> curtail profits and leave management with a simple salary and no
> bonus.