|
Solution for GM
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:54:09 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:59:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Here's an idea for the bailout versus bankruptcy debate as options for GM (and possibly Ford and Chrysler) Do both. Agree to a government (taxpayer) financed cash infusion as part of the reorganization plan in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On the other hand... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/bu...hp&oref=slogin That's an option and it does away with unions for the most part. I'd like to see the American auto industry survive, even if it still includes union contracts and workers. But, the whole structure including products, management and union relationships/contracts needs to be rewritten, using a blank sheet. The bailout plus Chapter 11 concept takes those decisions out of the hands of existing management and BOD's and puts them in the hands of the bankrupcy court. Here's a couple of things I can't get my admittedly slow and aging brain to accept. 1 - What the auto makers are asking for is more than their current net worth. The current market cap as of 11 AM today for General Motors is about $1.9 billion, Ford about 4.3 billion, Chrysler is less than $2 billion - being privately held, it's difficult to tell. For a lousy $7 billion the government could simply BUY the entire U.S. auto "industry". 2 - The companies, as they stand now, can't pay their creditors - what makes anybody think they will repay the US taxpayer? As of 11 AM today Ford has $160 billion in debt (with negative book value equity) and GM has about $60 billion in debt (with a negative book value equity of$56 billion). How is $50 billion more from the taxpayer going to help? Now - tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me why the taxpayer should dump what could reach 120 Billion into two companies that have, combined, a negative net worth of 220 Billion dollars. Come on - tell me - I'm waiting to hear. Harry? Anybody? I didn't think so. Maybe it has something to do with the 3 million manufacturing and ancillary jobs that will be lost if the Big Three fail, and of course the almost total collapse of U.S. manufacturing capability. There's no guarantee that if the Big Three go under or declare bankruptcy anyone will move in to fill the vacuum. I know massive unemployment and the resulting tragedies mean nothing to you Big Time Republicans, but those of us who actually care about families and family values think otherwise. And so does the incoming president. Besides, we are blowing $10-$12 billion a month on a masturbatory fantasy in Iraq, and we'll get nothing for it, ever. |
Solution for GM
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:45:15 -0500, Boater wrote:
wrote: On Nov 17, 11:10 am, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Nov 17, 6:59 am, "Eisboch" wrote: Well, GM has already ripped the Canadian Govt. for millions in a loan. **** your idea. As a taxpayer, I'm not giving them anything. Gee, silver-spooner, why not give them some of your money. The fat-payed CEO, and other over-payed leeches down the line , should be held responsible. ----------------------------- "silver-spooner"? LOL. That's a new one. You sound a bit more frustrated today than usual. Cut back on your overtime? Union dues go up? Or did your shop steward inform you that your latest grievance was denied? Eisboch The company just got the union to up the manhours worked to two, for a days pay... Rowdy Mouse Racing, Don't need no stinkin' union... Or brains, apparently. So...how much have you saved for that kid's college? The kid has shown the initiative and discipline to get herself a nice, big scholarship. She's even shown some courage, which is something you know nothing of. *Krausii Liesallthetime Marylandus* -- you gotta love it! -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" |
Solution for GM
JohnH wrote:
The kid has shown the initiative and discipline to get herself a nice, big scholarship. She's even shown some courage, which is something you know nothing of. Because she rides a motorcycle? That earns a scholarship and demonstrates courage? Besides, what the hell do you know about scholarship? You weren't smart enough to get a IIA deferment. Daddy better save up some buckaroos for college. There are no guarantees. |
Solution for GM
"Boater" wrote in message ... Daddy better save up some buckaroos for college. There are no guarantees. There are according to big "O". Eisboch |
Solution for GM
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:06:27 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: The kid has shown the initiative and discipline to get herself a nice, big scholarship. She's even shown some courage, which is something you know nothing of. Because she rides a motorcycle? That earns a scholarship and demonstrates courage? Besides, what the hell do you know about scholarship? You weren't smart enough to get a IIA deferment. Daddy better save up some buckaroos for college. There are no guarantees. Think about it....how *did* I get a bachelors, a masters, and most of another masters....drafted....and retired. My daddy saved up nothing for college. -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" |
Solution for GM
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Daddy better save up some buckaroos for college. There are no guarantees. There are according to big "O". Eisboch WHO YOU GOING TO BELIEVE THE BIG H OR THE BIG O? SOME CHOICE HUH? |
Solution for GM
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:55:48 -0500, Boater
wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:54:09 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:59:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Here's an idea for the bailout versus bankruptcy debate as options for GM (and possibly Ford and Chrysler) Do both. Agree to a government (taxpayer) financed cash infusion as part of the reorganization plan in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On the other hand... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/bu...hp&oref=slogin That's an option and it does away with unions for the most part. I'd like to see the American auto industry survive, even if it still includes union contracts and workers. But, the whole structure including products, management and union relationships/contracts needs to be rewritten, using a blank sheet. The bailout plus Chapter 11 concept takes those decisions out of the hands of existing management and BOD's and puts them in the hands of the bankrupcy court. Here's a couple of things I can't get my admittedly slow and aging brain to accept. 1 - What the auto makers are asking for is more than their current net worth. The current market cap as of 11 AM today for General Motors is about $1.9 billion, Ford about 4.3 billion, Chrysler is less than $2 billion - being privately held, it's difficult to tell. For a lousy $7 billion the government could simply BUY the entire U.S. auto "industry". 2 - The companies, as they stand now, can't pay their creditors - what makes anybody think they will repay the US taxpayer? As of 11 AM today Ford has $160 billion in debt (with negative book value equity) and GM has about $60 billion in debt (with a negative book value equity of$56 billion). How is $50 billion more from the taxpayer going to help? Now - tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me why the taxpayer should dump what could reach 120 Billion into two companies that have, combined, a negative net worth of 220 Billion dollars. Come on - tell me - I'm waiting to hear. Harry? Anybody? I didn't think so. Maybe it has something to do with the 3 million manufacturing and ancillary jobs that will be lost if the Big Three fail, and of course the almost total collapse of U.S. manufacturing capability. Well, for one thing, there wouldn't be a three million job loss - probably less than half that. Bankruptcy under Chapter 11 is a reorganization procedure - which means they keep operating while restructuring and reorganizing. Secondly, as the NYT pointed out in a very well written article, there is no reason to believe that Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Volkswagen, yada, yada, yada wouldn't pick up the slack and actually ADD jobs to the industry. Third, how is GM going under going to destroy a manufacturing base that is already mostly overseas anyway. There aren't any heavy industrial companies still in business in the US - or at least none that have any sort of world wide presence. GM's success in the Eurozone is mostly because they build in Europe and not in the US. Fourth, restructuring GM would, and this is a fact, make them a leaner, meaner and much more responsive to market conditions than the bloated corporate machine they are now. There's no guarantee that if the Big Three go under or declare bankruptcy anyone will move in to fill the vacuum. No - that's true, but it would be an incredibly rich target for any number of other businesses to pick up and run with. The opportunities would be tremendous for other companies to pick up. I know massive unemployment and the resulting tragedies mean nothing to you Big Time Republicans, but those of us who actually care about families and family values think otherwise. And so does the incoming president. Bull****. What I'm against is bloated manufacturing, cars that won't sell even in good times. I know you've never been in a down cycle before because of your skill set and Union contacts, but I have - two of them. And it hurt everytime I had to let people go, but that's life. There aren't any quarentees - never have been, never will be. That kind of thinking is what got us into this mess. |
Solution for GM
On Nov 17, 6:37*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: I know you've never been in a down cycle before because of your skill set and Union contacts, but I have - two of them. *And it hurt every time I had to let people go, but that's life. *There aren't any guarantees - never have been, never will be. And THAT is why I am gainfully and self employed. |
Solution for GM
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com