With the 3 US car giants(GM,Ford,Chrysler) looking for billions of taxpayers cash to stay afloat, should they be bailed out or allowed to close. They employ over 250,000 in the USA alone, millions of other jobs depend on these 3 Company's as suppliers. If they go down there is a good chance that Ford UK might be in trouble and Vauxhall too.

 

Obama wants to save them, Bush is not sure.

 

They agreed that the banks had to be saved, but what about 3 of the biggest employers in the US?

 

 

Save them or let them go bust?

Well, the precedent's really been set by the multi-billion bail-out of the banks... And those c/unts are responsible for this sh!t in the first place, so to NOT bail out Industry which is feeling the effects of the bank's mistakes would smack of complete hypocrisy....

 

If the US allowed these companies to go bust and 250,000 jobs were lost, I really think that there would be blood on the streets tbh.... The rage that ordinary working class people rightly feel would spill over into riots making what happened during the Miners' Strike look pretty damn tame....

I agree completely with Scott - the companies are struggling because the $h!t hit the fan for almost everyone in the world recently, yet the Governments have bailed them all out, and no-one's really taken the blame as far as I can see.

and no-one's really taken the blame as far as I can see.

 

No, they're not are they....? What they are taking though is the utter p"ss.... Them buggers are STILL claiming huge, six-figure bonuses basically for totally cocking things up as I see it.... <_<

 

There was one guy with a placard standing in the middle of Wall St... The placard read "Jump You Fukkers"..... Hear, Hear I say.....

Yes, they should and will get a government bailout. If the 3 major US automakers closed down, unemployment would rise to 10%. It would be horrific. And they do have good cars coming soon - hybrids and electric cars.

 

However, I'm scared of a British Leyland situation. I don't want to give these companies money to just delay the inevitable. And frankly, I find all this government intervention lately very bothersome. We demand the world subscribe to this neoliberal economic paradigm, screaming "FREE TRADE!" and "GLOBALIZATION!" to the entire world. That is, until that competition begins to affect our companies negatively. Suddenly we're protectionist and bailing out our industries and such. That's not exactly fair competition or free trade or market-first.

However, I'm scared of a British Leyland situation. I don't want to give these companies money to just delay the inevitable. And frankly, I find all this government intervention lately very bothersome. We demand the world subscribe to this neoliberal economic paradigm, screaming "FREE TRADE!" and "GLOBALIZATION!" to the entire world. That is, until that competition begins to affect our companies negatively. Suddenly we're protectionist and bailing out our industries and such. That's not exactly fair competition or free trade or market-first.

 

The British Leyland situation wasn't caused by greedy, incompetent little Fat Cat bankers though.... :rolleyes: It was more internal....

 

I do totally take your point though... The insistance that the Neo-Capitalists have put upon emergent economies such as EE and countries in Africa that they MUST throw open themselves to Globalisation (well, 'exploitation' would be more apt description in many cases...) as opposed to spending time actually developing within their OWN markets first (like the Tiger Economies did) is rather hypocritical given the current circumstances....

 

Also, the situations that Farmers in the Third World are in are totally stacked against them, when one compares it to EU subsidies and protection for European/British farmers.... This is blatantly NOT a level playing field either....

I am a free marketeer and am against the principle of governments bailing out businesses, however if one of the car giants like GM was to go under the knock on effect for the car industry across the globe would be massive and the automotive industry is not that far off the banking industry in terms of importance so it is worth bailing out giant companies in key industries

In all fairness, the big 3 US car makers have been in a bad way for some time. I can't remember the last time Ford, GM or Chrysler actually made a profit. Before the $h!t hit the fan Ford sold off Jaguar and Land Rover, and have been sitting on the edge of bankruptcy for at least 2years. But the amount of companies these 3 own is mammoth, unless serial bail-outers like Renault(Nissan, Dacia, Samsung Motors), Volkswagen(Audi, Lambo, Seat), Tata (Jag, Land Rover), NAIC(MG/Rover) step in then nearly half the worlds car makers could go overnight. Ford, Mazda, Aston Martin (i don't think Ford have sold em yet), Vauxhall/Opel/Holden, Saab, Chevrolet, Dodge, Jeep, Buick, Mercury (To Name A Few)

 

 

The strange thing is, its only the 3 US companies that are in this mess. Renault have taken 28,524million Euro's from their Automobile Group (Renault, Dacia*, Renault-Samsung Motors**) in the first 9 months of this year.

 

 

*Coming to UK in 2009, apparently. Should have arrived this year..... Rest of Western Europe got in early '08. It's sales have grown over 30% so far this year

**Korean Brand, not re-badged Renaults but does use Renault-Nissan technology. They build Renaults new 4x4 in a Peugeot/Citroen style same-body-different-badge arrangement that gives them the QM5 (Renault Koleos)

Edited November 19, 200816 yr by f1mad

Samsung do cars? Its like Kawasaki doing keyboads/motorbikes/quads. :lol:

 

Anyway companies should go bust, if it wasn't for the huge job losses.

Yes, started in 1998.

 

Didn't do very well and got rescued by Renault who had no presence in the Asian market then. Samsung have a 19.9% holding, Renault 80.1%

 

It's quite weird. I still do a double take every time i see a Daewoo telly, coz i remember them most for their horrid cars

I enjoyed this article so much, I just had to post it!

 

Auto Execs Fly Corporate Jets to D.C., Tin Cups in Hand

 

By Dana Milbank

 

There are 24 daily nonstop flights from Detroit to the Washington area. Richard Wagoner, Alan Mulally and Robert Nardelli probably should have taken one of them.

 

Instead, the chief executives of the Big Three automakers opted to fly their company jets to the capital for their hearings this week before the Senate and House -- an ill-timed display of corporate excess for a trio of executives begging for an additional $25 billion from the public trough this week.

 

"There's a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hands," Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.) advised the pampered executives at a hearing yesterday. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high-hat and tuxedo. . . . I mean, couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here?"

 

The Big Three said nothing, which prompted Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) to rub it in. "I'm going to ask the three executives here to raise their hand if they flew here commercial," he said. All still at the witness table. "Second," he continued, "I'm going ask you to raise your hand if you're planning to sell your jet . . . and fly back commercial." More stillness. "Let the record show no hands went up," Sherman grandstanded.

 

By now, the men were probably wishing they had driven -- and other members of the House Financial Services Committee weren't done riding the CEOs over their jets. "You traveled in a private jet?" Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-N.Y.) contributed. Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.) felt the need to say that "I'm not an opponent of private flights by any means, but the fact that you flew in on your own private jet at tens of thousands itself dollars of cost just for you to make your way to Washington is a bit arrogant before you ask the taxpayers for money."

 

It was a display of stone-cold tone-deafness by the automaker chiefs. In their telling, they have no responsibility for the auto industry's current mess. Threatening the nation with economic Armageddon if they are not given government aid, they spent much of the session declaring what a fine job they've been doing in Detroit.

 

"Chrysler really is the quintessential American car company!" Chrysler's Nardelli boasted.

 

"We have products that are winning car and truck of the year regularly," General Motors' Wagoner proclaimed.

 

"We are equal to or better than Honda and Toyota," Ford's Mulally added. "Every new vehicle that we make, whether it's small, medium or large, is best in fuel efficiency. The given is safety. And we have more, at Ford, more five-star quality and safety ratings than any other automobile."

 

Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) cut him off. "Thank you, Mr. --"

 

"And the best value!" Mulally blurted out.

 

"Commercials can go later," the chairman proposed.

 

They would have to go later, because members of the committee wanted to turn the session into a special edition of "Car Talk." Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) spoke of his '99 Jeep: "It probably has about 150,000 miles on it, and it's still running doggone well." Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) invoked his '98 Jeep Cherokee: "Small problem with the back hatch staying open; we can talk about that afterwards." Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) praised her Chrysler minivan. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) had good words for her Jeep but complained that it didn't come in a hybrid version.

 

"I drive the same '66 Plymouth Valiant that I've always had," Ackerman proffered. He went on to discuss a problem with the GPS system in his Cadillac. "I wanted a loaded car in blue; I had to reach out to five states to find one in blue," he complained.

 

It seemed everybody had a car story to tell. Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) let it be known that he was a car dealer for 25 years. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) disclosed that he had worked at the GM plant in Framingham. Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) wanted to see more ads for the car made in his district, while Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) said the Edsel was once made in his home town. Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) read from Cicero and held up photos of cars. And Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) had no car stories to tell but delivered the surprising news that the problem with the Titanic was not its collision with an iceberg.

 

Detroit area lawmakers made passionate arguments that the carmakers had already done what "they possibly can to restructure and become globally competitive," as Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) put it.

 

But the executives were not helping their own case. When Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) tried to find out when GM would run out of cash, Wagoner hemmed and hawed until the lawmaker protested that "I don't quite understand what the hell you just told me." When Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) asked about GM's outlook for the quarter, Wagoner informed him that "we don't provide financial guidance in earnings."

 

So it was hard to feel sorry for the executives when Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), late in the hearing, reminded them again that "the symbolism of the private jet is difficult," and mischievously asked the witnesses whether, in another symbolic gesture, they would be willing to work for $1 a year, as Nardelli has offered to do.

 

"I don't have a position on that today," demurred Wagoner (2007 total compensation: $15.7 million).

 

"I understand the intent, but I think where we are is okay," said Mulally ($21.7 million).

 

"I'm asking about you," Roskam pressed.

 

"I think I'm okay where I am," Mulally said.

 

And don't even think about asking him to fly commercial.

 

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

I enjoyed this article so much, I just had to post it!

 

Auto Execs Fly Corporate Jets to D.C., Tin Cups in Hand

 

By Dana Milbank

 

There are 24 daily nonstop flights from Detroit to the Washington area. Richard Wagoner, Alan Mulally and Robert Nardelli probably should have taken one of them.

 

Instead, the chief executives of the Big Three automakers opted to fly their company jets to the capital for their hearings this week before the Senate and House -- an ill-timed display of corporate excess for a trio of executives begging for an additional $25 billion from the public trough this week.

 

"There's a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hands," Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.) advised the pampered executives at a hearing yesterday. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high-hat and tuxedo. . . . I mean, couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here?"

 

The Big Three said nothing, which prompted Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) to rub it in. "I'm going to ask the three executives here to raise their hand if they flew here commercial," he said. All still at the witness table. "Second," he continued, "I'm going ask you to raise your hand if you're planning to sell your jet . . . and fly back commercial." More stillness. "Let the record show no hands went up," Sherman grandstanded.

 

By now, the men were probably wishing they had driven -- and other members of the House Financial Services Committee weren't done riding the CEOs over their jets. "You traveled in a private jet?" Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-N.Y.) contributed. Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.) felt the need to say that "I'm not an opponent of private flights by any means, but the fact that you flew in on your own private jet at tens of thousands itself dollars of cost just for you to make your way to Washington is a bit arrogant before you ask the taxpayers for money."

 

It was a display of stone-cold tone-deafness by the automaker chiefs. In their telling, they have no responsibility for the auto industry's current mess. Threatening the nation with economic Armageddon if they are not given government aid, they spent much of the session declaring what a fine job they've been doing in Detroit.

 

"Chrysler really is the quintessential American car company!" Chrysler's Nardelli boasted.

 

"We have products that are winning car and truck of the year regularly," General Motors' Wagoner proclaimed.

 

"We are equal to or better than Honda and Toyota," Ford's Mulally added. "Every new vehicle that we make, whether it's small, medium or large, is best in fuel efficiency. The given is safety. And we have more, at Ford, more five-star quality and safety ratings than any other automobile."

 

Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) cut him off. "Thank you, Mr. --"

 

"And the best value!" Mulally blurted out.

 

"Commercials can go later," the chairman proposed.

 

They would have to go later, because members of the committee wanted to turn the session into a special edition of "Car Talk." Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) spoke of his '99 Jeep: "It probably has about 150,000 miles on it, and it's still running doggone well." Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) invoked his '98 Jeep Cherokee: "Small problem with the back hatch staying open; we can talk about that afterwards." Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) praised her Chrysler minivan. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) had good words for her Jeep but complained that it didn't come in a hybrid version.

 

"I drive the same '66 Plymouth Valiant that I've always had," Ackerman proffered. He went on to discuss a problem with the GPS system in his Cadillac. "I wanted a loaded car in blue; I had to reach out to five states to find one in blue," he complained.

 

It seemed everybody had a car story to tell. Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) let it be known that he was a car dealer for 25 years. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) disclosed that he had worked at the GM plant in Framingham. Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) wanted to see more ads for the car made in his district, while Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) said the Edsel was once made in his home town. Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) read from Cicero and held up photos of cars. And Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) had no car stories to tell but delivered the surprising news that the problem with the Titanic was not its collision with an iceberg.

 

Detroit area lawmakers made passionate arguments that the carmakers had already done what "they possibly can to restructure and become globally competitive," as Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) put it.

 

But the executives were not helping their own case. When Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) tried to find out when GM would run out of cash, Wagoner hemmed and hawed until the lawmaker protested that "I don't quite understand what the hell you just told me." When Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) asked about GM's outlook for the quarter, Wagoner informed him that "we don't provide financial guidance in earnings."

 

So it was hard to feel sorry for the executives when Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), late in the hearing, reminded them again that "the symbolism of the private jet is difficult," and mischievously asked the witnesses whether, in another symbolic gesture, they would be willing to work for $1 a year, as Nardelli has offered to do.

 

"I don't have a position on that today," demurred Wagoner (2007 total compensation: $15.7 million).

 

"I understand the intent, but I think where we are is okay," said Mulally ($21.7 million).

 

"I'm asking about you," Roskam pressed.

 

"I think I'm okay where I am," Mulally said.

 

And don't even think about asking him to fly commercial.

 

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

 

Great post, very interesting read. These bosses are so out of touch with the real world.

Let them fail!

Let them fail!

 

Then by that token, we should have let the banks fail as well.... :rolleyes: There was certainly a fairly large contingent amongst the Republicans that advocated that....

 

All this just proves one thing to me, that bosses are the same no matter what the particular business or service.. The bank bosses are greedy, out of touch and excessive, and on the evidence provided by Consie in this article, the bosses of these car companies are exactly the same species of neo-capitalist parasite, showing off excesses at the expense of their workers.....

 

Karl Marx was right...

 

Let them fail!

Agreed

 

 

Then by that token, we should have let the banks fail as well.... :rolleyes:

Yes, the solution is very simply really.

 

 

Two wrongs don't make a right so even after the banks it makes no sense to bail out car manufactures.

 

 

 

Karl Marx was right...

 

As they say, Marx may have been wrong about communism but he was right about capitalism :)

Two wrongs don't make a right so even after the banks it makes no sense to bail out car manufactures.

 

It does if you dont want mass rioting and every single bank on Wall St being targeted for vandalism, arson, and fire-bomb attacks by an utterly HUGE, outraged, angry-as-hell mob of former car industry and blue collar workers..... :rolleyes:

 

And, how many of New York's Finest would actually make much of an effort to stop them....? :lol:

As they say, Marx may have been wrong about communism but he was right about capitalism :)

 

HE didn't get Socialism/Communism wrong, it was bloody Stalin, Mao and Pol Pott who fukked it up and totally misunderstood (or rather ignored...) Marx's whole ethos..... :rolleyes: They didn't have the sense to realise that Socialism could only actually WORK in a State which already had an Industrialized or Technological structure... Socialism could only come after Capitalism, and there was actually a national wealth TO redistribute amongst the proletariat.... Russia, China and Cambodia were rural, peasant farmer economies, NO industrialization or technocratic breakthroughs had happened there; these never were Capitalist systems in the sense that Western Europe was, where Marx was suggesting his model should've been applied; Marx actually had Britain or Germany in mind, certainly not Russia or China.... It was never going to work there....

 

On the subject of Car Manufacturers going t*ts up, these are some interesting articles on the automotive industry and how big a knock-on effect it as on the wider economy.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7752815.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7674505.stm

On the subject of Car Manufacturers going t*ts up, these are some interesting articles on the automotive industry and how big a knock-on effect it as on the wider economy.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7752815.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7674505.stm

 

Indeed.. I mean, take, for example, a look at what happened in Detroit when the car industry there went t"ts up, that city has never really recovered.. And also, the Mike Moore documentary "Roger and Me" and what happened in his hometown of Flint, Michigan when General Motors closed down its factory there, should also be a sobering thought to those who just feel that the industry should just be allowed to 'slip away'... It would absolutely DEVASTATE huge portions of the US, and basically turn them into virtual Third World enclaves of absolute local poverty and economic depression; and it would certainly not be confined to only the car industry, the knock on effect for other businesses which rely on the industry would be disastrous.....