Michael Moore on Bailout of US Auto Makers
Moore doesn't want to see the loss of more jobs in the US auto industry. He also doesn't trust the current management teams that got them into this mess. Hard to argue against either position.
I don't know if I can go so far as Moore to believe that the government could do a better job running these companies. However, it's clear that this manufacturing capacity could be a great asset if applied to an overhaul of the US transportation system.
I liked Michael Moore as the bumbling everyman in Roger & Me and I've liked his movies less and less as they've become strident setups. I was happy to see Moore in this interview get back to something like his old self. It's somehow personal again.
Since this interview, the CEOs of the Big Three had a humbling day on Capitol Hill, unable to defend their use of separate corporate jets to bring them to the hearing and more importantly, unable to articulate what they would do with the money they're asking for. They've supposedly gone back to Detroit to work on a proposal and muster the courage to go back to Washington in December.
the latest
latest episodes
The US Big Three are failing , because they had overly arrogant management that kept pushing for large cars instead of efficiency, and fostered such animosity with the workers that the auto workers unions grew too motivated and took too much control.
The auto industry is a prime example of everything wrong with American business -- arrogant C-level executives who foster spite amongst workers trying to do as little as possible.
Lettings these companies fail won't mean a giant hike in unemployment.
Toyota and Honda can't make enough hybrids - those factories could be bought and converted, and there is skilled labor.
(I in no way mean to suggest ALL unions are bad. the UAW is rather notorious though - and not entirely without reason given the US auto-industry's contempt of the working class) .
I think we can all agree that a functional auto industry in this country is a good thing, but can we please have a different one?
Put GM in government receivership, so that the government can call the shots? I agreed with a lot of what Moore was saying until he went batshit lefty with that remark.
Remember the 'hand-up' versus 'hand-out' meme? If you can't even articulate what you're fixing to do with the money, it's a hand-out.
I will not accept any terms of a "Big 3" bailout unless 99.9999% of the money goes to developing greener cars; i.e., hybrids, electrics, natural gas, etc, at an affordable price....
I do not agree that ethanol is a way to go either...The automakers need to provide a car that is actually affordable to the everyday common Joe. I was talking with a coworker today about how I was holding out for this new car coming out called the "Volt"...then my colleague totally blew my bubble when he told me that it will probably be sold for no less than $50,000...after picking my jaw up from the floor, I just got more angry about the world I live in....
The rich are the only ones who can afford to be green.
Here are greener options that only the rich can afford;
1.) Solar panels
2.) Geothermal heat in your homes.
3.) Energy efficient windows
4.) Energy efficient appliances
5.) Tankless water heaters
6.) Hybrid automobiles
(the list, sadly, goes on....)
I'm really happy that the very rich can cut 60% from their energy costs; that way they can afford to update their vacation homes in Aspen...ugh!
My solution is the same as I had for the banks. Just put the CEO in jail until the money is paid back.
I read an interesting comment posted on CBC.ca about auto bailout situation.
The comment claimed that several times over the last half century the auto makers had required government assistance to stay afloat and that the auto makers have always paid back their debt.
With thousands, maybe millions of jobs on the line and with the automakers reputation of paying back their debt wouldn't it be wise for the government to ensure peoples jobs and prop up the auto industry?
Tommy@6: "Just put the CEO in jail until the money is paid back." That's hilarious! If only we could do that.
Fifteen years ago, french automobiles were protected against concurence by economic patriotism and japanese import quotas. When the quota went away, in the same time Renault, at the moment the first french automobile maker, was going to be privatised. At the begining of the nineties, french automakers produced awful, low-finish, unreliable cars.
Their struggle to survive against japanese brands makes Peugeot-Citroën and Renault-Dacia-Nissan fit to compete. French cars are still awful, but they probably are the most comfortable cars in the world, are very reliable, their fit and finish is now on par with german and japanese cars and there is very few french cars that go under 40 mpg on normal use.
Maybe is it time for american car makers to get a bit of japanese medicine to learn anew how to make good cars and listen to the market ?
There is nothing wrong with Automaking in America ... it's just these three that have done it all wrong. The only solution I see is for the people who are doing it right ... Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW ... to take over the big three and remake them entirely.
I'd like to see these companies come to the "Big three" with a buyout, and with something like these conditions:
- The deal is done with the clear understanding that the new parent is Boss. Things will be very different now.
- Anyone who has made a management decision is fired. If they want to keep working, they'll need to reapply for their jobs and take 80+ hours of retraining at the parent company.
- Most workers will keep their jobs, however years of experience or rank in the old company will mean nothing next to good attitude. Anyone with a complaining, grumpy attitude will not be re-hired. The salvation of the new company will only be achieved by a can-do, enthusiastic, positive attitude. Rank and experience can always be re-gained, but attitude is absolutely fundamental.
- This will be very unpopular, but there will be NO negotiation with Unions... just as our other, much more successful plants do now. Because you see, with us there will be no NEED for the workers to "negotiate" with management. Our management does a very good job of listening to and OBEYing our workers. This is one reason for the 80+ hours of retraining for re-hired management. Unions are defined by an adversarial relationship, and we simply cannot run a company that way. No one can.
- The biggest cost of this deal will be the three to four months of non-productivity. Everyone will be un-productive, but they won't be idle! Teams of employees will examine every aspect of their jobs and come up with plans for how it can be improved. Old models will resume manufacture, but with significant changes and in significantly different ways based on new, fresh re-examination of how cars should be built.
- We, the new owners, don't know how to run your new company. You will tell us how.
- The name "General Motors" (ugh) is gone. The new name: Phoenix Motors.
With massive Saudi and Chinese stock sell-offs and the inner corruption of an "Elite" caste within the US who don't understand why they shouldn't be treated like royalty, sometimes it seems that the entire WORLD is working against the US Economy...including ourselves.
whoever is first to market with a cheap, high quality electric car should be able to make a tidy profit on the initial surge of demand. The motivation should be profit. This isn't like before where they were selling things that people didn't need. Oil will be back up again, money and jobs will be tight for years. An entrepreneur in the real sense will the hero. If I had the reins I'd be culling through the talent pool right now and scooping up the best and forward looking. What could succeed right now is so different it doesn't have to depend on any part of the old model at all.
Well, as far as the flying three private jets thing...I think the idea was, why are they on private jets when they are bleeding cash, not why didn't they "jetpool". Jetpooling would have been bad because then the big three CEOs could have opened themselves up to accusations of fixing and monopoly (gasp! I know, they do it anyways, but this would have put them over the line). I think the telling thing was the smirks when they were asked to give up their jets to the govt to get the money.
To be honest, if my company was going to go under in 90 days, I would give up the jet, the car, and the private bathroom at the office if that would make sure I had a chance to take the company through the roughest of times and avoid layoffs. Oh, wait, these guys don't think of the company as "theirs". They are just hired schmucks who want to get company profits as high as possible before they cash out. Their sense of ownership goes as far as the end of their contracts (which puts them on par with the UAW, except the UAW workers have a longer history and a better performance record).
What needs to change is the compensation for C-level management. Change that and the company will turn around.
Takaun has it right: The industry needs to actually look for profit, rather than assuming the shit it pumps out will be desirable, simply because they're making them.
It's the pinnacle of arrogance to assume consumers will simply accept what they're given, and that seems to be the way the US industry has been running for almost a decade.
I hate to say it, but the dreaded "r" word is required. Regulation - intelligent, thoughtful regulation.
It seems absurd that the country who is most dependent on automobiles could even have such a crisis in it's carmaking industry, but here it is.
Much like the banking sector, this isn't going to fix itself, government intervention is going to be the saving grace of this situation - if, and only if, there is thoughtful regulation from the top down. Rolling heads (and they will roll!) will not be enough.
Why is the "r" word dreaded? Who on "main street" ever thought deregulation would be good?
You know what, this country needs a "new deal" a WPA and something to kick it back to life.
And locking up these CEOs would be lovely. But since they have all the money and all the lawyers, chances of that being fruitful are nil.
This is fared to say the least. And we're near Thanksgiving and the holiday shopping spree doesn't exist.
Come January, some real change had better come. Because January 2009 will see TONS of places closing and going out of business.
Jack: It seems that industry and government are so focused on protectionist policies and regulation that the more important task of keeping the industries afloat, keeping them meaningful and profitable is almost forgotten.
And when it is discussed outside of crisis times like this, greater regulation is looked on as government meddling in corporate freedom. Until the shit hits the fan, that is, and then it becomes more about throwing money at the problem, not about accountability to employees or tax payers who are ultimately funding the bailouts.
The tone has finally changed, it seems, but much like the supposed transparency of the bank bailouts - we'll have to wait and see if this hard-talking rhetoric actually means anything at the end of the day.
The execs went to Washington without a plan! They came with their tin cups and didn't even bother to offer pencils. How have these imbeciles managed to scoop executive pay from the cash-flow trough? What a monstrosity of corruption the auto industry is.
Regarding the unions. Spiteful, vindictive, and power abusing...now, is that the unions I've described or the management? Both, and both are convinced they're in the right. In 2008, that is how the "business of America" is run, and we, as taxpayers, are allowed the privilege of pouring money into these dysfunctional institutions.
In the bank bail-outs and now in the auto industry bail-out, it's rarely acknowledged that once you run your business or business sector to the point that the only way forward is to abandon market principles and seek government aid, then all bets are off. Executives, proven failures, no longer should command earnings, never mind indecent earnings. Union members should have zero expectation that a failed business' promises must be insured by government largess. The entire operating principle of American enterprise is due for a rethink. 70, then 50, then 25 years of business orthodoxy has collapsed. Propping up this mess (not just the autos, but especially the FIRE sector) will simply drain the remaining energy of our economy and guarantee decades of stagnation.
Oh, and have a nice day everyone!
GM has become "a health care benefits management firm that sells cars for a loss as a side venture."
Perhaps what is needed is to make sure the Former Big3 don't crush the new upstarts and their sensible, desirable electric buggies. If it is true that a free market makes good things rise,and if it is true that the human resource exists in brains and will to make, then maybe all they have to do is give it a chance, For a Change. Put the Big3 under close guard, they need watching for reasons beyond how they'll use their handout.
Takuan, you mean.. don't crush them again.
Wanna know what my favorite part about this article & comment section?
Everyone could give a sh*t about Michael Moore and they continue discussing the issue disregarding how it was sent up. I didn't watch the CNN embedded video either, and I'm guessing everyone else skipped over it as well. I love it.
Anyway, I hope there isn't a bailout for the crummy Big 3. Sure it made sense for banks (so companies could establish the lines of credit make payroll), but to squeeze billions from tax payers and then flush the cash into a few broken private enterprises in an otherwise moderately functioning industry? Just the thought of it is repulsive. I can only hope our representatives are as informed and considerate as those who posted above.
The execs just want the money to pay themselves bigger bonuses
mmm, how much money would it take to simply give every non-management employee of the mediocre3 an early retirement?
As a Flintinite i support Moore. He's lived here and seen what it's like. For nay sayers i know he didn't live in Flint but a suburb but all the suburbs here rely on Flint. We all knew this was coming. My father worked the shops and just recently retired. Fortunately they saw what was happening and put their money in the right spot.
To comment on the bailout. It's not just the executives that need a pay cut but the unions here need to be more realistic. I'm mostly pro union. but the auto union has become insanely corrupt. They have put new union members in a position to take realistic wages while providing unrealistic wages to senior members. The automotive industry really needs an overhall before i can agree to a bailout. That and the workers affected is really small compared to the rest of the nations workforce. Remeber the most recent strike only affected 70,000 employees. (i may be incorrect on the exact number please forgive the beer)
$28/hr for a line worker is insane when you only pay nurses $14/hr in the same area. They both have to pay for health care benifits in addition.
I heard a LOT of words in this video, but it made little sense. Feels like Moore can talk only if he plans ahead and then heavily edits his material.
On the other hand just read on digg that gas hits $1.60 in parts of the US again. Its still ~$10 per gallon in Europe.
My father worked at Chevrolet in Flint most of his adult life until he got sick on the job and died three years later. He almost made his "30 And Out", but fell short a few years. His dying was long and arduous (leukemia) but made easier by a UAW-negotiated health and pension plan. My 96-year-old mother's life is today made easier by a UAW-GMC survivor benefits package (plus Social Security). Her life is quite uneventful and serene because of the modest security provided by my father's union, which he helped organize and actively supported. Talk all you want about whatever draconian measures you have in mind for the companies and the unions, but try to remember that it's finally about people.
Solidarity Forever!
@#26 POSTED BY BUDDY66:
Buddy, I'm sure that it worked for you, but many Unions don't. My father worked in a box factory for about 12 years until he had to go on disability. Guess what the Union gave him? 100% of nothing. He was 3 years short of the 15 year minimum to get benefits. That forced my mom to work in a sweatshop while my dad stayed at home.
I was never clear on whether it was a Union shop or not—and she worked "off the books"—but she helped produce tons of bootleg items back in the 1980s so I'm pretty sure her part was very non-Union.
When Unions work, they are great. But they're not perfect. And if this country had socialized medicine, the need for most Union jobs would be minimized.
So when I think about the working class nowadays that is truly making this country tick, I don't think about the bloated Union folks anymore. I look at all of the illegal immigrants working in every city doing jobs that are "beneath" most Union workers scale and are often supervised by a Union guy at some point of the chain.
Sorry to say but Unions really, really, really need to rethink their role and behavior nowadays. When Union guys can drive brand new SUVs to pick up day laborers on street corners who are doing the actual grunt work—and who might only own a bike if they are lucky—something is screwed.
Whatever happens in Detroit, the workers do need to come first. The companies themselves and their management and the Unions can all ride a rail out of town.
i'd be all like "quick, the first one of you to make a flying car gets the bailout cash!"
it'll be the X-Prize for the CEO-set...first one of you f*ers to make what the American people REALLY want wins.
There seem to be two issues being argued here-- first that the Big 3 didn't make enough money selling cars to stay comfortably solvent, and that they didn't produce small and fuel-efficient cars.
The problem is that they made the most money (say, 8-10k on a large pickup or SUV) making large and fuel-inefficient vehicles, which sold like hotcakes. Smaller and fuel-efficient vehicles were (and are) the domain of foreign automakers who are simply better at it and have better brand associations with efficiency and reliability than US firms do.
With more competition and higher-quality competition in that market, it seems unlikely they'd have made nearly the money they did with gas-guzzlers.
and were 90% of those SUVs and pick ups actually NECESSARY in the first place? The Big 3 created their market.
You know what's even more pathetic than the UAW, management and the comments posted about either?
The fact that everyone keeps forgetting that it was us who kept purchasing their product for the longest time.
us?
#31: No, not "us." Us bought Civics and other small efficient cars. Them commuted alone to their office job in a stretch pickup. No us. You saying you one them? Because them made fun of us for driving a small car. Them have a lot to answer for. No us.
Matt Eric , November 21, 2008 6:29 PM
I think we can all agree that a functional auto industry in this country is a good thing, but can we please have a different one?
We already do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_North_America
http://corporate.honda.com/america/facilities.aspx
Can we please not pay money for some workers to make cars and trucks that no one want to buy.
If the issue is jobs, lets pay 25 billion for the workers to fix bridges and roads that are falling apart. If they fix all that we can have them build something useful and clean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
oh thanks, John Kerry:
http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2008/11/john-kerry-introduces-hsr-bill.html
@#31 POSTED BY HINTEN:
I own an SUV and paid for it? News to me!
Last I checked I sold my bicycle, walk a lot and use NYC's extensive—but still lovingly crappy—public transportation system.
@30 It might be better to say they filled a niche rather than created a market.
Unless you're suggesting that consumers just didn't have a choice, they freely chose to hop in the big, cool vehicles rather than the small fuel-efficient ones...because fuel was cheap and the consumer preferred cool to efficient.
If you wind up with alternative-fuel technology that lets a giant vehicle lumber along at 15-25 cents a mile in fuel costs, big and cool would probably win again. The urge isn't created, it's already there, waiting to be tapped.
advertising is why you buy things.
help me with the math here...
there are 301,139,947 people in the USA today (quick google search and I rounded it off to 301,000,000 for the math)...
the bail out is for 25 billion... (one billion [1000000000] ) so we are talking about $25,000,000, 000.00
I get ~$83,000 for every man woman and child in the USA?
why not just give that to the people and let them buy a few cars? Then we could see who makes what the people really want to buy...
Timothy...
Flytch> I think you missed a few decimal places there. It comes to $83 each by my math.
You mean $83.
Please think carefully, which is obviously more than the American consumer, our government, or the big3 have done for a long time.
As galling as this is to people, the jobs that would be lost by the big3 are only the barest tip of the iceberg. The dealerships employ hundreds of thousands and then there are the ancillary businesses of the big3 and their dealers. Allowing these idiots to fail would be disastrous. At 25 billion this is a bargain, especially when one considers the 100+ billion that has gone down the AIG toilet.
The original Chrysler bailout was only 1.5 billion, remember the uproar that caused. The government and the industry are both responsible for this mess and once again we will foot the bill. I wish it was different, but there are too many dealerships employing too many people in every city and most towns in America. Then think of every business that provides goods and services to those companies. The total number of Americans that would be affected by allowing these companies to fail is staggering.
@36- Do you helplessly buy everything you see advertized? Advertizing is how you become aware of products that you may (or may not) want. Some people saw ads for SUVs and rejected them. Some people saw the same ads and thought they were the best things ever.
We are not robots, compelled to buy all we see made shiny on TV.
@40 The risk of using the "but think of the unemployment" argument is that it not only allows a sub-par business to stay in business, but requires the taxpayer to pay for the privilege. Perhaps linking a temporary bailout to a gradual plan to put the companies out of business and liquidate their assets in a slow enough process to allow their ancillary suppliers and customers chance to adapt would be workable. It would certainly spare hearing "But think of the unemployment" in the future from the industry.
Not a bad idea Cicada, but with unemployment already projected to hit 7% before the current recession/depression is over, how many years are we talking? These companies are bleeding billions every quarter. Where would you find employment for the hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed your plan would create?
The aftershocks that will be created by the problems facing this country and the rest of the world are going to be with us for at least another ten years or more. Add to all of this the fact we are going to run out of oil, water shortages, and the effects created by global warning, which at one end of the scale are unimaginable, what you are proposing could take decades. There ain't no easy solution.
I'm afraid this is either let it all fail now and stomach the blow, or bail them out and hope for the best. This sucks, no two ways about it. The alternative is another WPA, which we may end up with no matter what we do. Only this time there may not be enough future to mortgage.
I wish American Motors was still around, affordable cars for the masses, easy to service and ugly as shit. Bring back the Gremlin!
Also, factor in a few hundred thousand senior citizens like Buddy's mother, who would lose out when these companies fail.
I would like to see someone do the impossible and tell us what will be the actual cost in unemployed and dollars if we allow these companies to fail. Include ancillary and service industry jobs lost. Include the thousands that would show up in emergency rooms without health insurance for an ear infection or some other problem that would have been taken care of by a family physician. Include every little restaurant that depends on their lunchtime crowd from dealership row.
@#45 POSTED BY FOETUSNAIL:
So dare I ask if that's a concern we cut subsidizes that pay farmers not to farm and give that money to out-of-work auto workers?
At some point the U.S. will have to face the fact that some things in this country simply need to be socialized. Socialize medicine and a lot of worries about a company's failures are gone.
Why we pay farmers not to farm yet can somehow justify not paying healthcare for citizens boggles my mind.
Obvious that "us" or, correctly, "we" was meant as "a good number of people in this country"; the collective "we". Even more pathetic than ignoring the fact that we bought these cars is feeling superior or, dare I say, elitist that you happen to be the one that didn't.
Fact is that plenty of consumers, for various reasons (including not knowing better), chose to buy American product. How many of those that proudly had a "Buy American" bumper sticker on their Taurus are now negatively affected because of the fact that many bought American?
@Foetusnail-- Then why not just cut the middleman and mail out checks without bothering with the whole "selling cars" charade? The auto industry is a business (in which case it exists to make profit) or it's a social program (in which case it exists to provide benefits), but doesn't really work as both.
Yes, I support universal health care, without insurance companies skimming the profits. We could save additional billions and fund the bailout and a portion of universal health care by stopping the drug war.
Farm subsidies should be phased out, especially those going to the agribusiness giants. But before doing that phase out the other forms of corporate socialism, McDonalds and the like don't need government handouts.
The problem is our addiction to personal transportation. What we will be riding in the future will be a combination of mass transit, bicycles, and lightweight electric scooters and cars. Our larger problem will then be the trucking industry.
We have allowed trucks to take over the delivery of materials and goods. Electric trains will need to become more common. I don't see why trains could not be running on electricity now, at least when within range of cities, then as the trains leave population centers they could switch to the on board diesel generators. Think of the fuel savings this could generate, especially once we start deriving more energy from renewable sources.
The thing here for me is that, though I don't want to bail out the incompetant Detroit automakers AGAIN (remember, this happened in the 70s), the US can't afford for this to happen right now.
Mass collapse of Detroit would have a very strong cascade effect in the US.
There needs to be a bailout now in order to keep another sector of the economy from failing.
Cicada @#48 Yes, the auto industry is a business, this business is asking for a loan, this business will be expected to pay back that loan. This industry is an extremely large business, that affects almost every aspect of our lives. Our leadership needs to evaluate the risk of providing these loans and balance that risk against the real costs of letting these businesses fail. No matter what we do unless the economy improves and the money supply loosens up soon, dealerships will start failing anyway.
These businesses are going to have to change dramatically or they will fail regardless of what we do today. A very good example is the cigarette industry, they have very wisely diversified, the cigarette companies are sitting on billions of dollars and will simply shift into new businesses as cigarettes become less popular.
These companies should not be allowed to fail and their assets sold, there will not be any buyers. They need to shift into other businesses. Look at GE, they are diversified to the extreme.
I'd like to see some of the biggest tech firms swoop in and buying these "Big Three". I don't like the idea of one of the other big car manufacturers in the world buying them, as I don't like it when economic "power" is consolidated like that.
Regardless of what some old "viral" text files that have been going around the Internet for decades say, I'd like to see what Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Google, Intel, etc. might do if they were responsible for manufacturing cars. Joking aside, those companies' management would do with car manufacturing.
(Also, it's a pity Volkswagen is not "for sale" in this manner, as Apple's design aesthetics, especially when it came to the first iMacs, always seemed to parallel VW's, in that I've always thought of the New Beetle as the iMac of cars, and the iMac as the New Beetle of computers.)
Let me start with a REAL history lesson. It's something many folks had for a daily use car. Including ME. The 1994 Geo Metro had an EPA estimated 51 mpg highway rating and gave me closer to *60* with attentive driving. I humbly suggest that a cloned detail replica of that Metro could assist GM return to profits! Or dare we suggest Ford clone the Festiva and Fiestas? Chrysler returning to a Dodge Colt with the dual range transmission? We can dream eh?
The documentary I'd like to see Michael Moore do is on obsoleting what nuorder said about
"Only the rich can afford"
1.) Solar panels
2.) Geothermal heat in your homes.
3.) Energy efficient windows
4.) Energy efficient appliances
5.) Tankless water heaters
6.) Hybrid automobiles
ALL of these items have a common set of price affecting factors. Simply put-something you sell 1K of Vs 100K of Vs 1B tends to have a lower retail per unit on the 1B volume items. Serial # 1 may indeed "cost" a Million -or even a Billion, But what does serial# 10M "cost"? See digital watches for an example.1
With a multiplier of inestimable potency if the item is held as essential to daily life. Electric heaters are arguably 100% "green" if powered from 100% green electricity. But -Wait- there's MORE to consider...
A history lesson- Delco used to make small electric "lighting plants" and oil furnaces. Chrysler used to make air conditioners. Philco=Ford made many appliances. And parts of that past need re-creating to restore America-let alone the car portion of the economy.
Many of the products made in that past world having a past commonality. A planned cyclical replacement for reasons of style or even color!
But it did and does *NOT* have to be as it was in every detail. Consider the Future vision of American factories mass producing "Combined Heat&Power" units. And the other "Greener" tech things on that "list of only the rich can afford?"
Look at what makes an "air conditioner" into an "air source heat pump" for an education well worth your time... The same goes for a Hybrid car in mass numbers. Making 3% of the world car production as Hybrid Vs 100% is another math exercise Congress needs to consider before a bailout. Michael Moore could be a new Archangel brandishing the flaming sword of reason.
@Foetusnail-- You're forgetting a third option: that the government puts into place a plan for saving the companies, throws them the money they've asked for, and then has them fail anyhow and need further support. Repeat indefinitely.
In that case, the auto industry just does become a social service with a ridiculously high overhead, and the notion of them being able to pay back a "loan" is ludicrous.
As for diversifying, you'd be asking them to make payroll now, invest in developing and producing infrastructure to make more fuel-efficient cars, _and_ widely diversify their business structures, all within a fairly short timeframe. Good luck?
@50 I suppose if you wanted to make things interesting, you could simply have the government announce that as a condition of bailing out the big three, the assets of the one deemed the weakest would be divided among the other two...
If the industry was bailed out in the 70s and will be bailed out now, what will happen in ten years? My expectation: they will need to be bailed out again, this time for ~2500 billion.
Good luck with that.
In other words, what will the bail out buy the people who are doing the bailing out?
The argument of who made the American car market the way it is is a fascinating one.
It's easy to say advertising makes you buy things - and it does, people really don't question all those messages they receive. Hell, many don't seem to even realise that there are greater messages in almost all media they consume than the most obvious.
I think blaming the consumer is a bad start, but the smaller, smarter cars aren't selling in the U.S.
Is it just that the companies clearly didn't support them, for reasons of pure profit? Were (are) they that cynical about their target market - they don't think they can convince them to buy smaller, fuel efficient cars?
I always think about these things when I see Hummers and massive vehicles - why he demand? Is it a pigheaed populous who don't know what is good for them? That just can't see past the culture of having a big, fuck off car?
How about take the $25B and put it in a trust for the workers, out of which a moderate social security payment can be dispensed until they find other employment. Let the big ones fail & smaller, more efficient and well-run companies can move in to the market gap and employ the workers again in a thriving industry.
@57 "I always think about these things when I see Hummers and massive vehicles - why he demand? Is it a pigheaed populous who don't know what is good for them? That just can't see past the culture of having a big, fuck off car?"
I think your external interpretation of the motivation for buying a big car may be different than the self-perceived motivation of the big car buyer.
For you, the automobile may simply be a method of transportation, in which case fuel economy and reliability are its key attributes. SUV buyers presumably want a vehicle that is _comfortable_-- if they spend large amounts of time in it, they want something akin to a house on wheels, not a tin can.
Note the totally different set of criteria used-- "Is this efficient?" versus "Is this comfortable, with plenty of elbow room, nice headroom, leather seats, etc?"
@58 Davo- Why not carry it one step further- divide up the 25 billion among the workers in question. Let the ones who are better at managing their portion thrive, and the ineffective ones fail.
You're also discounting the good chances that the Big 3 wouldn't be replaced by smaller and more efficient companies, but by large, highly-efficient foreign companies. Honda, etc.
#55...that's an amusing notion. Forcing them to make green cars with the bailout funds also isn't a bad idea.
And I do admit that bailing out a company so they can continue making cars people don't want to buy is a slight little glitch here.
But if this sector goes down now, I think the consequences to the entire US economy at this juncture are almost unimaginable.
I think that there are a few things that people are really missing here.
1) Bankruptcy doesn't mean a company fails is an extremely common state that a company can enter to get protection from creditors. One of the big 3 doesn't mean it is doomed, it just means that it is going to under go some serious restructuring... that and the UAW is going to get fucked. Part of the restructuring will be selling off parts of the company and rewriting union contracts. This is why the Republicans shrug with indifference at the plight of the big 3 and the Democrats all of a sudden want to write 25 billion dollar check all the while decrying the companies in question as the spawn of Satan.
2) The big 3 have problems far deeper than their lack of good small cars. The reason why they were so gung-ho about selling SUVs was because they actually could turn a decent profit on them. They were utterly failing to turn a profit on their smaller cars. It isn't just that American small cars are unappealing, it is also that they are unprofitable. Stuffing all the green tech you want into these things isn't suddenly going to make them profitable. The problem is that it just costs too damn much to build a small American car. Between their corporate bloat and the UAW doing everything it its power to throttle the companies they live off of, the big 3 can't make a decent cheap car. The only place where they stand a chance is when they can make a decent big car that they mark up $10,000 because they are so desirable.
Personally, I want to see the big 3 fail. Nothing would put a smile on my face like seeing the hand of the market slam a big old reset button on the entire industry. In my fairytale world, the big three would collapse and the parts would be scattered to the wind. Dozens of smaller innovative companies would take their place and operate without the massive corporate bloat we have today or a suffocating UAW death grip. I would like to see cars built more like computers. Have lots of suppliers, lots of builders, and let car companies mix and match suppliers parts for their own needs.
Alas, as much as I want to see the big 3 die, I suppose I would be against such an event if it meant truly dire economic straights. In the same way tossing 700 billion to financial institutions makes me wretch, I can swallow it if it is truly needed.
Of course, I have little expectations of the true need being really assessed. I expect the Democrats to gouge the taxpayer to save the host that the UAW parasite feeds off of. I fully expect the Republicans to blindly follow ideological principles, utterly content in the knowledge that if it blows up, it blows up on the Democrat's watch. I doubt anyone is actually going to hunt down a few objective economist and ask them what they think and than actually follow the advice.
Here is hoping that Obama can put the interests of the nation first, objectively assess the needs based upon experts (not politicians), and beat the congress into shape to implement good policy. I won't hold my breath.
#57: That just can't see past the culture of having a big, fuck off car?
I have a large vehicle that fits my lifestyle and also won't get my family pancaked if we get t-boned by an SUV. In general, I drive very, very little and really think about the necessity before getting behind the wheel. When some holier-than-thou hybrid driver who lives in the burbs and drives 10 times as much as I do gives me grief about my car... It makes me wonder about the sanity of people in general.
#61: Forcing them to make green cars with the bailout funds also isn't a bad idea.
It's a horrible idea. If making green(er) cars exclusively were profitable, they'd have been doing it for the last decade. It may be that making green cars, in general, can be profitable--but not by the bloated, inefficient Big 3 as they currently exist.
The $25 billion is a bridge loan to last until Obama takes office, with the expectation that he will give much, much more. There's no end in sight to the bleeding if we do this.
no matter who fixes what this won't work. we are continuing to prop up an industry which has failed to learn the lessons of consumption versus conservation. If the U.S. bails out the 'big three' there will be more SUVs and no electric cars for the masses.
Here's an idea. Since it is long past time the world-wide auto industry created a viable electric car, why don't 'We the People' give a billion dollar bail-out to the car manufacturer who develops the first truly mass-market electric car? Naw, you're right. Lets reward mediocre, entrenched thinking.
FoetusNail "The original Chrysler bailout was only 1.5 billion, remember the uproar that caused. The government and the industry are both responsible for this mess and once again we will foot the bill. I wish it was different, but there are too many dealerships employing too many people in every city and most towns in America. Then think of every business that provides goods and services to those companies. The total number of Americans that would be affected by allowing these companies to fail is staggering."
The original HorseCo bailout was only 1.5 billion, remember the uproar that caused. The government and the industry are both responsible for this mess and once again we will foot the bill. I wish it was different, but there are too many buggy dealerships employing too many people in every city and most towns in America. Then think of every business that provides bridles and horseshoes to those companies. The total number of Americans that would be affected by allowing these companies to fail is staggering.
...
The USA is all "Laissez-fair!" until it blows up in their faces, and then they're temporarily "Go government! Woo!" The US auto industry has multiple problems, and $25B will only spackle over them. They can't make a profitable small car at home, and the rest of their line is bloated crap. A bailout will only delay the pain. With the Big 3's sales forecast based entirely on cheap gas (so that monstrosities like the Hummer sell), and the UAW's sweet deal (and the union vs management's adversarial stance), and the Big 3 having spent several decades focussed more on the next quarter than the next decade, they've set themselves up to fail. The biggest threat to American cars isn't Japanese cars, it's American car companies.
Calling them "American cars", at this point, is somewhat of a misnomer anyway. "Assembled in America" is closer.
Very few people will buy a 30K+ car from a company in bankruptcy. The threat of warantee work going uncompleted should is too great.
The number of people employed by the transportaion sector is much greater than just the workers at the big three. Downstream suppliers dealerships, manufacturures etc... It's in the millions.
Those that advocate allowing the companies to fail underestimate the cost to America and her citizens of having (at the least) several hundred thousand people unemployed and uninsured all at once.
Allowing honda, toyota et al to purchase the big three wipes out America's last remaining manufacturing base and ports any future profits to the purchasing comapnies' country. I see this as a threat to our national security.
We should loan the money, as we have done before but tt should be mandated that the big three invest heavily in plug-in hybrids and the UAW must agree to a wage reduction for the near-term at least.
..any reduction in workforce should begin at the management level.
Ok, make green cars that compete against the japanese green and notgreen models, this ought to keep the companies running and the money cycle -not intact- but at least existing.
It's a win situation out of a disaster event. The profit will come, but not now. That is the pain to bear.
American consumers are also responsible for a large chunk of this problem. The Big 3 made decent domestic cars that got good gas mileage. I had a 1991 Dodge midsize sedan that got 35mpg., and the Geo Metro got mid 40's. Of course, americans wanted their SUVs.
When I had to buy a commuter car last year, I decided on buying an older car with cash, and fixing it up. I bought a '95 BMW 318 with 105k miles on it, knowing that it would be good for well over 200k miles. Would anybody dare to do this with a Detroit 3 car? Afaik, 100k seems to be the 'event horizon' for these cars, when people assume that they are ready for the scrap heap. Perhaps that's part of the problem, as Moore said?
There are those that will not listen to anything Michael Moore says, or rather, will argue against any point he has to make simply because he IS Michael Moore, and they dislike him; it's a sad commentary on how stiff-necked American political discourse has become. And it's too bad because in this interview he is honest and interesting and not playing political head-games. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but we should at least consider his ideas no matter who he is.
I think the idea of the US Government running a car company (or however you want to define the idea) at least worth a shot. We can have GM go under and have thousands of unemployed workers on public assistance, OR the government can take over the company and try and retool it-- either way it's taxpayer dollars being spent on helping auto-workers.
The logic of the FDR administration directing GM to build tanks/planes during WW2 is a compelling argument for a similar attitude today.
I am reminded of the "buy American" campaigns of the early 80's, it was presented as our patriotic duty to buy American made cars because Japan or Germany (very weird that out WW2 foes were now taking so much of our auto business) were hurting the US auto industry. And yet, at the same time the conservatives insist on the sanctity of the marketplace, that the logic of capitalism means that you buy the best product and the market supports those who make the best product; these two ideals were at complete odds with each other. The US auto industry didn't learn their lessons then, why should they learn them now?
A taxpayer bailout of this dysfunctional industry is a VERY bad idea. It has been mismanaged for decades and has had its testicles in a vice with the unions twisting the screw.
Do not let the union lackeys and the democratic apologists fool you; the collapse of these pathetic companies will NOT cause us to slip into another depression. These are viable manufacturing companies with the potential to reorganize under new management and new labor contracts to be great companies again.
Let the inevitable bankruptcy happen!
If they new what this quarter was going to look like last month (and I can't believe they didn't) the big three should have asked for their 25 billion during the vote for the 700 billion bailout, then nobody would have noticed, it could have been added in like the other addition 150 billion of gimmes and goodies Congress demanded to pass the package.
You snooze you lose, now they have to sit there and be humiliated and mocked for their private jet use, which they will do, because it is small price to pay, since congress will give them everything they want without requiring any substantial changes or personal sacrifices no matter how my posturing Washington does in the meantime.
Aston Kutcher on "Bill Maher" was right: let the oil companies bail out the car makers. 25 is only a fraction of their record-smashing profits the last few quarters. But it will never happen.
I'm so sick of this.
To #5: Oh, we can afford to be green, we just can't be TRENDY green. If you're poor, ya got no choice but to be green! You take a bus or just walk everywhere because you can't afford a car, meat's a once in a while luxury because you can really only afford rice and beans and those weird collard greens nobody with any real money would touch, you don't watch much TV because you either can't afford one or can't afford cable so what's the point, and forget about using too much power--PG&E'll make sure you don't use any when they don't get your money every month.
Suck on THAT, rich people!
(Disclaimer: Hey, I can joke about this, this was my childhood!)
Instead of bailing out the The Little Three U.S. auto manufacturers the federal government should provide funds for more public transit: ie. trains and buses for inter- and intra-intracity travel.
Why are the CEOs of these three companies making outrageous salaries for a history of bad decisions? They deserve to go out of business WITHOUT bankruptcy.
Cordially,
Kilgore Trout
#71: I think the idea of the US Government running a car company (or however you want to define the idea) at least worth a shot.
How much time have you spent inside of government agencies? My career has been split about 50/50 working with private and public sector organizations, and my personal experience is that the least efficient private companies were models of efficiency compared to the most efficient government agencies. I never worked with the auto companies, however.
Please keep in mind how American government works. You have career politicians with no real organizational or operational understanding giving orders to appointees with political connections but likely no background in whatever it is they're doing, and they in turn are working with people who accepted jobs that pay 60-70% of market value. Why rest the future of an industry on that when we can let the next Silicon Valley emerge via market processes?
I don't dismiss Moore's comments because he's Moore--it's because they are nonsense. I don't think he really believes what he says. He does it to be sensational.
Flytch,
It works out to $83 per person. Sorry. On the plus side, you may have what it takes to be the Chief Economic Officer of a Major Automobile Company.
someone out there: they are all fighting each other now. This is your chance. Build the cheap electric and put it out there. They will come. No need to be involved at all in this mess, not even for the money handouts
Jack @27, you seem to be saying that the problem with unions is that not enough jobs are unionized.
#76 DEVIANT
Yes, those are valid points, but you are also pointing out that the US government is broken, not just the auto industry. If the inefficiency and bureaucracy is as rampant as you (probably correctly) claim, then what difference does it make WHAT the government does?
(Unfortunately I can't think of an easy or quick way to fix the US government. I am all for a smaller more efficient government, how we get there is not clear. Term limits come to mind but that might entail other problems.)
The sink or swim attitude of allowing GM to go under I think is less desirable in the long run than propping it up or forcing a reorganization. None of us live in a vacuum; if thousands of auto-workers lose their jobs what will that mean for the economy, crime rates, and drug use? And it's not just GM that will be hurt, industries that supply GM with steel, rubber, glass and electronics will be hurt, plus GM dealerships and all the GM "Mr. Goodwrench" mechanics across the country. The laissez-faire attitude is admirable on paper, but in real life it means "law of the jungle" and I'd prefer to live in a civilization, not a jungle.
Maybe I just don't automatically trust "market processes" to produce the next Silicon Valley; they are just as likely to produce robber barons and shanty towns.
I'm not married to the idea of "having the government run GM", but I think it's an interesting avenue to explore.
Dismissing Moore's opinions as nonsense because you believe he says everything just to be sensational is essentially the same as dismissing everything he says because he is Michael Moore; you are automatically assuming "if Michael Moore says it, it's just sensationalism."
I don't think the answer is "the government running GM". The government shouldn't run the company, and it doesn't have to in order to implement meaningful change. They just have to add strings to the loan and say "you get this money, as long as you implement changes that will benefit the tax payer".
Which may include changes that reduce the number of high payed employees and cut down on the number of union employees, or what ever will take to keep the company lean and competitive.
Ill Lich,
what difference does it make WHAT the government does?
I generally like the government to do as little as possible. Like accountants and lawyers, you want enough to protect you and very little beyond that, because they don't produce anything.
Letting GM go under would be rolling the dice. I'd argue that it's the only way we can realistically transform our auto industry. The alternative seems like a slow, miserable death. But there's really no way of knowing.
I tend to prefer market-based policy in general because it makes the most sense to me. It seems (and often is) cold in the short-term, which is why I understand why others don't feel the same way I do.
You're right that I'm not completely objective when listening to Moore. I try.
Here's one problem with, say, the government running GM-- what happens when another car company starts to outcompete it and it appears in danger of failing? Pour more tax money into it? In which case you have the taxpayer continually shelling out for a subpar company, while a better one has to compete with the effectively endless pockets of a government.
@74- I must beg to differ about one thing-- collard greens, properly prepared, are damned tasty. Could just be a cultural thing, but they're a leafy green mildly bitter comfort food to me.
"I expect the Democrats to gouge the taxpayer to save the host that the UAW parasite feeds off of."
#63 RINDAN, What a hell of a way to describe 450,000 factory workers! Just hope none of them hear you.
why isn't labor history taught in school?
@#86 POSTED BY TAKUAN:
The same reason basic personal finance is not taught in school. Which is, I have no clue why beyond the fact American schools are geared towards creating factory workers and pencil pushers.
And college supposedly helps free one's mind to explore the world as it is, but by the time most people are 17 they are already ingrained in the "boss/worker" model. So college just ends up being a place where you (1) get certified so you can get a job in a field and (2) get all the debauchery out of your system because when you graduate get ready for life to pummel the joy out of you.
You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps!
I believe it was a convergence of several factors that brought the Detroit automakers to the point they are at today. In the mid seventies, the Big three could not understand why they were suddenly losing some market share to Japanese automakers. The long gas lines and big gas-guzzling American cars could not co-exist. The executives in Detroit just didn't get it. The union members resented the foreign cars and saw it as an incursion and not a quality issue. (they broke the power antenea on my 260Z car twice). There is some good information on the bailout at:
http://www.thebailoutblog.com
@86- Because it's hard enough to find history taught in schools. Because the topic would be so loaded that it'd be impossible to get a decent text or course of instruction that would be agreeable. Because generally people do not tend to fancy themselves members of the lumpenproletariat.
And if it made you feel any better, the few really swift kids who were of a mind to dominate others later in life would just use the knowledge the subvert labor struggles anyhow.
"See, you were taught in high school that workers want X, Y, and Z. Here you go. Please ignore the fact I'm screwing out out of A through W. All you learned in high school is all you needed to know. Rest easy."
We were taught the history of US labor when I was in school, but then, Massachusetts has higher educational standards than many states.
....are doomed to repeat it.
it's free!
http://www.lib.washington.edu/subject/History/tm/labor.html
GM is $3 a share from $40 a year ago. Ford is $1.47. The markets have priced the risk of the companies going into chapter 11 already.
"Take a look at GM's 8.375 percent bond due in July 2033, and feast your eyes on the new world of American capitalism. Yesterday's price, at about 15 cents on the dollar, tells you the market believes GM will last long enough to make a little less than two years' worth of interest payments.
Were it not for the chance of a government bailout, in lieu of an imminent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, the bonds would trade for much less.
What the market understands is that GM will collapse long before then, no matter how much taxpayer money it gets now.
In Congress, lawmakers may be fancying a $25 billion bailout for the auto industry. Yet even if they earmarked all that money just for GM, which has $59 billion more liabilities than assets, it wouldn't make the company solvent. "
And even if GM or Ford survives, they will offshore production and close plants damn quick. They are going to dump every UAW associated benefit, reduce their brands and leave nothing in the rust belt but weathered husks of vast industrial complexes.
GM or Ford doesn't need SUV's & Trucks but Ohio and Michigan sure do.
Besides the same apocalyptic notes were sounded by the english car industry during the 1970's when it tanked for much the same reasons.
It was painful but the UK did not dissolve like sugar and many of those areas have retooled themselves into new industries.
I pulled down some lesson plans from Teacher's Curriculum Institute on Cesar Chavez. They do an amazing jog of creating activities that really bring it alive for the kids.
http://tinyurl.com/5j5sek
apart from vehicles, what else that is needed NOW can be made where they once made cars? Acres of space,machine tools, robots , skills of every kind - there must be something.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=achyH0GnKUL8&refer=home
Sales in october down to continue the longest slide in 17 years, but US auto sales in oct still represent an anual rate of 11,500,000.
#86 Takuan:
"why isn't labor history taught in school?"
Because the purpose of the public schools, after the three Rs, is to teach that America is a classless society, and labor history would put the lie to that. So it's either ignore labor history, whitewash it, or run the risk of stirring the bastards up by studying it. Why does Howard Zinn get so many people upset? He scrubs away the whitewash.
Even Cicada @ #89 says that "people do not tend to fancy themselves members of the lumpenproletariat," thus conflating the working class with vagrants, criminals, and street junkies. When workers are viewed as lumpen, I'd say the schools have done their jobs.
As far as the decline of unionism goes, I'll wager that trend is about to reverse itself — everywhere — in this happy, classless country of ours.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4AJ1HF20081120
Once heard ivy league schools shout, hey, hey, that's ok, you're all going to work for us one day, when the opposing team scores.
@97 Of course the the working class gets conflated with vagrants, criminals, and junkies. Have you not noticed that working is generally an unpleasant activity, different only in the amount of disagreeability with vagrancy, crime, and addiction?
Hell, the life plan of many, many middle class workers is simply to turn enough labor into capital that they can, one day, never, ever have to engage in actual work again, and pursue whatever they consider to be "fun" or "a hobby".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/19/AR2008111903719.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FK16Ad01.html
If Sichuan falls can Michigan be far behind?
Cicada, Is "middle class workers" something you got from Lou Dobbs or did you get it from the Kool-Aid at school?
it's very important to remember what is happening elsewhere when preoccupied by problems at home.
Once worked on a project for R J Reynolds, we built a machine for sealing a plastic pack for a new Winston cigarette. They gave me some new packaging samples from China, metal tins. Talking to one of the executives for new product development, he mentioned that labor in China was never included in the negotiation.
Someone in this thread or another, maybe Takuan, asked why aren't all these cheap products made by machine. The reason is labor is cheap and flexible, while machines take a long time to develop and deploy, and are inflexible, excluding industrial robots or cnc machine tools.
RJR spent a great deal of money with our company, the plastic molding company, a conveyor company, and another company that put the flasks in temporary cartons for transportation to the RJR plant where the cigarettes and labels would be added. But the cigarettes sucked. They showed up in a few test markets, but then everything was just dropped.
If the US auto makers shutter their plants, nothing will be made in those buildings. Those plants are big specialized machines, with human components. In fact the entire system, connected by just in time parts delivery, is essentially the largest machine ever built, with trucks acting as conveyor belts. A car comes off of these lines every few seconds, working those lines is not easy. Those companies were raking it in and the unions got their share, unlike most workers in this country. Sometimes I think union bashing is fueled by jealousy.
of course union bashing is fueled by jealousy, that is basic human nature.
As to re-purposing the car plants; what happened in America in 1941/42?
Where did the oil companies hide their record profits of the past eight years?
"Sometimes I think union bashing is fueled by jealousy."
You betcha. If you haven't got the balls to organize, then you gotta eat whatever's on the plate.
@104- Middle Class workers-- i.e, the ones who actually do have to work, but who aren't starving.
they used to call those working class people.
Middle class used to have the boat, the trailer, the summer cottage. And the job.
@107 As to repurposing car plants, the companies in question had high and rational expectations of enormous government orders for tanks, planes, etc. There is no such assurance for any product they are likely to make now. It also cost a fair amount of money to do, and seems to have involved a considerable amount of new equipment.
Chrysler's Example
@110 It'd also apply to accountants, doctors, lawyers, etc, etc. They may have the summer home, the boat, the trailer, etc, but they couldn't manage to live for long without working.
"the job" means the old kind of job that didn't go away.
Oren Beck @#54:
"The 1994 Geo Metro had an EPA estimated 51 mpg highway rating and gave me closer to *60* with attentive driving. I humbly suggest that a cloned detail replica of that Metro could assist GM return to profits! Or dare we suggest Ford clone the Festiva and Fiestas? Chrysler returning to a Dodge Colt with the dual range transmission? We can dream eh?"
Hate to bust some of your dreams there, but none of those cars were US-built cars, (Wikipedia is a surprisingly good source for car info):
Your Geo Metro was built by Suzuki, in Japan.
The Ford Festiva was based on the Mazda 121 platform and built by Kia, in Korea.
The Ford Fiesta was designed by Ford Europe, and built in Germany.
The Dodge Colt was a Mitsubishi import, built in Japan.
So, of the cars you mention, only one was designed and built by at least a subsidiary of a US car company - the Fiesta.
The only vehicles currently built in the US by a US-based car company that get an EPA-rated combined fuel economy of at least 30mpg are the Chevy Cobalt XFE (and cousins), slated to be replaced by the Cruze and the Ford Escape Hybrid (and cousins). Of those, only the Cobalt is less than $20K.
Getting more small cars built in the US by US automakers will take a while - stamping presses don't get new tooling overnight.
Cheap electric car, fully road legal, by a small upstart company? Fastest way to market would be to buy "glider" 2WD Ford Rangers from the plant in St. Paul. If you can keep within the GVWR of the platform, you may not have to re-do crash tests. Ford was going to close the plant in 2009, but may be keeping it open 'til 2011 because the Ranger gets better fuel economy than the F150. The current Ranger design is 10 years old, though, and the replacement is being designed in Australia. You may be able to buy the St. Paul plant and the old design from them if you pony up some cash...
the War Solution. How did they mess up the gloriously profitable Middle East? Viet Nam made fortunes across the board. How did all that yummy profit get eaten by KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater? How could the Cheney Administration been so short sighted as to not get a good war going before the economy caught up with reality? How could he have been so negligent as to allow those six thermonuclear cruise missiles to not reach their destination?
@113-- The only jobs that fit that requirement are probably agriculture and prostitution. Everything else turns optional once the economy does a big enough downturn.
doctor, dentist, nurse, any essential health care workers, plumbers, electricians - there's more than a few that you will find life very difficult without.
The larger plants made tanks, planes, and trucks, but they also had controversial connections the the German government. Somewhat long, but interesting Washington Post ">article.
The Ashton Kusher quote, let the oil companies bail them out, was perfect.
"Let's Have A War"
There's so many of us,
So many of us,
So many, there's so many, there's so many
Let's have a war,
So you can go and die,
Let's have a war,
We could all use the money,
Let's have a war,
We need the space,
Let's have a war,
Clean out this place
It already started in the city,
Suburbia will be just as easy
Let's have a war,
Jack up the Dow Jones,
Let's have a war,
It can start in New Jersey,
Let's have a war,
Blame it on the middle-class,
Let's have a war,
We're like rats in a cage
It already started in the city,
Suburbia will be just as easy
Let's have a war,
Sell the rights to the networks,
Let's have a war,
Let our wallets get fat like last time,
Let's have a war,
Give guns to the queers,
Let's have a war,
The enemy's within
It already started in the city,
Suburbia will be just as easy.
I dont understand the anger at the UAW. The CEO's are cashing in heavily with big bonuses based on sales and production. Production that is (ah ha) produced by the UAW. If the huge profits are derived from the dirt on my hands, should I not want a piece of the pie? What would the other option be? Guess we could do away with the union. This way the CEO's can live an even higher life by hiring low-paid workers to do the job. Thus, expanding the gap between the elite and the poor.
oops
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
When Ashton Kutcher makes sense, the apocalypse is upon us.
@117- As has been noted by folks without healthcare insurance or money, it may be unpleasant to get by without doctors, nurses, etc, but it is possible (until something fatal). And if things are tight enough, inevitable. Food vs. medicine; food wins.
if my child were ill I would kill for medicine.
@123- If your child were starving, wouldn't you also kill for food? If you were starving and had no medicine, would you kill for food first?
Something of a moot point, though-- chances are, anything expensive enough that you're going to have hideous difficulty obtaining it isn't something you can manage with a quick kill, snatch and grab, anyhow. The notion of, say, treating your kid's cancer by running off with not only a full course of chemotherapy, all the associated materials to administer it, and a few tons of equipment for radiation therapy is ludicrous.
Michael Moore does great work. I'm glad that in the midst of a period when many Americans seemed to forget what we're about, immersing themselves in an orgy of carelessness, Moore was standing in front of a camera telling us to wake the fuck up.
Complacency is a good way to wind up on the bottom. If somebody has to yell to get our attention, so be it. The alternative is the mediocrity that we sank into for eight miserable years.
simple as an infection,ludicrous as you care to make it, people in extremity do whatever is necessary. Did your grandparents ever tell stories about hunger?
Assuming it's an infection, chances are good you wouldn't have to kill someone over a few bucks worth of antibiotics. And yes, many of them are quite good and still run that cheap-- one reason some grocery stores with pharmacies in them will give the drug away as a freebie.
And no, my grandparents and their parents farmed. They might have done without a lot (and they did), but running out of food wasn't a worry. Vaguely Soviet-esque rules of "If you want to eat food from the garden, you go work in the garden" made for lively labor from the offspring, too.
City dwellers are really pushing their luck with that food thing, I've always thought...
what percentage of Americans today live in the city?
@128 Looks like about 75-80 percent or so. Which means if the food shipments end, at least meat'll be easy to come by there.
And you're not seriously suggesting that "Most people do it" means "It's safe to do", are you?
whatever are you talking about?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081121.wrjapan22/BNStory/Front/home
@130- Depending on which paragraph, either the wisdom of totally divorcing yourself from an agrarian lifestyle, or the availability of longpork in an otherwise starving city.
75% to 80% live in "urban areas". City food runs out in three days if the trucks stop. Get some chickens.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27719011
I'm sorry but it's hard to understand why people write comments when all they do is regurgitate all the same old meaningless and incorrect sound bites like "American car companies never made the cars that people wanted to buy," etc. Did people fail to see that GM and Ford, for example, were so successful that they bought up and absorbed entire foreign car brands such as Volvo, Saab, Jaguar, and others? This came from nobody buying their cars? Not hardly. If American car makers made SUVs, it's because buyers BOUGHT SUVs. If buyers didn't buy them, the companies would have stopped making them long ago.
If Japanese auto makers did well, it was because they had the latest robotic factories that allowed good quality to be cheaper. Well, now Ford has the world's most advanced car factories in Brazil, where as a company they are profitable, but the American unions block the building of such modern factories here in the US.
GM and Ford are nearly bankrupt because of the unions, the incredibly high wages the labor earns, and the killer pensions that they will get. This is not "poor" management or "making cars nobody wants," it's labor dripping with unstoppable greed. To be sure if they lose their jobs, it's their own fault.
Also, I'm sick to my stomach over all this insane "green" talk. "Give us an electric car so we can save the Earth!" Where do you THINK electricity comes from? FIfty percent of our electricity comes from COAL. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
why thank you Thomas, in ways you'll never know.
lessee... obscenely high wages, private jet, separate bathrooms,....why not run the business into the ground, keep my job, get public money since it hurts too much to let me fail,and THEN: fire all the workers making a living wage and hire them back at three bucks an hour? I call that win/win/win...for me anyway.
thomasdosborneii,
Could you dial it down a little, please.
It ain't Union bashing, but the abrogation of responsibility for this mess by the unions.
Deal were made on false assumptions
"Along with Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, GM is staggering under a combined $114 billion in retiree health liabilities shouldered as workers hold the UAW and companies to the promise of a pension and lifetime health care. "GM was inclined to give the UAW what it wanted in 1976 because it was selling everything workers could make," says Dan Luria, an analyst at the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center in Plymouth. "
"Even as better quality gave GM a fighting chance with consumers, the company and the UAW allowed the gap with Toyota in labor costs to grow, says Sean McAlinden, an analyst with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. In 1999, the two sides agreed to wage and benefit increases totaling 23 percent over four years. "They'd only do that if they thought they'd sell pickups and sport utilities forever," he says."
No-one at the UAW was going "maybe we should remain competitive with Toyota or Kia or Honda..." it was "how can we get more money?" Now that we're being asked for $25 billion and the role of the union's must recognized.
Your grandmother may get a nice pension, but my children are facing an inflated health care system, a massive deficit, and higher taxes. Why should I penalize my children for your grandmother?
As for coal power I'd much rather have thorium reactors thank you very much...
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
Less polluting, burns plutonium, less nasty byproducts, abundant source material worldwide, don't need billions of train cars of coal being hauled from hells half acre.
All this discussion of what to do with the car companies seems to be missing a rather important point; namely, that Ford and GM are global companies with substantial operations outside North America that don't make gas-guzzling SUVs, don't face heavy healthcare and pension costs, do make smaller, more fuel-efficient cars and, at least until the worldwide credit cruch, were doing pretty well. Both Ford and GM are at last beginning to intoduce their smaller European models onto the US market. For instance, the Saturn Astra comes from Opel, and the Ford Fiesta will arrive in the US next year.
For what it's worth, a paragraph on the rather muddled Wikipedia entry on Ford says:
competent management would have done all that decades ago.
what would the Swiss do?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7741561.stm
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
Quoth Thomasdosborneii:
What hasn't been mentioned in the comments so far, as far as I can tell, is that for many years US tax policy also heavily subsidized businesses to purchase the biggest, most inefficient SUV's.
Funny how some interventions in the "free" market are socialism, while others are just common-sense initiatives to help small business.
'Would Star Trek Bailout Obsoleteness?'(see blog). Probably not. But with the understanding that responsible, thoughtfull energy meets the power of an 18 wheeler's requirements? Probably.
Michael has always brought the point home in this current century, brillantly, and brings awareness of Obsoleteness and people, indeed.