A better bail out idea?

ignorant wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

Salanis wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

How do you propose getting rid of the UAW?

I'll bite. You let GM die.

Yeah, I think that's the only way to do it. People seem to be calling to kick the UAW out, and I don't see a good way to do that. I don't see a way to just get rid of the UAW.

Let the record show that at 2:51PM on December 4, 2008, Salanis and poopie agreed on something. :)

And u and I agreed in another thread... the apocalypse comes TONIGHT!

(shiver) Man, I'm glad we don't have a planetary syzygy right now.

Jensenman wrote: Or they can get in line for the lowered number to be available new.

Maybe they could raffle them off, and not worry about the price tag.

It seems every time a company comes out with a limited edition car that a certain sector wants, the sky's the limit on the price tag. Like the GT40, or something like that.

"We're building 25,000 H2's this coming year. Let the bidding begin"

I'll bet they could sell them for $125,000 plus. The profit margins would be nearly limitless.

Then they could focus mass production on "practical" vehicles.

Jensenman wrote: Before a frickin' dime gets spent: 1) The heads of the UAW should be right there with the heads of the Big 3 to explain, IN WRITING AS IN A CONTRACT, what they will do to help out. This means pay and benefit cuts. 2) The UAW will have to take an IMMEDIATE 15% reduction in total workforce. Harsh, but necessary. 3) Immediately slash compensation to a max of $200K a year salary for ANY white collar worker other than someone at CEO level and cap CEOs at $500K. This includes all bennies like company cars, health plans, stock options etc. 4) Explain to the Big 3 (and all other companies selling cars in this country as well) that the CAFE standards will be raised 25% IMMEDIATELY, commencing with the 2010 model year and there will be NO negotiation on that point. Each year for the next 5 years after that a 5% increase will be mandatory, for a total 50% increase in CAFE. Doesn't matter whether they do it by improving product or cutting gas hogs from their lineups, just get it done. 5) Breaking any of the above mandates for ANY reason (other than a natural disaster or war, etc) means IMMEDIATE forfeiture of any and all monies loaned.

What he said.

Plus have an explanation of some of the more arcane "work rules" and how the "job bank" works , as well as why they're a GOOD thing...?

Except I was going to propose a 10-yr moratorium on new CAFE standards and new crash requirements...

CAFE doesn't mean dick when everybody buys trucks. and why do people buy trucks? perception! people who buy trucks think that they're fast, that they're safe, and that they project a positive statement about the driver. oh, and then there's the people who actually buy trucks because they need trucks. but they're only about 20% of the truck market.

AngryCorvair wrote: CAFE doesn't mean dick when everybody buys trucks. and why do people buy trucks? perception! people who buy trucks think that they're fast, that they're safe, and that they project a positive statement about the driver. oh, and then there's the people who actually buy trucks because they need trucks. but they're only about 20% of the truck market.

And that's why CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) needs to be just that: corporate wide and include EVERYTHING. No more of this idiotic crap about PT Cruisers being trucks in order to bump up the truck CAFE so you can sell gashogs.

AngryCorvair wrote: CAFE doesn't mean dick when everybody buys trucks. and why do people buy trucks? perception! people who buy trucks think that they're fast, that they're safe, and that they project a positive statement about the driver. oh, and then there's the people who actually buy trucks because they need trucks. but they're only about 20% of the truck market.

I think you are partially correct. I agree that perception is a big part of it.

However, in rural areas (huge truck purchase areas), I gotta disagree on your implication that 80% of people don't need trucks. There are a lot of reasons for people to own trucks in rural areas- haul a bag of fertilizer, your road sucks, so the heavier suspension is needed, tow someone out of a ditch, haul a dear, or have a decent sized toolbox on board for general repairs. They are an integrated part of life in rural areas, and the VAST majority of people I know would have only a truck if they were limited to only one vehicle. I'd say 90% + of rural households need ready access to a truck.

I've heard a man's truck (and it's toolbox) referred to here on several occassions like a woman's purse- it's got an awful lot of stuff in it that you really wouldn't have any idea would be there, but they are incredibly useful and utilitarian.

SVreX wrote:

AngryCorvair wrote: CAFE doesn't mean dick when everybody buys trucks. and why do people buy trucks? perception! people who buy trucks think that they're fast, that they're safe, and that they project a positive statement about the driver. oh, and then there's the people who actually buy trucks because they need trucks. but they're only about 20% of the truck market.

I think you are partially correct. I agree that perception is a big part of it. However, in rural areas (huge truck purchase areas), I gotta disagree on your implication that 80% of people don't need trucks. There are a lot of reasons for people to own trucks in rural areas- haul a bag of fertilizer, your road sucks, so the heavier suspension is needed, tow someone out of a ditch, haul a dear, or have a decent sized toolbox on board for general repairs. They are an integrated part of life in rural areas, and the VAST majority of people I know would have only a truck if they were limited to only one vehicle. I'd say 90% + of rural households need ready access to a truck. I've heard a man's truck (and it's toolbox) referred to here on several occassions like a woman's purse- it's got an awful lot of stuff in it that you really wouldn't have any idea would be there, but they are incredibly useful and utilitarian.

Right, but that 80% is only 20% of the TOTAL population.

I think they need tiers for CAFE and safety.

Figure 30 mpg and the current safety standards as a baseline.

If you get 40+mpg, let 'em meet relaxed safety. Say, something equivalent to 1999 standards (just picked at random, and we all felt reasonably safe in 99, just like 09).

And not counting trucks-- that's just silly. Maybe they shouldn't have to meet the same standard, but there needs needs to be standard and it needs to tough.

Last time they got tough with CAFE, we got boatloads of fun-to-drive, lightweight, economical cars. When they relaxed, we got overweight, overcomplicated barges.

GameboyRMH wrote:

AngryCorvair wrote: i'm not retarded enough to believe that a plug-in EV makes less pollution than any other modern vehicle, only that it makes it in a remote location.

Moves it to a central location where it is greatly reduced, since energy can be more efficiently produced by one big turbine than an army of little engines, and where there's far better emissions control equipment than a platinum beehive in the exhaust pipe. Plus, when the anti-nukers die off, or a nuclear power plant is built against their will, clean energy goes into the cars (same for wind power or any other clean source). Plus the demand for gasoline is cut down and in the case of pure EVs, all the nasty byproducts of ICE maintenance are a non-issue. Dead batteries are relatively easy to recycle when the time comes.

Too bad that it's SOOOOOO not true.

PZEV vehicles produce less CO, NOx, and NMOG (the regulated emmissions) than an average power plant does. Which is EXACTLY why they were allowed as a substitution for EV's.

While it's possible for a stationary power plant to be cleaner, since they have a much more effective lobby, the laws are both not as stringent nor as enforced (see the fun grandfather laws that allows x% modifications to a plant w/o chaning it's allowed output).

Pretending we are going all nuke is equally unrealistic.

BTW, selling government contracts would be a totaly waste of tax payer $$- they'd charge $100k/car and run with it.

Eric

I think it's funny how Ford gets thrown in with the other two for this bail out. They should really call it the "Save the Other Two Guys, Bail-out." Because Ford is the only one not soaked in debt, and nobody seems to realize this. Of all 3 American companies only one of them was smart enough to SAVE money. So even after all the spending they have been doing for the past couple years, FoMoCo still has over $15 billion in liquid cash assets, and $30 billion if you include their emergency line of credit they secured if the economy stays like this for a really long time.

I say let them die, if you can't operate your company to be financially stable, then giving them a pay out to stay alive is like giving a crack addict money to get a job, he's just going to buy crack again. Our government is now run by a bunch of soccer mom's too blind to see their children for what they really are.

poopshovel wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: Getting rid of the UAW and cutting executive salaries might make the cars cheaper, but that won't do anything towards building cars people actually want to buy. People actually pay more money for cars they really want. Government mandates for hybrid and electric cars while gas is dropping below $2 a gallon sounds like another reciepe for disaster. Do you really think people will buy what government wants the car companies to build?

See my manifesto above. Also, CAFE restrictions haven't changed for almost twenty berkeleying years. I'm guessing Exxon, GM, Ford, etc., etc. have something to do with that. As a car guy and a libertarian, it's counterintuitive, but I believe the CAFE requirements should change. We can do better than 27.5 MPG.

When you find that link between the auto industry and the oil industry, can you please remind them that they owe us a whole bunch of money? Exxon made $45B, and we all lost something close to $10B. They could share the wealth, since we are supposedly linked with them....

BTW, high gas prices push up real fuel economy- it's what YOU buy and USE that matters. The two highest gas prices in history- this past summer and the 80's- small cars pushed up actual fuel usage FAR more than CAFE ever did.

You want VERY fuel efficient cars? Then be ready to pay $4/gallon, other than that, it's a very, very fringe market.

E-

Xceler8x wrote: I think we all agree that the auto industry has priced themselves out of the market. We can lay that blame at the feet of the UAW, pension plans that are unsustainable, and arguably over-paid CEO's of all 3 manufacturers. The CEO for Toyota makes 900k a year. The Ford CEO makes 21 mill. Link to data. It's a problem that's a part of the domestic auto industry. Paying too d@mned much for everything. Cost cutting starts there. Esp if the tax payers are going to pony up the bucks for inflated salaries. Course, they should've done the same with the banks. Bastards.

That's totally not exclusive to the auto industry. That's 100% true, blue, American.

You watch- we found out the hard way that focusing on Stock prices will bring our collective demise a few years ago- the rest of the country is now finally getting it.

It's not about trading precived value in a piece of paper, it's about making goods where you take a natural resource- be it materials or labor- that you can sell for a profit once used. That's how you create wealth.

Eric

Quickly - there are CAFE restrictions on trucks.

Alfadriver - I think you missed my point. I wasn't trying to "link" the auto and oil industries, though I would have to think there is SOME direct link there. I was pointing out that CAFE standards haven't changed in 20 berkeleying years, and I'm sure that Ford, GM, Chrysler, and every berkeleying oil company throw some money at both sides of the isle every year.

Also, I'm no expert on economics, but when DEMAND was HIGH a few months ago, I WAS paying $4.50/gallon, AND getting 33MPG. When DEMAND DROPPED the PRICE DROPPED. Yes, I want fuel efficient cars. Yes, I am "ready" to pay $4/gallon. No, I won't complain about the price, because gas gets me to and from work, which is where money comes from.

Do you seriously think that poor fuel economy is what keeps gas prices down, or did I miss something?

Of course CAFE includes trucks. That's where the PT Cruiser came from, Chrysler claims it is a 'light truck'. Yeah, some truck. Lemme see you carry a 4x8 sheet of plywood in a PT Cruiser.

That was backhanded bullshi+ to artificially raise the truck CAFE numbers. That kind of crap needs to cease.

Jensenman wrote: Of course CAFE includes trucks. That's where the PT Cruiser came from, Chrysler claims it is a 'light truck'. Yeah, some truck. Lemme see you carry a 4x8 sheet of plywood in a PT Cruiser. That was backhanded bullshi+ to artificially raise the truck CAFE numbers. That kind of crap needs to cease.

The only problem with what you're saying is that the PT Cruiser does in fact meet the CAFE definition of a light truck. In order to exclude the PT Cruiser and others from the LT category you'll have to come up with a new definition of what a light truck actually is. So, no sarcasm, and in all earnestness, let's hear your definition of what a light truck should be and exactly how it would exclude the PT Cruiser. Then remember that you're dealing with a government that bans guns based on how they look rather than how they function and assume their approach to vehicles will be similar.

Exactly my point. A light truck in the eyes of the average goober would be a vehicle designed and intended with a large amount of available space to carry cargo and with a limited amount of space for occupants.

But somehow Chrysler convinced the EPA et al that a vehicle intended to carry 5 (cramped) adults and with a very limited amount of cargo space (not much more than a Neon, when you get right down to it) qualifies as a light truck.

Musta been one helluva lawyer/lobbyist on that job.

An anonymous emailer sent this to me... said: A MODERN PARABLE . . A Japanese company and an American company decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing. Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents, and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners, and free pens for the rower There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes, and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India. Sadly, The End.

There was some Ford bashing in the email that I don't agree with so I edited it for context.

Jensenman wrote: Exactly my point. A light truck in the eyes of the average goober would be a vehicle designed and intended with a large amount of available space to carry cargo and with a limited amount of space for occupants.

And the ability to tow at least its own weight.

PT Cruiser can tow 1000 pounds. I've towed more with an MGB.

DrBoost wrote: Right, but that 80% is only 20% of the TOTAL population.

Only if you go by the ridiculous standard established by the US census.

Sure, the US census says about 20% of the US population lives in a "rural" area. Problem is, they define rural as a population of less than 2500.

I call BS. I challenge anyone to live in a community of ten times that size and not consider it rural.

I live in an area with a population of 75,000 (which is what the US census would refer to as the second largest urban population), and there is no way you could describe this as urban. This is a rural farm community, plain and simple.

I live in GA, population 9 million. There are only 8 cities in this state bigger than mine. The total population of all 8 of them combined is 1.4 million. That means 7.6 million people in my state live in places more rural than where I live.

That doesn't sound like 20%.

Regardless of whether you call those places "rural" or not, the majority of them are still places with good justification for trucks, and the 20% number is way too low.