Comments on: SHOULD TAX DOLLARS BAIL OUT THE AUTO INDUSTRY?

By: neilmckentyweblog2

neilmckentyweblog2 — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:27:03 +0000

Tony, it is indeed a provocative scheme.

By: Tony Kondaks

Tony Kondaks — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:09:21 +0000

Here’s a bailout alternative that doesn’t require any taxpayer’s money:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/a_better_bailout_alternative.html

By: Tony Kondaks

Tony Kondaks — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:29:33 +0000

I agree.

Let them declare Chapter 11.

Or, if they need money, let them issue some junk bonds or equity through more common stocks. That’s the way it’s supposed to be done.

By: exposrip

exposrip — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:04:15 +0000

I agree, Neil.

It’s not that much different from Bombardier; a company that probably would have died long ago.

It would be a shame if America would lose its legendary car industry.

By: jim

jim — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:12:46 +0000

The automotive pension funds are owed billions of dollars by the makers. Is this the place to start paying up. Some employees have payed their part for over 25 years. If Canada and the provinces fill that gap then Canada et al will not have to pay them monthly pensions/OAS/GIS or whatever else their called. On a clear day you can see General Motors and yes, one can smell the the odor of the corporate governance.

By: Cornelius T. Zen

Cornelius T. Zen — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:57:01 +0000

Good morrow, all!
Point to ponder: wealthy North Americans, given the chance, will purchase Mercedes-Benz. Do wealthy Europeans or Asians buy Cadillacs, Lincolns, or North American SUV’s? Didn’t think so. The Big Three are paying the costs of short-sighted pursuit of maximizing the dividends, rather than simply building better cars with experienced North American labor. They shipped jobs and parts production out of the country, because it saved money, and that maximized dividends to the shareholders, and bonuses to the executives, the very people who contribute the LEAST to the success of the companies. Real smart, guys, way to predict the future.
Why should anyone feel obligated to buy an inferior product, built by cheap labor, designed to become obsolescent, for outrageous prices?
I remember the early Toyotas. The panels on the doors were stamped out of sheets of redundant Coca-Cola can-forming steel. Every year, they got better, as did all the other Asian autos. Can’t say the same for the US autos. Does anyone else hear that distant buzzing, and the faint cries of “Tora! Tora! Tora!”
The Big Three have a Big Lesson to learn: Build better cars, or die.
Or so I would digress…CTZen

By: Peter LeBlanc

Peter LeBlanc — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:14:01 +0000

Most people who work for the auto industry, and its pensioners would say yes. Most people who don’t work for the industry would say no.

I think that if they are not selling cars now, how does more money for the industry make the consumer buy more cars?

The only solution for the industry, long term, is to retool as quick as possible and create green cars. This way when the consumer buys a car he will save money in energy costs, a great incentive to keep everyone happy, except the Oil Companies.

Then, they will be asking for a bailout.

As far as unions are concerned it is only people with well paying jobs union or otherwise that can afford cars.

It would be interesting to see how many people who work for minimum wage can afford cars.

By: Paul Costopoulos

Paul Costopoulos — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:10:08 +0000

In the Lexus and the Olive Tree Thomas L. Freedman writes “let lame ducks die”. Letting the auto industry peter out would certainly be very costly in social and humanitarian terms at least for the short term. Reorganizing it under chapter 11 would certainly be the best course…wil the powerful UAW go along? But then they may not have a choice.