| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
No brainer!
This article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...m-economy.html says US carmaker failure could cut 4% from the GDP. But the cost of a bailout is no less than 6% of GDP! No brainer! Let them go bankrupt! |
No brainer!
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:53:24 -0700, "Charles Momsen" said: says US carmaker failure could cut 4% from the GDP. But the cost of a bailout is no less than 6% of GDP! No brainer! Looks as if even the Dems may have figured that out. But of course saying so would tick off the UAW, so we now have an elaborate charade in progress, with the Dem politicians saying they won't back the bailout because the auto execs flew into Washington on company planes instead of taking commercial flights. They're creating a great comedy routine. I think you should check out your nurse Dave, I think she's slipping something into your metamucil.... Cheers Martin |
No brainer!
Charles Momsen wrote:
This article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...m-economy.html says US carmaker failure could cut 4% from the GDP. But the cost of a bailout is no less than 6% of GDP! No brainer! Let them go bankrupt! I believe this underestimates the effect. While the loss caused directly by the personnel working for the big 3 maybe only 4%. There are other losses that are not being considered. In an area like Indianapolis there are many business that are dependent on the auto industry. The prepared food industry will be hit hard as layoff will directly effect them. There are similar industries that will be effected that are several generation removed from the company manufacturing cars. The other cost is a general cost. When polosi caused the failure of the first bailout bill the market lost about 30% in 15 days. The market has not recovered. I have seen data indicating that if the auto industry is not bailed out, the stock market will loose another 2000 points. As I remember about the time of polosi's tantrum, 401k plans had lost nearly 4 trillion dollars. With the subsequent losses in the market it is many times that in all of the companies that have been effected by the democrats bad mortgages, and the lack of credit. |
No brainer!
Keith nuttle wrote:
Charles Momsen wrote: This article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...m-economy.html says US carmaker failure could cut 4% from the GDP. But the cost of a bailout is no less than 6% of GDP! No brainer! Let them go bankrupt! I believe this underestimates the effect. While the loss caused directly by the personnel working for the big 3 maybe only 4%. There are other losses that are not being considered. In an area like Indianapolis there are many business that are dependent on the auto industry. The prepared food industry will be hit hard as layoff will directly effect them. There are similar industries that will be effected that are several generation removed from the company manufacturing cars. The other cost is a general cost. When polosi caused the failure of the first bailout bill the market lost about 30% in 15 days. The market has not recovered. I have seen data indicating that if the auto industry is not bailed out, the stock market will loose another 2000 points. As I remember about the time of polosi's tantrum, 401k plans had lost nearly 4 trillion dollars. With the subsequent losses in the market it is many times that in all of the companies that have been effected by the democrats bad mortgages, and the lack of credit. Just for the record the market lost another 6% today. That is another 2000 points since election day. It has now lost nearly 50% of its value since the end of polosi's 100 days. I believe that is slightly more than 4%GDP Every day that congress drags its feet the market suffers. The 50% is the largest losses since the depression in the 1930's when the market lost 80% of its value, and the only thing that turned it around was a war. |
No brainer!
"Marty" wrote in message
... Dave wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:53:24 -0700, "Charles Momsen" said: says US carmaker failure could cut 4% from the GDP. But the cost of a bailout is no less than 6% of GDP! No brainer! Looks as if even the Dems may have figured that out. But of course saying so would tick off the UAW, so we now have an elaborate charade in progress, with the Dem politicians saying they won't back the bailout because the auto execs flew into Washington on company planes instead of taking commercial flights. They're creating a great comedy routine. I think you should check out your nurse Dave, I think she's slipping something into your metamucil.... Cheers Martin Especially since Pelosi just said that if the Big 3 don't have a plan, they won't get the cash. I believe the deadline is 12/3. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
... I believe this underestimates the effect. While the loss caused directly by the personnel working for the big 3 maybe only 4%. There are other losses that are not being considered. In an area like Indianapolis there are many business that are dependent on the auto industry. The prepared food industry will be hit hard as layoff will directly effect them. There are similar industries that will be effected that are several generation removed from the company manufacturing cars. Yup. The other cost is a general cost. When polosi caused the failure of the first bailout bill the market lost about 30% in 15 days. The market has not recovered. I have seen data indicating that if the auto industry is not bailed out, the stock market will loose another 2000 points. As I remember about the time of polosi's tantrum, 401k plans had lost nearly 4 trillion dollars. With the subsequent losses in the market it is many times that in all of the companies that have been effected by the democrats bad mortgages, and the lack of credit. Don't be a dope. McCain solved the economic crisis, despite Pelosi. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
... Keith nuttle wrote: Charles Momsen wrote: This article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...m-economy.html says US carmaker failure could cut 4% from the GDP. But the cost of a bailout is no less than 6% of GDP! No brainer! Let them go bankrupt! I believe this underestimates the effect. While the loss caused directly by the personnel working for the big 3 maybe only 4%. There are other losses that are not being considered. In an area like Indianapolis there are many business that are dependent on the auto industry. The prepared food industry will be hit hard as layoff will directly effect them. There are similar industries that will be effected that are several generation removed from the company manufacturing cars. The other cost is a general cost. When polosi caused the failure of the first bailout bill the market lost about 30% in 15 days. The market has not recovered. I have seen data indicating that if the auto industry is not bailed out, the stock market will loose another 2000 points. As I remember about the time of polosi's tantrum, 401k plans had lost nearly 4 trillion dollars. With the subsequent losses in the market it is many times that in all of the companies that have been effected by the democrats bad mortgages, and the lack of credit. Just for the record the market lost another 6% today. That is another 2000 points since election day. It has now lost nearly 50% of its value since the end of polosi's 100 days. I believe that is slightly more than 4%GDP Every day that congress drags its feet the market suffers. The 50% is the largest losses since the depression in the 1930's when the market lost 80% of its value, and the only thing that turned it around was a war. It must be Obama's fault. After all, he's not the president. Dick (I've been indicted, along with my buddy Al) Cheney is. Too bad the judge didn't issue an arrest warrant. He's clearly a flight risk... he might go to his undisclosed location. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:38:16 -0500, Marty said: I think you should check out your nurse Dave, I think she's slipping something into your metamucil.... I think you should lay off the ad hominem attacks, Marty, and substitute something more reasoned. Something more reasoned? You mean like your paranoid delusion that the UAW and the Teamsters are running the world and are responsible for the financial catastrophe we are currently undergoing? You are starting to sound like Larry, oh I know it's an ad hominem, only ok when you deliver them.... Cheers Martin |
No brainer!
Keith nuttle wrote:
Just for the record the market lost another 6% today. That is another 2000 points since election day. It has now lost nearly 50% of its value since the end of polosi's 100 days. I believe that is slightly more than 4%GDP Every day that congress drags its feet the market suffers. You left out "at the end of the most obstructionist Senate in the history of the Congress",, never has an elected majority had it's will so thwarted in 300 years of American history.... Cheers Martin |
No brainer!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:15:44 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Especially since Pelosi just said that if the Big 3 don't have a plan, they won't get the cash. I believe the deadline is 12/3. Clever ploy. When the big 3 come back for another round for twice as much money after the first round doesn't do the job, she can always say "Not my fault. I was brainwashed into thinking their plan would work." So, you now believe they *should* get the bailout, but with no strings. Seems a bit contradictory, given the noise you've been making in the other thread! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
"Marty" wrote in message
... Dave wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:38:16 -0500, Marty said: I think you should check out your nurse Dave, I think she's slipping something into your metamucil.... I think you should lay off the ad hominem attacks, Marty, and substitute something more reasoned. Something more reasoned? You mean like your paranoid delusion that the UAW and the Teamsters are running the world and are responsible for the financial catastrophe we are currently undergoing? You are starting to sound like Larry, oh I know it's an ad hominem, only ok when you deliver them.... Cheers Martin The UAW and Teamsters aren't???? Whew. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
"Marty" wrote in message
... Keith nuttle wrote: Just for the record the market lost another 6% today. That is another 2000 points since election day. It has now lost nearly 50% of its value since the end of polosi's 100 days. I believe that is slightly more than 4%GDP Every day that congress drags its feet the market suffers. You left out "at the end of the most obstructionist Senate in the history of the Congress",, never has an elected majority had it's will so thwarted in 300 years of American history.... Cheers Martin Hey, we in the US have a lot to be proud off.. Think of it this way. We're the only country to take some icecream, put it between two chocolate cookies smothered in chocolate syrup, and think, "Can I deep fry this?" The answer is Yes We Can! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message ... Keith nuttle wrote: Just for the record the market lost another 6% today. That is another 2000 points since election day. It has now lost nearly 50% of its value since the end of polosi's 100 days. I believe that is slightly more than 4%GDP Every day that congress drags its feet the market suffers. You left out "at the end of the most obstructionist Senate in the history of the Congress",, never has an elected majority had it's will so thwarted in 300 years of American history.... Cheers Martin Hey, we in the US have a lot to be proud off.. Think of it this way. We're the only country to take some icecream, put it between two chocolate cookies smothered in chocolate syrup, and think, "Can I deep fry this?" The answer is Yes We Can! Well, I'll have to concede that! Not mention that indestructible, totally without nutritional value, never needs refrigeration, yet still surprisingly tasty roll, the Twinky! Cheers Martin |
No brainer!
"Marty" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message ... Keith nuttle wrote: Just for the record the market lost another 6% today. That is another 2000 points since election day. It has now lost nearly 50% of its value since the end of polosi's 100 days. I believe that is slightly more than 4%GDP Every day that congress drags its feet the market suffers. You left out "at the end of the most obstructionist Senate in the history of the Congress",, never has an elected majority had it's will so thwarted in 300 years of American history.... Cheers Martin Hey, we in the US have a lot to be proud off.. Think of it this way. We're the only country to take some icecream, put it between two chocolate cookies smothered in chocolate syrup, and think, "Can I deep fry this?" The answer is Yes We Can! Well, I'll have to concede that! Not mention that indestructible, totally without nutritional value, never needs refrigeration, yet still surprisingly tasty roll, the Twinky! Cheers Martin I would think that as a Canadian, you would prefer Ho Hos. LOL Also, we have the Dixie Chicks... true Americans. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:25:39 -0500, Marty wrote:
Dave wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:38:16 -0500, Marty said: I think you should check out your nurse Dave, I think she's slipping something into your metamucil.... I think you should lay off the ad hominem attacks, Marty, and substitute something more reasoned. Something more reasoned? You mean like your paranoid delusion that the UAW and the Teamsters are running the world and are responsible for the financial catastrophe we are currently undergoing? You are starting to sound like Larry, oh I know it's an ad hominem, only ok when you deliver them.... Cheers Martin Dave has previously told us how he advises bank regulators. I'm beginning to suspect the real root of the financial mess. No wonder Dave is trying to throw up a smoke screen. |
No brainer!
Warning lights are flashing down at quality control
Somebody threw a spanner and they threw him in the hole Theres rumors in the loading bay and anger in the town Somebody blew the whistle and the walls came down Theres a meeting in the boardroom theyre trying to trace the smell Theres leaking in the washroom theres a sneak in personnel Somewhere in the corridors someone was heard to sneeze goodness me could this be industrial disease? The caretaker was crucified for sleeping at his post Theyre refusing to be pacified its him they blame the most The watchdogs got rabies the foremans got fleas And everyones concerned about industrial disease Theres panic on the switchboard tongues are ties in knots Some come out in sympathy some come out in spots Some blame the management some the employees And everybody knows its the industrial disease The work force is disgusted downs tools and walks Innocence is injured experience just talks Everyone seeks damages and everyone agrees That these are classic symptoms of a monetary squeeze On itv and bbc they talk about the curse Philosophy is useless theology is worse History boils over theres an economics freeze Sociologists invent words that mean industrial disease Doctor parkinson declared Im not surprised to see you here Youve got smokers cough from smoking, brewers droop from drinking beer I dont know how you came to get the betty davis knees But worst of all young man youve got industrial disease He wrote me a prescription he said you are depressed But Im glad you came to see me to get this off your chest Come back and see me later - next patient please Send in another victim of industrial disease I go down to speakers corner Im thunderstruck They got free speech, tourists, police in trucks Two men say theyre jesus one of them must be wrong Theres a protest singer singing a protest song - he says they wanna have a war to keep us on our knees They wanna have a war to keep their factories They wanna have a war to stop us buying japanese They wanna have a war to stop industrial disease Theyre pointing out the enemy to keep you deaf and blind They wanna sap your energy incarcerate your mind They give you rule brittania, gassy beer, page three Two weeks in espana and sunday striptease Meanwhile the first jesus says Id cure it soon Abolish monday mornings and friday afternoons The other ones on a hunger strike hes dying by degrees How come jesus gets industrial disease |
No brainer!
"Marty" wrote in message ... Keith nuttle wrote: Just for the record the market lost another 6% today. That is another 2000 points since election day. It has now lost nearly 50% of its value since the end of polosi's 100 days. I believe that is slightly more than 4%GDP Every day that congress drags its feet the market suffers. You left out "at the end of the most obstructionist Senate in the history of the Congress",, never has an elected majority had it's will so thwarted in 300 years of American history.... Cheers Martin Gridlock - it's our only hope. |
No brainer!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:38:10 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Clever ploy. When the big 3 come back for another round for twice as much money after the first round doesn't do the job, she can always say "Not my fault. I was brainwashed into thinking their plan would work." So, you now believe they *should* get the bailout, but with no strings. Seems a bit contradictory, given the noise you've been making in the other thread! Nope. I think the automakers shouldn't be handed taxpayer dollars. I also recognize that a major driver for the handout is a desire on the part of the Dems to appease their UAW backers. So when they vote for the handout they're gonna need an excuse at some point for why it didn't work. I'm crediting Pelosi with setting up that excuse well in advance. God forbid that democrats want to forstall a complete meltdown of the enconomy! Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the Big 3's executive jets. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the Big 3's executive jets. As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass when one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer billions at them. Dave, The not so Big Three going under is a worse calamity than global warming! The entire world will end if the UAW doesn't get to keep their fat pensions going for 6 more months. Complete global meltdown! |
No brainer!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the Big 3's executive jets. As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass when one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer billions at them. You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not* bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in order before you write them down. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Dave" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the Big 3's executive jets. As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass when one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer billions at them. You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not* bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in order before you write them down. After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot". It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his problems. g |
No brainer!
|
No brainer!
wrote in message
... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the Big 3's executive jets. As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass when one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer billions at them. You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not* bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in order before you write them down. After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot". It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his problems. g Yes, Dave is fantastically "difficult." -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:44:23 -0500, Keith nuttle
wrote: wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the Big 3's executive jets. As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass when one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer billions at them. You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not* bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in order before you write them down. After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot". It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his problems. g I believe that if you look at the news today, that there is a difference in what pelosi and obama are proposing, which is they are not going to bailout the auto industry but are going to give them a special bankruptcy. In layman terms they are going to bail out the auto industry but call it something else. A rose is a rose. I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of the world. Bailing out the big three simply stifles innovation, and rewards failure. I don't really think they can be preserved in their present form regardless. It would be nearly impossible to save them in a strong economy. Lets encourage some completely new blood. |
No brainer!
wrote in message
... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:44:23 -0500, Keith nuttle wrote: wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the Big 3's executive jets. As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass when one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer billions at them. You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not* bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in order before you write them down. After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot". It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his problems. g I believe that if you look at the news today, that there is a difference in what pelosi and obama are proposing, which is they are not going to bailout the auto industry but are going to give them a special bankruptcy. In layman terms they are going to bail out the auto industry but call it something else. A rose is a rose. I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of the world. Bailing out the big three simply stifles innovation, and rewards failure. I don't really think they can be preserved in their present form regardless. It would be nearly impossible to save them in a strong economy. Lets encourage some completely new blood. I tend to agree, but I think it's possible to bail them out with the proper controls. Management should be fired with no bonuses, the companies should put on a clear path to produce better, fuel-efficient cars. All contracts should be renegotiated. I don't think this is the right moment to push lots of people onto the unemployment lines and wholesale remove health coverage and eliminate people's pensions. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:24:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:44:23 -0500, Keith nuttle wrote: wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the Big 3's executive jets. As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass when one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer billions at them. You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not* bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in order before you write them down. After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot". It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his problems. g I believe that if you look at the news today, that there is a difference in what pelosi and obama are proposing, which is they are not going to bailout the auto industry but are going to give them a special bankruptcy. In layman terms they are going to bail out the auto industry but call it something else. A rose is a rose. I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of the world. Bailing out the big three simply stifles innovation, and rewards failure. I don't really think they can be preserved in their present form regardless. It would be nearly impossible to save them in a strong economy. Lets encourage some completely new blood. I tend to agree, but I think it's possible to bail them out with the proper controls. Management should be fired with no bonuses, the companies should put on a clear path to produce better, fuel-efficient cars. All contracts should be renegotiated. I don't think this is the right moment to push lots of people onto the unemployment lines and wholesale remove health coverage and eliminate people's pensions. The new startups are going to need those people, and they already knew enough to start on building those cars you think are a good idea. Once they have some backing to get going, they'll be hiring. They may even need some of those idle factories, and even additional workers in other fields to update them for better production methods. People have been telling the Big Three for years that they needed to change direction. They didn't. They can't. Too late - and now is not the climate in which there is any chance of turning them around. It's over and time to look ahead. You can't make a living manufacturing buggy whips any longer, either. The big Three have outlived their viability. There is nothing left to bail out, really. All you could do at this point is give them obscene amounts of money to help them limp along until that runs out, and then they fail anyway. Bail out the auto industry itself, and forget the big three. Stick them with a fork. They've been done for a very long time. Don't overlook that this whole mess is actually going to make it much easier to get universal health care passed. It will be on the fast track now out of neccessity. Otherwise the Hospitals and Insurance industry will be the next in line for a bailout. |
No brainer!
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... I don't think this is the right moment to push lots of people onto the unemployment lines and wholesale remove health coverage and eliminate people's pensions. So when is it the right moment? |
No brainer!
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:25:39 -0500, Marty said: I think you should lay off the ad hominem attacks, Marty, and substitute something more reasoned. Something more reasoned? You mean like your paranoid delusion There you go again. You amaze me Dave, you feel free to insult my capacity to reason, but when I reply in kind questioning your mental balance you get upset. Well, that's not quite true, you don't amaze me anymore, I'm beginning to think of you in terms of a religious fundamentalist, there's no point in pointing out Biblical contradictions to them.... Cheers Martin |
No brainer!
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:23:15 -0500, Marty said: There you go again. I reply in kind questioning your mental balance And again. Gee, isn't this fun? Cheers Martin |
No brainer!
wrote in message
... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:24:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:44:23 -0500, Keith nuttle wrote: wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the Big 3's executive jets. As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass when one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer billions at them. You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not* bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in order before you write them down. After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot". It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his problems. g I believe that if you look at the news today, that there is a difference in what pelosi and obama are proposing, which is they are not going to bailout the auto industry but are going to give them a special bankruptcy. In layman terms they are going to bail out the auto industry but call it something else. A rose is a rose. I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of the world. Bailing out the big three simply stifles innovation, and rewards failure. I don't really think they can be preserved in their present form regardless. It would be nearly impossible to save them in a strong economy. Lets encourage some completely new blood. I tend to agree, but I think it's possible to bail them out with the proper controls. Management should be fired with no bonuses, the companies should put on a clear path to produce better, fuel-efficient cars. All contracts should be renegotiated. I don't think this is the right moment to push lots of people onto the unemployment lines and wholesale remove health coverage and eliminate people's pensions. The new startups are going to need those people, and they already knew enough to start on building those cars you think are a good idea. Once they have some backing to get going, they'll be hiring. They may even need some of those idle factories, and even additional workers in other fields to update them for better production methods. People have been telling the Big Three for years that they needed to change direction. They didn't. They can't. Too late - and now is not the climate in which there is any chance of turning them around. It's over and time to look ahead. You can't make a living manufacturing buggy whips any longer, either. The big Three have outlived their viability. There is nothing left to bail out, really. All you could do at this point is give them obscene amounts of money to help them limp along until that runs out, and then they fail anyway. Bail out the auto industry itself, and forget the big three. Stick them with a fork. They've been done for a very long time. Don't overlook that this whole mess is actually going to make it much easier to get universal health care passed. It will be on the fast track now out of neccessity. Otherwise the Hospitals and Insurance industry will be the next in line for a bailout. Nice analysis. Actually, the "limping along" would only last 1Q, according to the GM guy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:56:24 -0500, said: I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of the world. As to the first part, sounds like you're on the right side of the issue. But if the big 3 were out of the picture would these other companies not be able to raise capital in the private market? Who are these companies? I haven't seen anything about them. Well, I have two friends who just bought Teslas. One actually got to drive it from the factory to the paint shop. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:20:16 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:24:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:44:23 -0500, Keith nuttle wrote: wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the Big 3's executive jets. As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass when one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer billions at them. You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not* bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in order before you write them down. After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot". It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his problems. g I believe that if you look at the news today, that there is a difference in what pelosi and obama are proposing, which is they are not going to bailout the auto industry but are going to give them a special bankruptcy. In layman terms they are going to bail out the auto industry but call it something else. A rose is a rose. I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of the world. Bailing out the big three simply stifles innovation, and rewards failure. I don't really think they can be preserved in their present form regardless. It would be nearly impossible to save them in a strong economy. Lets encourage some completely new blood. I tend to agree, but I think it's possible to bail them out with the proper controls. Management should be fired with no bonuses, the companies should put on a clear path to produce better, fuel-efficient cars. All contracts should be renegotiated. I don't think this is the right moment to push lots of people onto the unemployment lines and wholesale remove health coverage and eliminate people's pensions. The new startups are going to need those people, and they already knew enough to start on building those cars you think are a good idea. Once they have some backing to get going, they'll be hiring. They may even need some of those idle factories, and even additional workers in other fields to update them for better production methods. People have been telling the Big Three for years that they needed to change direction. They didn't. They can't. Too late - and now is not the climate in which there is any chance of turning them around. It's over and time to look ahead. You can't make a living manufacturing buggy whips any longer, either. The big Three have outlived their viability. There is nothing left to bail out, really. All you could do at this point is give them obscene amounts of money to help them limp along until that runs out, and then they fail anyway. Bail out the auto industry itself, and forget the big three. Stick them with a fork. They've been done for a very long time. Don't overlook that this whole mess is actually going to make it much easier to get universal health care passed. It will be on the fast track now out of neccessity. Otherwise the Hospitals and Insurance industry will be the next in line for a bailout. Nice analysis. Actually, the "limping along" would only last 1Q, according to the GM guy. Typical analysis by a Jap car owner who has his head up his ass. GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year. Toyota-heads and Honda-heads and most Californians don't have a clue about the real automotive world. GM will survive as GM. Chevrolet won't go away. Same for Ford. Don't know about Chrysler. Come back next year when you're sober. --Vic |
No brainer!
Capt. JG wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:56:24 -0500, said: I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of the world. As to the first part, sounds like you're on the right side of the issue. But if the big 3 were out of the picture would these other companies not be able to raise capital in the private market? Who are these companies? I haven't seen anything about them. Well, I have two friends who just bought Teslas. One actually got to drive it from the factory to the paint shop. Really, really neat cars! I have to wonder how they'd work out when it's twenty below and there's a foot of snow on the road. gr Cheers Martin |
No brainer!
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:20:16 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:24:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message m... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:44:23 -0500, Keith nuttle wrote: wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:11 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Pelosi asked for a plan, which involves more than flying in on the Big 3's executive jets. As well she should. She'll need everything she can get to cover her ass when one or more of those companies goes south after throwing more taxpayer billions at them. You just got done claiming that Pelosi is attempting to justify *not* bailing them out, and since the democrats are in control of Congress, that's certainly possible. Now, you're claiming that she's going to authorize the money to bail them out?? You might want to try and get your arguments in order before you write them down. After you look up "fantastic, you may want to look up "Gordian Knot". It will help you to understand Dave's problem. Or at least one of his problems. g I believe that if you look at the news today, that there is a difference in what pelosi and obama are proposing, which is they are not going to bailout the auto industry but are going to give them a special bankruptcy. In layman terms they are going to bail out the auto industry but call it something else. A rose is a rose. I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of the world. Bailing out the big three simply stifles innovation, and rewards failure. I don't really think they can be preserved in their present form regardless. It would be nearly impossible to save them in a strong economy. Lets encourage some completely new blood. I tend to agree, but I think it's possible to bail them out with the proper controls. Management should be fired with no bonuses, the companies should put on a clear path to produce better, fuel-efficient cars. All contracts should be renegotiated. I don't think this is the right moment to push lots of people onto the unemployment lines and wholesale remove health coverage and eliminate people's pensions. The new startups are going to need those people, and they already knew enough to start on building those cars you think are a good idea. Once they have some backing to get going, they'll be hiring. They may even need some of those idle factories, and even additional workers in other fields to update them for better production methods. People have been telling the Big Three for years that they needed to change direction. They didn't. They can't. Too late - and now is not the climate in which there is any chance of turning them around. It's over and time to look ahead. You can't make a living manufacturing buggy whips any longer, either. The big Three have outlived their viability. There is nothing left to bail out, really. All you could do at this point is give them obscene amounts of money to help them limp along until that runs out, and then they fail anyway. Bail out the auto industry itself, and forget the big three. Stick them with a fork. They've been done for a very long time. Don't overlook that this whole mess is actually going to make it much easier to get universal health care passed. It will be on the fast track now out of neccessity. Otherwise the Hospitals and Insurance industry will be the next in line for a bailout. Nice analysis. Actually, the "limping along" would only last 1Q, according to the GM guy. Typical analysis by a Jap car owner who has his head up his ass. GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year. Toyota-heads and Honda-heads and most Californians don't have a clue about the real automotive world. GM will survive as GM. Chevrolet won't go away. Same for Ford. Don't know about Chrysler. Come back next year when you're sober. --Vic To whom are you speaking? I don't own a Japanese car. If GM is so successful, then how come it's got it's hand out? I'm betting GM will not survive, at least not as it is now. Ford is in better shape, but who knows. This would be the second bailout for Chrysler. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
"Marty" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:56:24 -0500, said: I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of the world. As to the first part, sounds like you're on the right side of the issue. But if the big 3 were out of the picture would these other companies not be able to raise capital in the private market? Who are these companies? I haven't seen anything about them. Well, I have two friends who just bought Teslas. One actually got to drive it from the factory to the paint shop. Really, really neat cars! I have to wonder how they'd work out when it's twenty below and there's a foot of snow on the road. gr Cheers Martin I guess they'll find out when they take them to Tahoe come winter. In any case, I'm hoping for a test drive. :-) -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:56:24 -0500, said: I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of the world. As to the first part, sounds like you're on the right side of the issue. But if the big 3 were out of the picture would these other companies not be able to raise capital in the private market? Who are these companies? I haven't seen anything about them. Well, I have two friends who just bought Teslas. One actually got to drive it from the factory to the paint shop. Really, really neat cars! I have to wonder how they'd work out when it's twenty below and there's a foot of snow on the road. gr Cheers Martin I guess they'll find out when they take them to Tahoe come winter. In any case, I'm hoping for a test drive. :-) Lucky bugger,,,now that's the car Bob should buy if he's serious about his drive and his environmental friendliness. Great status too, he could brag for months about the deal he got... Cheers Martin |
No brainer!
"Marty" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:56:24 -0500, said: I'd prefer they let the big three land where they may, and bailout the auto industry itself by helping some of the many startups who are trying to develop and bring to market cars that will be the envy of the world. As to the first part, sounds like you're on the right side of the issue. But if the big 3 were out of the picture would these other companies not be able to raise capital in the private market? Who are these companies? I haven't seen anything about them. Well, I have two friends who just bought Teslas. One actually got to drive it from the factory to the paint shop. Really, really neat cars! I have to wonder how they'd work out when it's twenty below and there's a foot of snow on the road. gr Cheers Martin I guess they'll find out when they take them to Tahoe come winter. In any case, I'm hoping for a test drive. :-) Lucky bugger,,,now that's the car Bob should buy if he's serious about his drive and his environmental friendliness. Great status too, he could brag for months about the deal he got... Cheers Martin Here's a link to some pictures during the final assembly. http://mercury.nineplanets.org:8011/55guts/index.html -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No brainer!
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:34:53 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:20:16 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: I tend to agree, but I think it's possible to bail them out with the proper controls. Management should be fired with no bonuses, the companies should put on a clear path to produce better, fuel-efficient cars. All contracts should be renegotiated. I don't think this is the right moment to push lots of people onto the unemployment lines and wholesale remove health coverage and eliminate people's pensions. The new startups are going to need those people, and they already knew enough to start on building those cars you think are a good idea. Once they have some backing to get going, they'll be hiring. They may even need some of those idle factories, and even additional workers in other fields to update them for better production methods. People have been telling the Big Three for years that they needed to change direction. They didn't. They can't. Too late - and now is not the climate in which there is any chance of turning them around. It's over and time to look ahead. You can't make a living manufacturing buggy whips any longer, either. The big Three have outlived their viability. There is nothing left to bail out, really. All you could do at this point is give them obscene amounts of money to help them limp along until that runs out, and then they fail anyway. Bail out the auto industry itself, and forget the big three. Stick them with a fork. They've been done for a very long time. Don't overlook that this whole mess is actually going to make it much easier to get universal health care passed. It will be on the fast track now out of neccessity. Otherwise the Hospitals and Insurance industry will be the next in line for a bailout. Nice analysis. Actually, the "limping along" would only last 1Q, according to the GM guy. Typical analysis by a Jap car owner who has his head up his ass. GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year. Sounds like they are doing great, then. I guess all this talk about a bailout is foolishness.If they are doing better than Toyota worldwide, then maybe we should be giving the money to poor Toyota! |
No brainer!
wrote in message
... On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:34:53 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:20:16 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:15:50 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: I tend to agree, but I think it's possible to bail them out with the proper controls. Management should be fired with no bonuses, the companies should put on a clear path to produce better, fuel-efficient cars. All contracts should be renegotiated. I don't think this is the right moment to push lots of people onto the unemployment lines and wholesale remove health coverage and eliminate people's pensions. The new startups are going to need those people, and they already knew enough to start on building those cars you think are a good idea. Once they have some backing to get going, they'll be hiring. They may even need some of those idle factories, and even additional workers in other fields to update them for better production methods. People have been telling the Big Three for years that they needed to change direction. They didn't. They can't. Too late - and now is not the climate in which there is any chance of turning them around. It's over and time to look ahead. You can't make a living manufacturing buggy whips any longer, either. The big Three have outlived their viability. There is nothing left to bail out, really. All you could do at this point is give them obscene amounts of money to help them limp along until that runs out, and then they fail anyway. Bail out the auto industry itself, and forget the big three. Stick them with a fork. They've been done for a very long time. Don't overlook that this whole mess is actually going to make it much easier to get universal health care passed. It will be on the fast track now out of neccessity. Otherwise the Hospitals and Insurance industry will be the next in line for a bailout. Nice analysis. Actually, the "limping along" would only last 1Q, according to the GM guy. Typical analysis by a Jap car owner who has his head up his ass. GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year. Sounds like they are doing great, then. I guess all this talk about a bailout is foolishness.If they are doing better than Toyota worldwide, then maybe we should be giving the money to poor Toyota! I'm waiting for the plug-in Prius. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:43 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com