Nationalizing the Domestic auto makers?

As the former big 3 are plunging towards bankruptacy I am now seeing
people predict that the federal government will take them over in some
form or fashion to preserve jobs for the "good" of the economy.

The other side of the coin is that they must be allowed to fail such
that competitive automakers can be rebuilt in their place and save the
taxpayers the huge cost. Not to mention a decade or more of linger
corpse like companies.

The later is the only real option, but we'll probably get claybrookian
designed automobiles instead.

On Nov 10, 6:25*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> As the former big 3 are plunging towards bankruptacy I am now seeing
> people predict that the federal government will take them over in some
> form or fashion to preserve jobs for the "good" of the economy.
>
> The other side of the coin is that they must be allowed to fail such
> that competitive automakers can be rebuilt in their place and save the
> taxpayers the huge cost. Not to mention a decade or more of linger
> corpse like companies.
>
> The later is the only real option, but we'll probably get claybrookian
> designed automobiles instead.

Your estimate reminds me of a definition of a camel being a horse
built to government specs.

I can picture the gov't specs making them lightweight for better fuel
economy, then using plastic as the construction material so Big O$L
doesn't go belly up.

On Nov 10, 4:55*pm, MLOM > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 6:25*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>
> > As the former big 3 are plunging towards bankruptacy I am now seeing
> > people predict that the federal government will take them over in some
> > form or fashion to preserve jobs for the "good" of the economy.
>
> > The other side of the coin is that they must be allowed to fail such
> > that competitive automakers can be rebuilt in their place and save the
> > taxpayers the huge cost. Not to mention a decade or more of linger
> > corpse like companies.
>
> > The later is the only real option, but we'll probably get claybrookian
> > designed automobiles instead.
>
> Your estimate reminds me of a definition of a camel being a horse
> built to government specs.
>
> I can picture the gov't specs making them lightweight for better fuel
> economy, then using plastic as the construction material so Big O$L
> doesn't go belly up.

When I lived in Coventry, my MP was the one who made Jaguar what it
as in the 1970s - a nationalized POS.
Please name one nationaized firm that makes a good car.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:25:55 -0600, Brent P
> wrote:

>
>As the former big 3 are plunging towards bankruptacy I am now seeing
>people predict that the federal government will take them over in some
>form or fashion to preserve jobs for the "good" of the economy.

And national identity. Could you imagine the consternation of a
certain someone if, say, Toyota bought the Corvette name in an auction
of GM's assets? Hint... hint...

>The other side of the coin is that they must be allowed to fail such
>that competitive automakers can be rebuilt in their place and save the
>taxpayers the huge cost. Not to mention a decade or more of linger
>corpse like companies.

For the long term good of the nation, they should be allowed to fail
as should the banks and others who took exceptionally stupid risks WRT
subprime mortgages, CDS's and so on. Yet I see that AIG is going to
get yet *another* bailout from the feds. Lets just hope that Obama
thinks long term good of the nation and not short term gain of the
executive class. (yeah, right)

>The later is the only real option, but we'll probably get claybrookian
>designed automobiles instead.

Are they buying Toyota, Daimler-Benz and Honda too?
--
"My dash lights burned out years ago. Just
keep a cheapie flashlight on the seat."
--Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 12 Nov 2005 18:11:38 -0800
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/akxtu
Message ID: . com

On Nov 10, 7:46*pm, necromancer
> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:25:55 -0600, Brent P
>
> > wrote:
>
> >As the former big 3 are plunging towards bankruptacy I am now seeing
> >people predict that the federal government will take them over in some
> >form or fashion to preserve jobs for the "good" of the economy.
>
> And national identity. Could you imagine the consternation of a
> certain someone if, say, Toyota bought the Corvette name in an auction
> of GM's assets? *Hint... hint...
>
Heh heh. Trying to awaken a sleeping giant?

> >The other side of the coin is that they must be allowed to fail such
> >that competitive automakers can be rebuilt in their place and save the
> >taxpayers the huge cost. Not to mention a decade or more of linger
> >corpse like companies.
>
> For the long term good of the nation, they should be allowed to fail
> as should the banks and others who took exceptionally stupid risks WRT
> subprime mortgages, CDS's and so on. Yet I see that AIG is going to
> get yet *another* bailout from the feds. Lets just hope that Obama
> thinks long term good of the nation and not short term gain of the
> executive class. (yeah, right)
>

I'm afraid the only way to get most americans (sic) off our fat arses
is to experience another 1929.

> >The later is the only real option, but we'll probably get claybrookian
> >designed automobiles instead.
>
> Are they buying Toyota, Daimler-Benz and Honda too?
> --

Wouldn't surprise me...the Asian markets are in nearly as much a mess
as the US ones. IIRC, early in the Slick Willie administration the
claim was going around about an attempt to turn the USA into a
socialist nation despite its failure in the now-defunct USSR, claiming
that its failure was due to the wrong people in charge of it.

--

"The Secret Service arrested a man who climbed over the White House
fence. The Secret Service told the man, 'Get back here, Mr.
President, you still have two more months.' " -Conan O'Brien

On 2008-11-11, necromancer > wrote:

> And national identity. Could you imagine the consternation of a
> certain someone if, say, Toyota bought the Corvette name in an auction
> of GM's assets? Hint... hint...

I imagine it would be more like the airlines that re-org'd.

>>The other side of the coin is that they must be allowed to fail such
>>that competitive automakers can be rebuilt in their place and save the
>>taxpayers the huge cost. Not to mention a decade or more of linger
>>corpse like companies.

> For the long term good of the nation, they should be allowed to fail
> as should the banks and others who took exceptionally stupid risks WRT
> subprime mortgages, CDS's and so on. Yet I see that AIG is going to
> get yet *another* bailout from the feds. Lets just hope that Obama
> thinks long term good of the nation and not short term gain of the
> executive class. (yeah, right)

The sad thing is, that many of the bad decisions were driven by
government interferences in the market coupled with incorrect signals
sent by the federal reserve's fixing of interest rates. Of course the
answer is not bailouts and more government interference and more money
creation and more fixing of interest rates but that is exactly what we
are getting and exactly what Obama seems to endorse given his senate
votes. The monied interests have to get their investment back on Obama
too.

The domestic automakers will not be able to compete unless the crippling
government regulation (sadly, much of it they seemed to endorse) is
removed. The crippling UAW contracts, the domestic vs. import CAFE, the
USDOT & ECE incompatibilities, and so on. If I were CEO of one of the
big three I'd be lobbying government and running commericals to get
congress to immediately allow the importation of ECE compliant vehicles
and to have a single CAFE number.

The UAW still has to be dealt with. It's not like the Japanese and
European makes are paying minimum wage in their US factories. People
seem to like working there so it can't be the horrid nightmare that the
UAW thinks will happen. But the UAW still thinks like thugs trying to
squeeze the local companies so they'll just kill the goose before they
give a mm. I just don't think it would be horrid for UAW workers to get
the same or similar wages and benefits the import makes pay for the same
work in the US.

>>The later is the only real option, but we'll probably get claybrookian
>>designed automobiles instead.
>
> Are they buying Toyota, Daimler-Benz and Honda too?

My guess is that the federal government will decide they won't be part
of the FDR style cartel and not allowed to do business in the US.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> As the former big 3 are plunging towards bankruptacy I am now seeing
> people predict that the federal government will take them over in some
> form or fashion to preserve jobs for the "good" of the economy.
>


Whoa. There are soooooo many things wrong with that opening statement.

First, there is no big 3. Chrysler was based in Germany until recently.
Meaning, there was a big 2 domestic automakers, but no "big 3". Before
someone points out the obvious...Chrysler was owned by Daimler so YES,
Chrysler's headquarters were overseas. After Chrysler was sold to an
American financial corporation, I still don't consider them one of the "big
3" anymore. They are a shell of what they could have been. Not "big",
though they are barely domestic, again.

As for plunging toward bankruptcy...I don't buy it. Just weeks ago, GM was
planning to buy Chrysler. But now that there is the 820 $Billion bailout
money available, GM (and Ford) are crying "bankruptcy" for the simple reason
that they want a share of the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

If you really think that Ford is going to go bankrupt, why do you think that
they (Ford) are desperate to hire more people to help build the F150, which
is STILL the number one model OF ALL TYPES (including sedans, btw) in terms
of sales numbers, in North America? There is NO WAY that Ford would ever go
bankrupt unless they pulled a "Taurus" with the F150, kind of like Coke
pulled a "Pepsi" with what is now called Coke Classic. For those that don't
get the reference, Ford killed the Taurus, then quickly realized their
mistake, and put a "Taurus" badge on one of their other models. Just like
Coke killed their original formula to try to make their product taste more
like Pepsi (which was a huge mistake, even though Pepsi DOES taste
better...) and later realized that they shouldn't have done that (duh) and
now we have "Coke Classic". Ford needs to NOT mess with the F150. If they
want to redesign it to make it more fuel efficient (or maybe a hybrid or
straight electric?), fine. Other than that, don't mess with it. That is
the ONLY thing (messing with the F150 too much) that would cause Ford to go
bankrupt.

GM needs to kill all of their SUVs. ALL of them. The largest vehicle GM
should produce is a 7-passenger minivan. If GM builds anything on a truck
platform, it should carry a MAXIMUM of three people.
If GM continues to build lots of SUVs, then GM deserves to go bankrupt. The
only way GM can survive is to kill their entire SUV division. Period.

However, GM DOES have an option to stay viable, without government
assistance. And I don't for a second buy that GM is going bankrupt. They
were doing fine (financially) until the bailout was passed and NOW they
suddenly are in severe financial difficulty? Doesn't smell right. -Dave

On 2008-11-11, MLOM > wrote:
> as the US ones. IIRC, early in the Slick Willie administration the
> claim was going around about an attempt to turn the USA into a
> socialist nation despite its failure in the now-defunct USSR, claiming
> that its failure was due to the wrong people in charge of it.

That is what socialists, commies, and other central planning lovers
always say. It was the failure of the individuals implementing it. The
truth is what they don't want to hear.... nobody, and I mean nobody, no
group, is able to run an economy. There is no way. Too many people, too
many decisions, too many inputs. All planned economic schemes turn to
shiat because that's the only possible outcome. The only way the
complexity can be dealt with is freedom and decentralization. Where the
government doesn't take sides and enforces contracts rather than voiding
and re-writing them.

On 2008-11-11, Dave > wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> As the former big 3 are plunging towards bankruptacy I am now seeing
>> people predict that the federal government will take them over in some
>> form or fashion to preserve jobs for the "good" of the economy.
>>
>
>
> Whoa. There are soooooo many things wrong with that opening statement.
>
> First, there is no big 3. Chrysler was based in Germany until recently.
> Meaning, there was a big 2 domestic automakers, but no "big 3".

That's why I wrote _FORMER_

> As for plunging toward bankruptcy...I don't buy it. Just weeks ago, GM was
> planning to buy Chrysler.

No, they were planning to *MERGE*

> If you really think that Ford is going to go bankrupt, why do you think that
> they (Ford) are desperate to hire more people to help build the F150, which
> is STILL the number one model OF ALL TYPES (including sedans, btw) in terms
> of sales numbers, in North America?

You can't just sell F150s under CAFE law.

> However, GM DOES have an option to stay viable, without government
> assistance. And I don't for a second buy that GM is going bankrupt. They
> were doing fine (financially) until the bailout was passed and NOW they
> suddenly are in severe financial difficulty? Doesn't smell right. -Dave

No, they weren't. I read several articles on their poor condition months
ago.

On Nov 10, 10:00*pm, "Dave" > wrote:
> GM needs to kill all of their SUVs. *ALL of them. *The largest vehicle GM
> should produce is a 7-passenger minivan. *If GM builds anything on a truck
> platform, it should carry a MAXIMUM of three people.
> If GM continues to build lots of SUVs, then GM deserves to go bankrupt. *The
> only way GM can survive is to kill their entire SUV division. *Period.

Why do you believe this? GM SUVs are still quite popular sellers, as
SUVs sales go nowadays (of course, not quite the heady late '90s by
any stretch) . Are you saying that Ford should become the designated
truck & SUV company, and GM the small car division?