Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

RG wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:46:42 -0700, "RG" wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:20:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:21:14 -0500, Boater
wrote:

We've handed out close to a trillion dollars to the Wall Street and
banking industries, and for what? We'll get nothing out of that. Not
even a lousy car.
Tell me just out of curiosity - what model car do you drive? How
about your wife?
Why do you ask? I don't fault the UAW or organized workers for the
crappiness of some of the cars US producers turn out.
Just curious.
It's a Toyota. Really.

~Snerk~
That's what I thought.

Made down South with non-Union labor.

Do as I say - not as I do.

Typical. He wants to save a company from which he won't buy a car
because of quality issues which is built by the very same Union
members he says are so important to the US. Instead he buys a car
from a foreign company built in the US by non-Union labor.

Now is that tortured thinking or what?
--


Twisted. So much so that he couldn't even bring himself to directly an
honestly answer your simple question. Please pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain.




You haven't been selling AIG-branded insurance, have you?

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...

The quality issues have nothing to do with the workers who build the car,
and everything to do with corporate management.


That's right. I forgot. The union workers are paid to stay home while Rick
Wagoner personally bolts the cars together.

Eisboch

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:08:18 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


No - it was not caused by Wall Street - it was caused by two outsized
factors - the first was the speculative oil bubble which placed an
absurd tax the average American who suddenly had limited funds due to
the increased costs of fuel and fuel oil. The second factor was the
refusal of the FED and Treasury Department to back up Bear Stearns -
which was a solvent company with plenty of assets that had run into
liquidity because of ourside pressure on it's stock.

Live by leverage, die by leverage. Bear Stearns was only solvent went
times were good. When you leverage yourself 35 to 1, you go bye, bye,
when things get tight.



GM had been in trouble for years prior to the collapse.

I'm not denying GM has been in trouble, I'm only arguing the present
financial meltdown brought it into crisis.



With respect to Obamessiah's New New Deal, the original New Deal was a
joke and strictly make work. This isn't going to work either because
it's a SOP to the construction unions to keep their members busy - screw
everybody else.

Tell me - what's an average factory worker make building solar panels.
Have any idea? How about a truck driver - non Union? How about a flag
waver for traffic control. The guy who runs the paver, the roller, the
bridge steel worker. Is Obama going to give all these people the same
rate of pay regardless of what they do? How is he giong to control the
cost? Is it going to be privately contracted or government contracted?
How about the engineers, the surveyors, the cost managers, accountants
and lawyers - they all going to be paid at the same rate as
professionals?

It's a joke - you know it, I know it.

That's the difference, I don't see this as a joke. We are in recession,
and it looks like a serious one to me. Let GM go down, and we are
talking depression. That's no joke. Many of us will survive
financially, but what about the social upheavals? The last depression
brought us facists, communists, unions, all warring for a piece of the
pie. Hell, we even had a Dupont planning a coup. No thanks.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about GM. During normal times, I'd say let
them go under, but in these times, I think the risk of letting them fail
is too big. The bridge *loan* they are talking about is 1/10 what we
have already spent on Wall Street, and only a couple of months of the
spending we've been doing in Iraq for years.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
The quality issues have nothing to do with the workers who build the car,
and everything to do with corporate management.


That's right. I forgot. The union workers are paid to stay home while Rick
Wagoner personally bolts the cars together.

Eisboch




Unless things have changed drastically since I last visited an
autoplant, virtually every decision on who does what with what and for
how long is determined by management. Design is determined by
management. Tools are decided by management. Training is decided by
management. Materials are decided by management. Assembly line speed is
decided by management.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

wrote in message
t...


That's the difference, I don't see this as a joke. We are in recession,
and it looks like a serious one to me. Let GM go down, and we are
talking depression. That's no joke. Many of us will survive
financially, but what about the social upheavals? The last depression
brought us facists, communists, unions, all warring for a piece of the
pie. Hell, we even had a Dupont planning a coup. No thanks.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about GM. During normal times, I'd say let
them go under, but in these times, I think the risk of letting them fail
is too big. The bridge *loan* they are talking about is 1/10 what we
have already spent on Wall Street, and only a couple of months of the
spending we've been doing in Iraq for years.


I know you were addressing Tom, but I wanted to also respond.

I am not opposed to a bridge loan. I'd just like to see it tied to a
genuine requirement on the part of GM to change their ways.
Otherwise, the money is completely wasted. That's why I still think it
should be done with strong oversight, such as that
in Chapter 11.

I don't point the finger of distrust or blame at management or the labor
union. I just think there are so many years of
adversarial distrust between them that they need an arbitrator to fairly and
efficiently reorganize the company.

One thing I don't get, and maybe one of you guys more familiar with unions
can explain.
As I understand it, the UAW represents workers at all three Detroit
automakers, meaning GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

Why is it that Ford has been more successful in lowering per unit costs,
while actively revamping their product line?
The latest automotive reviews rates the newer Ford products as being equal
or in some cases better than their Toyota and Honda counterparts, quality
wise and Ford is in the least amount of trouble financially. Does each auto
manufacturer negotiate different contracts with the UAW in terms of pay,
benefits and retirement packages?

Eisboch

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...

That's the difference, I don't see this as a joke. We are in recession,
and it looks like a serious one to me. Let GM go down, and we are
talking depression. That's no joke. Many of us will survive
financially, but what about the social upheavals? The last depression
brought us facists, communists, unions, all warring for a piece of the
pie. Hell, we even had a Dupont planning a coup. No thanks.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about GM. During normal times, I'd say let
them go under, but in these times, I think the risk of letting them fail
is too big. The bridge *loan* they are talking about is 1/10 what we
have already spent on Wall Street, and only a couple of months of the
spending we've been doing in Iraq for years.


I know you were addressing Tom, but I wanted to also respond.

I am not opposed to a bridge loan. I'd just like to see it tied to a
genuine requirement on the part of GM to change their ways.
Otherwise, the money is completely wasted. That's why I still think it
should be done with strong oversight, such as that
in Chapter 11.

I don't point the finger of distrust or blame at management or the labor
union. I just think there are so many years of
adversarial distrust between them that they need an arbitrator to fairly and
efficiently reorganize the company.

One thing I don't get, and maybe one of you guys more familiar with unions
can explain.
As I understand it, the UAW represents workers at all three Detroit
automakers, meaning GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

Why is it that Ford has been more successful in lowering per unit costs,
while actively revamping their product line?
The latest automotive reviews rates the newer Ford products as being equal
or in some cases better than their Toyota and Honda counterparts, quality
wise and Ford is in the least amount of trouble financially. Does each auto
manufacturer negotiate different contracts with the UAW in terms of pay,
benefits and retirement packages?

If you focus your efforts on designing out the flaws on the areas that
will cost you the most to fix in warranty repair then you will reduce
your costs the most.

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
RG wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:46:42 -0700, "RG" wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:20:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:21:14 -0500, Boater
wrote:

We've handed out close to a trillion dollars to the Wall Street and
banking industries, and for what? We'll get nothing out of that.
Not
even a lousy car.
Tell me just out of curiosity - what model car do you drive? How
about your wife?
Why do you ask? I don't fault the UAW or organized workers for the
crappiness of some of the cars US producers turn out.
Just curious.
It's a Toyota. Really.

~Snerk~
That's what I thought.

Made down South with non-Union labor.

Do as I say - not as I do.

Typical. He wants to save a company from which he won't buy a car
because of quality issues which is built by the very same Union
members he says are so important to the US. Instead he buys a car
from a foreign company built in the US by non-Union labor.

Now is that tortured thinking or what?
--


Twisted. So much so that he couldn't even bring himself to directly an
honestly answer your simple question. Please pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain.




You haven't been selling AIG-branded insurance, have you?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, dip****.

"I refuse to buy products made in China"
Guess where your MacBook came from, numbnutz.

"I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart"
Unless they've got a deal on an HP printer.

"I support the UAW"
Except when it comes to what I park in my driveway.

It never ends with you.

I can't even imagine how much it must suck to be you. And you're right. We
don't know what Karen drives. All we know is that it apparently isn't fast
enough to get the **** away from you. At what point in your life did you
come to the conclusion that truth and integrity have no value whatsoever?

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"BAR" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in the
long run, be cheaper.

Where is the money coming from to pay for those infrastructure projects?
In this recession the government doesn't have the revenue to pay for
these extra projects. With the cost of oil dropping like a rock The Obama
cannot raid the oil companies for "wind-fall-profits" and the worst thing
The Obama can do is raise taxes on anyone.


Nope, and this has been something I've learned as I watch and listen to
and about this mess.

The government can write checks forever. They print the money.
Eventually, hyper-inflation will come along and bite us in the ass, but
right now
most of the left leaning economic experts are saying, "We'll deal with
that when the time comes".

Eisboch


I have some German pre-war 500,000DM paper. Want to buy some, cheap? 80

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:07:45 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


I know you were addressing Tom, but I wanted to also respond.

I am not opposed to a bridge loan. I'd just like to see it tied to a
genuine requirement on the part of GM to change their ways. Otherwise,
the money is completely wasted. That's why I still think it should be
done with strong oversight, such as that in Chapter 11.

I think we are on the same page. GM clearly needs to get the message.
Hell, the board just gave Wagoner a vote of confidence. As I said, I'm
not concerned with GM near as much as I'm concerned with what GM's
failure could do to the rest of the economy. We need to get some
confidence back in the system. I think there are better ways than
Chapter 11, but I would accept a Chapter 11 solution. I just don't
think, at this moment, this economy could sustain a GM failure.



I don't point the finger of distrust or blame at management or the labor
union. I just think there are so many years of adversarial distrust
between them that they need an arbitrator to fairly and efficiently
reorganize the company.

There is still some of that, but they have come a long way since the
Japanese invasion. In the last contract, the union instituted a two tier
system, where new hires get paid less. If I'm not mistaken, labor costs
per vehicle a getting quite similar, especially since the foreign plants
are starting to have retirees.


One thing I don't get, and maybe one of you guys more familiar with
unions can explain.
As I understand it, the UAW represents workers at all three Detroit
automakers, meaning GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

I think it's more competent management than anything else. I'm not sure,
but I don't believe the UAW contracts with the different companies are
the same, though. They are similar, but not the same. I remember
reading somewhere, that Ford doesn't make any money manufacturing autos,
they make their money financing autos. If that's the case, GM sold 1/2
of GMAC to Cerebrus. That also may account for some of the differences.


Why is it that Ford has been more successful in lowering per unit costs,
while actively revamping their product line? The latest automotive
reviews rates the newer Ford products as being equal or in some cases
better than their Toyota and Honda counterparts, quality wise and Ford
is in the least amount of trouble financially. Does each auto
manufacturer negotiate different contracts with the UAW in terms of pay,
benefits and retirement packages?

See above, but don't take it to the bank. ;-)

Bridge loan to nowhere..
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
The quality issues have nothing to do with the workers who build the
car, and everything to do with corporate management.


That's right. I forgot. The union workers are paid to stay home while
Rick Wagoner personally bolts the cars together.

Eisboch


Unless things have changed drastically since I last visited an autoplant,
virtually every decision on who does what with what and for how long is
determined by management. Design is determined by management. Tools are
decided by management. Training is decided by management. Materials are
decided by management. Assembly line speed is decided by management.


And a major portion of the assembly is done by robots.
And here we have the root of the problem.

Back in the late 70's and early 80's as Nissan, Toyota and Honda started
chipping away at Detroit's market share, the Japanese cars were being built
on new, modern, automated assembly lines. They didn't have unions to get
****ed off about it.

Detroit, not to be left behind, started automating their lines as well,
developing robotic systems to do the work of people. I remember this well,
because industrial programmable logic controllers (PLC), built by Texas
Instruments, were initially prohibited by the UAW contracts because the
description of the PLC included the words "microprocessor" and "computer".
The UAW contract prohibited line workers from being replaced by a
"computer". So, the plan was withdrawn for a while, then re-introduced and
the logic controller was called a "PLC".

But anyway, that's when the downfall started. Automation was resisted and
contract negotiations became very adversarial over the years. Ridiculous
contract clauses were agreed to, because sales were still good, money was
being made and management was focused on trying to avoid the numerous
strikes that occurred anyway.

Remember?

Eisboch