02 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76Again, an immediate bankruptcy would have ruined the economy. You guys appear to have no idea how integrated the auto industry is within the US economy. It's not just the workers in the factory of GM/Chrysler. It's the dealership, the autoparts makers, the trucking industry, the rail industry etc etc, that would have also collapsed if they shut down immediately.
I agree with that 100%. GM should have been forced to file for Chapter 11 months ago. There was never a realistic chance they were going to avoid Chapter 11 in the long run without continuous and enormous federal gifts.
They would have had to liquidate instead of restructure.
Come on, do you all forget what you were told???? Perhaps, you never understood it in the first place....?
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by uzlessA lot of modern industrialized countries have no automobile industry and seem to be doing just fine.
Again, an immediate bankruptcy would have ruined the economy. You guys appear to have no idea how integrated the auto industry is within the US economy. It's not just the workers in the factory of GM/Chrysler. It's the dealership, the autoparts makers, the trucking industry, the rail industry etc etc, that would have also collapsed if they shut down immedi ...[text shortened]... ou all forget what you were told???? Perhaps, you never understood it in the first place....?
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76What?????
.
That money did go into the economy. It's not all that much different from the rest of the bailout money in the end.
The auto bailout money is completely different than the banking industry bailout money. My god man.
The auto money went to the economy by paying it's workers and parts makers and other creditors.
The banking money has for the most part NOT entered the economy. It is tied up in balance sheets at banks and investment houses. Despite the massive increase in the money supply, the velocity of money has NOT increased!! This should tell you something.
Inflation has not happened yet because the money isn't exchanging hands. When it finally does move beyond the banks, watch out for those inflation numbers.
Seriously, you guys shouldn't comment on things you dont' understand
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by uzlessThey would not have had to liquidate if they'd filed for Chapter 11 then. They'd have gone into Chapter 11, same as they will now. They will re-structure, not liquidate.
Again, an immediate bankruptcy would have ruined the economy. You guys appear to have no idea how integrated the auto industry is within the US economy. It's not just the workers in the factory of GM/Chrysler. It's the dealership, the autoparts makers, the trucking industry, the rail industry etc etc, that would have also collapsed if they shut down immedi ...[text shortened]... ou all forget what you were told???? Perhaps, you never understood it in the first place....?
I guess to a lawyer it's second nature so we take it for granted, but let's not confuse Chapter 11 with Chapter 7. One has little to do with the other. A Chapter 11 can be converted into a 7, but that would only happen with GM after years of negotiation; it's exceedingly unlikely.
02 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Garbage.
The UAW has to take a fair share of the blame in bringing GM down. I know from talking to UAW guys that, once you get enough seniority, you can sit on or butt and collect $35+/hr for doing absolutely nothing ($67,000/yr). You can't be fired easily because union rules say that lay-offs occur on a last-in, first-out basis. The only leverage management has aybe government as a neutral third party can force unions not to be too greedy? Not sure.
GM/Chrysler are bankrupt because people (americans) stopped by their vehicles.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou find it interesting why?
"In return for its support, the Obama administration is likely to get a 60% ownership stake in the company. Canada's government, which is contributing billions of dollars in further help, will get 12.5% with unions and bondholders holding the rest." http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/01/general-motors-bankruptcy-chapter-11
Canada? How interesting!
Canada after all contributed to the bailout. What exactly is your problem with this?
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by uzlessI meant the stimulus money, not the bank bailout money. I used the wrong word; mea culpa.
What?????
The auto bailout money is completely different than the banking industry bailout money. My god man.
The auto money went to the economy by paying it's workers and parts makers and other creditors.
The banking money has for the most part NOT entered the economy. It is tied up in balance sheets at banks and investment houses. Despite the ...[text shortened]... inflation numbers.
Seriously, you guys shouldn't comment on things you dont' understand
As far as what I should or should not comment on, I'll make that decision, thank you.
02 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHAHAH.
A lot of modern industrialized countries have no automobile industry and seem to be doing just fine.
Take whatever industrialized country you are referring to. Now take away its biggest manufacturing industry. Now tell us what would happen to its economy.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by uzlessOn the short term unemployment will increase and the economy will shrink. On the long term, the economy will benefit from less waste and inefficiency (assuming the industry disappeared because it wasn't economically viable).
HAHAH.
Take whatever industrialized country you are referring to. Now take away its biggest manufacturing industry. Now tell us what would happen to its economy.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraGM and Chrysler have shrunk. Plants closed, workers laid off. Both companies are fractions of their former size. In short, the excess capacity that was causing them to lose money has been eliminated. Workers wages have been reduced.
On the short term unemployment will increase and the economy will shrink. On the long term, the economy will benefit from less waste and inefficiency (assuming the industry disappeared because it wasn't economically viable).
With all these changes, what makes you think the company will STILL not make money?
I can't believe you would actually suggest elimination of the auto industry was the best option
02 Jun 09
1 edit
uzless' posts on this thread contain (from most recent backwards):
1) "I can't believe you would actually suggest..."
2) "HAHAH"
3) "Garbage."
4) "Seriously, you guys shouldn't comment on things you dont' understand"
5) another one??
Jebus.
Smart posters . Uninformed posters
0 .............................. 3
6) "Come on, do you all forget what you were told???? Perhaps, you never understood it in the first place....?"
7) "Get yer facts straight."
8) "Transparent jealousy only weakens your "argument"."
9) "LOLOLOLOLO..........LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Never in my life have i heard someone yammer on about entitlement so stupidly. Jebus buddy."
These were directed against at least six separate people.
uzless, either we're all a bunch of morons or you might have some anger management issues you may want to look into.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by uzlessIf they went bankrupt, other parties would have probably bought the viable parts of the companies, thus conserving a significant part of the jobs. Now they are rewarded for their incompetence. If the government deems a certain industry too important to fail, then they either should not have allowed the mergers that made them so big, or they should have nationalized them before. This half-a**ed approach takes the worst of both private and public ownership.
GM and Chrysler have shrunk. Plants closed, workers laid off. Both companies are fractions of their former size. In short, the excess capacity that was causing them to lose money has been eliminated. Workers wages have been reduced.
With all these changes, what makes you think the company will STILL not make money?
I can't believe you would actually suggest elimination of the auto industry was the best option