big 3 auto bailout
 

Dems want to extend a 25 billion$ handout to GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Meanwhile Kia is expanding it's plants. Hummmmm. Maybe a few un patriotic Americans are buying Kia, Toyota, Nissan, Suzuki, Honda, etc instead of U.S. Auto make cars.
Ford GM and Chrysler deserve a little better than being under cut by the Jap market and misinformed Americans buying into the premises that Jap cars are somehow better. Maybe playing the movie Death march at Battain every day would give those some pause.
I am not in favor of bailing out any free market company, that being said, why would anyone buy a Jap car/truck and let an long time American company like Ford, GM, Chrysler go down the drain? One has to ask, WHY. OK, Toyota is a good car/truck, sooooo, GM, Ford, Dodge also make a very good Car/Truck. I guess then the reason is the Japs can make a better vehicle???????????????????????????????????WTF.
I would say , NOT.
Now I have no expectations on the people on this site to stop buying Toyota and magically buy Ford, GM, Chrysler, That is a opinion and a mindset. But when Ford, Chrysler and GM close their doors and all is left is Toyota. I will just walk.

Ron

I wonder how many parts of a Honda, Toyota, or other 'foreign' car in made in the United States, while at the same time wonder about the number of foreign made parts in Chevolets, Fords, etc. It is probably impossible to call either one wholly-made in the country of their original origin.

But the major problem with 'American made' autos is not the origin of the parts, but the labor unions that have practically destroyed a once proud industry. Let the auto makers fall where they may, and a group of white hats will buy them up and start producing a decent car that can either run on CNG, or get 75 mpg.

Honda, Toyota etc are selling in the U.S. because people buy them, If people stopped buying LLBean and started buying Jap clothing, LLBean would go under as well. Honda, Toyota parts and even their cars are made here, they provide jobs for the locals and all is well with them. However. If instead people would buy Ford, Chrysler, GM then that plant that sprung up would say Ford, GM or Chrysler on the front door and the Jap cars would be hurting. UAW is the biggest problem for Auto makers, no one in their right mind would open an auto plant in Michigan, instead they are being opened in "Right to work" states.
The feds need to make all states "right to work" states or all states UAW states, Make the playing field equal.
All government vehicles should be running on LNG or CNG. 75 miles per gallon with a gas engine is not going to happen, no matter what technology is used. A Gas engine needs from 12 to 15 parts of air for every part of fuel. It makes no differents how that is achieved, Through a carburetor, or Fuel injection, or any other means, if the fuel mixture is not in those parameters , it will not run. 100 MPG carburetors is just a myth.
The answer is get more oil out of our ground, build new refineries, and pour money into other flammable liquid research like Hydrogen, or alcohol.

Ron

Ron, you brought up a good point about the UAW. My brother-in-law used to work in the Framingham, MA GM factory back in the '70's. He was making almost $20/hr just for screwing the left tail light assembly on 3 out of every 4 cars (someone else down the line put in the 4th). $20/hr back then was incredibly good money for such menial work. He was also guaranteed 3 25min breaks a day, automatic cost of living raises, and he got 60% of his pay during the 2-month summer shutdown for "re-tooling". The cost of payroll drove up the price of US made cars and the quality was just above crap since the inspectors were also UAW members. If the UAW wants to keep itself going they're going to have to realize that their job is to build cars and strengthen the US economy and not just to make their own lives comfortable at the expense of the consumer.

What is quite apparent is that there is a huge mismatch between market needs and big three factory ability to meet the needs. And worse yet, it would take years if not decades to switch over processes to go from 1st generation manufacturing to 4th or 5th generation that is now the norm and standard practice. The only way to continue with 1st generation practices and stay viable is to go to a narrow market and dominate. Boeing and Harley Davidson are examples of organizations with 1st generation manufacturing processes and having ownership of a very specific market place.

First generation simply means labor intensive and head count rich. Later generations mix man and automation to which each is suited best. Of course later generations go at logger heads with basic labor union operating principals so up grading an older plant that has a labor union becomes mission impossible, it isn’t going to happen. Net of all that is 1st generation yields is a lot more cost intensive product that has a lot of intrinsic process variability; process quality issues. Later generations strive to get all the process variability out, and that is a new science all it’s own. The science applies to everything to putting labels on a pickle jar to building an automobile and without it, best go find a market nitch that will support the premium cost and obsolete manufacturing processes.

As an aside, during the last Boeing strike the local media did interviews with various union members. Some stated job titles, and zow, those job titles were long gone by the early 70’s so that placed Boeings shop floor practices and inventory control methods way back in the 40’s. If it works it works, but is really stone ax as to compared to how Boeing controls their outside vendors. They are tough and the vendors shop had best be 3rd generation or better, or no biz. So that is a go figure deal. An adder; manual line inspection or parts inspection is the major,major, bad in a modern manufacturing plant. The process has measurments built in and tollerance deviation stops come with the package. Seen it, an out of spec part and the process just stops, period. Manual overide takes very high authorization, very high.

Scamp

sea
As usual your post is very intellectual and confusing all in the same post.
1st, 2nd, 3rd, generation?
Henry Ford had the Chrysler Brothers working with him and bought them out. Mr. Chevrolet had a body shop with Fisher. and started the Fisher Body/Chasie shop which turned into GM.
Ford, Chrysler and GM have gone threw about 20 generations since, Model T, Model A,
32 coupe V8, Thunderbird, Corvette, Small block Chevy, 409, Hemi, Mustang, Camaro, Challenger, cuda, Monte Carlo, Fairlane, Superbird, Talladega, Mach1, Z28, Barracuda, pinto, Vega, colt, ZX2, Tories, Cobra, Lightning, Shelby, Fusion, Cobalt, and many many more.
Honda has made, Civic, and ahhhhhh Accord I think.
The Generations of Ford Chrysler and GM are part of American history, and AMERICANS are throwing that history away . It's just sad. Apple pie will be replaced by sushi.

Ron

Scamp
 

In another thread, I alluded to the 'niche marketing' that your post explained so thoroughly. If a revamped Detroit plant would devote itself to cranking out quality vehicles that were dual-fuel - gasoline and CNG - capable, while simultaneously creating a chain of CNG fuel stops, I think that a possible partial solution to the labor/product conundrum. Would I have the capital, I'd start a CNG station out on the highway, whle lobbying for more CNG vehicles to be produced. It could be the 'Amway' of the future!!

Hold the sushi, Ron, we ain't done yet!! Our Country First!

Ok Ron, think of it this way. What is designed and built is one thing and there are some classics, you know more about that than I do. The issue now is how it is built and exactly how it is built to the last lug nut put on. Therein is the make or brake issue. Example; the Brits are notably among the best performance car engineers to be found, but they cant manufacture a production line car worth diddly-beans. I was in the UK when Leland got nationalized due to Management Labor disputes, net of that nationalization move was a car that was so poorly manufactured and over priced that not even the dumbest Brit would buy one. These days, production cars in the UK are imports, and only specialty limited run vehicles are manufactured in the UK, but very pricy.

Big change in the last decade or so, and things have flipped over. Now the “How’ has totally eclipsed the ‘What” .

Ya, Detroit has all the talent and ability to be the best of the best and my first choice, but just cant get it together to go from idea to implementation to market with obsolete manufacturing practices and self-destructive acrimony between the big three and the UAW. And no one is clean, no one; all own mighty dirty-crusty butts. This isn’t political or pro or anti labor at all, just reality. Detroit is in deep guano and a infusion of Government money only means a different crash site, that’s all.

And Col. Brice, you know what I'm talking about, ya been there and seen it.

Scamp

Consider Ron, that Deming told the told Detroit four decades ago that the “how’ was the ballgame, they booted his ass as some kind of freak. These days the Deming award is the most prestigious industrial award one can receive in Japan, bar none.
Ay sus, they went form frog clicker cottage industry of this and that, industrial hodgepodgeof this and that to market domination by just paying attention to concepts and reality. I’m really hard pressed to figure as to how a Japanese auto plant product manufactured in the US is inferior to a Detroit plant product. I cant get there from here. I have no reason to pay a premium for a dysfunctional relationalship between the UAW and the big three when I can can get equal or better at a lower cost by not participating in the Detroit self-inflected mess.


Scamp

20 years ago Jap autos were better made than Ford, Chrysler or GM, That doesn’t hold true anymore. Although people still rag on Fords , what they say just doesn't hold water. My wife’s mustang has over 100,000 miles on it and all I have done is replace the breaks. I know people that have Hondas or Toyotas that after 100,000 miles , all they have done is replace the breaks. If a car is just a thing to get you from here to there and back then you can find a cheep Ford that is just as reliable as any Jap car.
I don't like the UAW at all, but if Americans stop buying Ford Chrysler and GM in favor of jap cars, it hurts a lot of people way more than the UAW.
I think Ford should move out of Michigan and to one of the "Right to work" states and leave the UAW in Michigan.
The 50 billion$ bailout will just be a delay for the inevitable. Which is, one of the big three must go down the drain,, (Chrysler). I don't think it should be given. In a free market society when a big company fails the company re structures, gets rid of people, down size, re tool, etc and then gets back in the business. If that company gets bailed out without those things happening, it just delays the process and cost taxpayers money.
Once again, all government vehicles, (City, County, State, and federal) should be running on Natural gas, then there would have to be refueling stations. and as people got used to the vehicles more would be brought into the general market. The problem with Natural gas powered vehicles is Accidents and vehicle fires. That could be solve relatively easy.
Same with Hydrogen powered vehicles.
Use what we go, drill more oil, build more refineries, and while we are using what we have, develop something better.

Ron

PS
I don't know why it wouldn't let me upload a picture a little boy peeing on a Chevy Bowtie

Lets see a honda do this.
Ron

Ron, I fancy Fords as well, come from a long line of ford people and a family reunion starts to look like a dealership parking lot. I broke ranks and got a Dodge Ram and a Jeep Cherokee before that. I have no complaints to offer and am currently considering a new Jeep Liberty or perhaps a Ford of the like. I’ll hang in there with those two until it gets too punitive. My comments are directed toward lost opportunity and the mutually destructive relationship the big three have with the UAW. Been around more Unions than I can count, know the drill, know how to get along and know all the signs of a worn out relationship. Kind of like being a dinner guest at a dysfunctional achromous relationship home, aarrgg, that sucks.

If Detroit were in the right place, the UAW and the big three would sit down like grown adults and hammer out a success oriented survival plan. But not to be, the dialog is about ‘fuk you, strong memo follow’ kind of deal and that doesn’t get them where they need to go. I have seen this so many times before and know the next things to come.
Jasus, all my manufacturer customers that were once in the North East are now either out of business or gone offshore or to other States, or parted out and sold off bit by bit. So rather than going to places like Lynn, or Fitchburg, Ma, or Lester, PA, etc. I just go to their new locations and/or identities, where ever or whatever that might be. Same product, same needs just different faces and sometimes a different culture to learn about.

My observation is that if the product is top of the line, high performance industrial equipment and manufactured in a 4th generation world class manufacturing environment, then top wages are paid according to the local economics. No such thing as a ‘sweat shop’ doing world class manufacturing. On the other hand, depending on country, the training process can be a very steep up hill climb, but it can be done and is done, I’ve done it. A kiddo with some high school level math skills can run , load feed stock, monitor parameters of a CNC machining process plus accel and succeed at it. Hell, English language isn’t necessary. And ‘how to’ comes out the same in Thai, Malaysian, Hungarian, Russian, etc. done that already. I guess there is a saga about teaching someone how to fish rather than giving them a fish.

Scamp

Ford just needs to leave the UAW in Detroit and move to a right to work state. Hire all new non union workers from that state, pay them a fair wage with medical and a retirement system. If they get a union, close down and move somewhere else.
GM can stay in Detroit, (The arm pit of the US).

Ron

If the American automaker would have listened to C. Walters Deming instead of sending him on his way the American car would be value packed and the American autoworker would be happy as a mud-lark. Deming left Ford and went on to set up the Toyota Production System.
I was trained by Deming in 1976 and brought his TPM (total productive, predictive, maintenance, management) process to the Cleveland Engine Plant #1 on the 5 liter block / crankshaft machining departments and during the next two years we took a department that was losing million$ every year into a department that generated several million dollars profit. It took us less than two years and we did NOT lose one hourly (union) employee. The workers now owned their job. Oh and BTW we did get rid of over 50% of the salaried employees. The second year of the process we did not have one grievance filed with the UAW/IBEW and our down time was reduced over 80%.
Ford transferred me to Atlanta to bring the TPM process to the Atlanta Assembly Plant where Ford manufactured the Taurus and Sable and two years after I got here the Assistant Plant Manager stuck his finger in my face and said "Nobody is going to come down here from the north and tell the Atlanta how to run it's business. We've been running this way since 1947 and we're not going to change now."
No one came down here from the north and told Atlanta how to run because the day after Tom Kilker told me that I went into Salaried Personnel and signed my retirement papers. Today the Atlanta Assembly plant is being taken apart and 3,700 people no longer have a job. Since I was a salaried employee two years ago the Ford Motor Company cancelled my health insurance.
The American car companies have to look at what other companies are doing right and follow their lead. The autoworker has to grow some balls and say, “Hey, I’m the union. I’m here for my own good. I own my job and that pay check in my pocket doesn’t have no union label on it.”
The owners of their job know how to and can make their job profitable without cutting quality.
I worked thirty-two years for a car company and since I am a retired salaried employee does that mean that when Ford Motor Company goes belly up I ain’t. gonna get my pension check every month and since I was salaried I contributed a sizable amount to my pension plan every pay day.
If the American taxpayer has to prop up the American automobile companies someone has to overlook those companies and ask "Hmmmm, Toyota's making money and Ford ain't. What are they doing right and what are they doing wrong?"
Don’t park no rice burner in my driveway. (Pardon my bias opinion)

Myself when I buy I do go GM trucks but when you buy one and you haveto ask just how much of it is made in this country you find out if you can get 50 % you are very lucky just look at the list of countrys looks like the UN. ant noting made here anymore.


razz

Its a difficult, complex situation with no easy answers
 

My tendency and first thought is to let them go belly up---this is supposedly a free market and they have not survived in a supposedly free market.
but its not really a free market---other nation's like germany, japan and korea supplement their car industries. These countries subsidize the "dumping" of cars here at lower prices than they sell at home. In all these countries, there's a national health policy whch means that their carmakers don't need to pay into expensive health plans.
What we see here is the result of decades of bad managment decisions, the worst of which was to go on making large and fuel inefficent cars and trucks. This was one of their most-head-in-the sand decisions ever made---to go with the Hummer model instead of the hybrid model. This decision was based on the expectation that gasoline would countinue to be as cheap as ever.
Does anyone still believe gas wil continue to be as cheap as historically? I don't think so either. So the American auto companies are stuck in a cleft stick of their own making.

What we're talking about here is a HUGE chunk of our economy. we're talking the largest industries in the country, several million people involved. If theyre thrown out of work, with nothing to take these huge industry's place,the US and state governments will wind up paying for them anyway, through unemployment benefits, welfare and Medicare. If the Big Three are allowed to go belly up, this will certainly throw the US into a long time depression that will take us a decade to recover from. Japan, with similar problems, is in a decades long economic malaise and they MAKE Toyotas and Hondas.
Alll factors of this economy are interlinked , which is why Wall Street affects Main Street. If the Big Three go down, it will affect everyone here......negatively. Think about how much pension funds, including state and federal worker's pension funds, have in the Auto industry---it was the Blue Chip stocks for most of the last century. Wanna see your pension fund get cut in half overnight? Allow the auto companies to go bankrupt.
So I (reluctantly) see the sense in keeping the companies alive.....under certain conditions.
One of the wackiest things about the Bush administration's cures for the economy is the lack of oversight and the conditions for bailout. I think if companies get bailout money, the US taxpayer should then be in a major equity position, enough to dictate management practices, compensation....and prices.
One factor is the new national health insurance plan to be arranged. if the US government does this, this will relieve a big chunk of the Big Three's liabilities.
Another thing I don't see being discussed here is proportional----AIG, a private insurancce company has now gotten $125 Billion dollars from the federal government for all those credit default swaps and derivative deals they insured that went south. Its now clamoring for more of the $700 billion bailout fuind. Why should AIG get a HUGE amount of money---a whole year's worth of Iraq war funding--- and not the Big Three? AIG manufactures nothing, contributes very little to the economy, only employs less than 10,000 people.
I see it as dumb to give them that much money and not give the Big three a nickel. But I demand oversight and conditions favorable to the US taxpayer on how the money is spent.

So its a real bad situation with no good choices---thats what the Bush administration's legacy is to the future

The Big Three American Car Companies
 

I often ask myself, where have all the Americans gone, if your a true American you'd support the big three, because you'd realize that GM just in the USA, not the overseas factories, and dealerships, employ close to 900,000 people.

If you count the advertising firms that are retained by GM to work on nothing but their ads, the legal firms that GM retains to take care of their legal matters, and the parts manufactures that make parts for GM.

Not to mention the tool and die shops, that are retained to work for GM, before I see more bashing on the big three, it might just be time to do some studying on the issue, before you run your mouth.

Yes they have made some mistakes, during the 1980's mostly, but a lot more of the blame should fall back on the UAW, who are a bunch of money extorting crooks, with their inflated health plans, severance plans, and it doesn't stop there.

Now I hear people saying that the American car companies should not build American cars, but should take lessons from the Germans, and the Japanese, I'm sorry, there again it might be time to study the situation a bit more before you blert out such idiocy in a public forum.

They build fuel economy cars, GM alone has at least 10 models that get 26 or better miles per gallon, and that's not enough for you, they can build both, I'm telling you now, I like American cars, and yes I have an econo truck, and it's a dodge, but I still love camaro's, mustangs, chargers, challengers, and corvettes.

The camaro was just released to the market for special order, and they are already way above their production goals on those cars, I got to the chevy dealership and ordered mine, and right after that they sold the last one that they were alotted to an old guy that came in right after me.

People don't want American cars any more, hog wash, if they didn't then the camaro would not have sold like that, I'm telling you, that American cars will always sell in America, the mustang is still selling really well also, but nobody likes American cars, again BS.

dcatkin
taking lessons from the Germans, and the Japanese is not a bad thing, But telling someone here that "it might just be time to do some studying on the issue, before you run your mouth"
and "I'm sorry, there again it might be time to study the situation a bit more before you blert out such idiocy in a public forum"
People have a right to their opinion even if you don't like it. I don't know who the "YOU" is that you are talking to, but the "YOU" most likely has been on this forum for awhile and certainly can have whatever opinion he wishes.
GMC ( Got a mechanic coming) and mostly , Camaro, just suck. But that is my opinion.
I paid $26,000 for my 2009 Mustang GT, What did you pay for that Camaro? Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha. Sorry, you haven't said yet. Oh, Yea, My car is in the driveway, not on some dealers wish list.
Ron

You make good points and points I believe to be true . Detoit has all the talent and energy to produce a world class vehicle and the best of the best. No easy answers getting there, but the current status quo just leads to more time locked in the horse latitudes of failure. There is no way the UAW is going to give up their dominance of shop floor control or process development or influence in the product development cycle. Bottom line , the UAW shop floor bullies separate those who want to do their best from those who want to them to provide their best; the customers . And then separate those giving a message of support and knowledge from those who need it and would welcome it.

Dismal situation and like where does one start? Maybe a start might be to get the UAW shop floor tyrants back off their control and hate trip. There is no way an organization can press forward when militant Unions and shop floor tyrants control the vital resources, no way.

Scamp

The sheer lunacy to assert that if we allow - or even encourage - the Big 3 to go bankrupt and all those millions will suddenly become unemployed is to demonstrate one's complete lack of contact with reality. When one of the airlines went through Chapter 11 recently, they didn't stop flying, they didn't cancel flights, and the aircraft mechanics didn't go on strike. 'Bankrupcy' does not mean 'going out of business,' but provides a business some time to reorganize, rearrange debt payments, and strive to remain a viable business entity. While the Big 3 are begging for a bailout, the billions of our dollars they are asking for are really to be used by them to pay the bloated benefits that the UAW has extorted from them. (Has anybody notice that when any union goes on strike, the top brass still gets their paychecks? That's an example of chicken-sh*t leadership - "here, Johnny, do as I say, not as I do.")

Part of any business reorganization that the Big 3 needs must include the UAW and other unions, and if they don't want to fully cooperate and make the requisite concessions, they will have to suffer the consequences. I agree that America can make the best products in the world, given the right circumstances, but the intrinsic impedimentia of bad labor unions, government intrusion and corporate stupidity will trump the best intentions.

its easy to blame the unions
 

And they certainly do have some culpability in this mess. But how about the bloated pay of Auto maker's executives?
Mulally,the CEO of ford, made $28 million last year while Ford was tanking. He and all the other CEO's flew to Washington to lobby Congress for more money on their private coporate jets!
Like Some Democratic Congressman told them:"thats like wearing a tuxedo to a soup kitchen!"

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Wa...6285739&page=1
"...All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.....
....While Wagoner testified, his G4 private jet was parked at Dulles airport. It is just one of a fleet of luxury jets owned by GM that continues to ferry executives around the world despite the company's dire financial straits....
....Ford CEO Mulally's corporate jet is a perk included for both he and his wife as part of his employment contract along with a $28 million salary last year. Mulally actually lives in Seattle, not Detroit. The company jet takes him home and back on weekends. "

---That takes a whole lot of UAW auto workers getting over paid just to equal what it costs Ford Motors to ferry Mulllally home to Seattle every weekend.

http://www.mlive.com/business/index....007_compe.html
"...DETROIT -- General Motors Corp. Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner's compensation package for last year is valued at $15.7 million.

That's 64 percent more than 2006 when the package was worth $9.57 million.

GM lost a record $38.7 billion in 2007..."


So Wagoner got a $15.7 million pay package during a year when GM lost $38 billion. How many hundreds of UAW auto workers would it take to equal THAT? And this is just the tip of the iceberg, the 2d, 3d and 4th tier 3d tier of management are just as bloated

Futhermore, the Auto workers do the job in front of them---its the CEOs and management who set policy...the policy thats led them into disaster..
So if there's going to be a whole new house cleaning, it should start at the top.

You still don’t get it, do ya. Unions are Ok, the UAW is not ok. You haven’t been around a lot and been among Unions, that is obvious. I have, some fulfill the covenant and do good things, others do not and the UAW is among the worst of worst. Destroying the enterprise for the sake of self-serving greed sets off a whole world of reaction and counter reaction. No one is clean, least of all is the UAW corrupt and greedy bastards. On the opposite pole there is the corrupt and greedy bastards in equity positions. In the middle there are workers and customers being ripped- off. Go put your digits and stats up your butt, reality is what it is.
The UAW and the big three are locked in a death dance of mutually assured destruction and have been so for decades. Lost in the flail is that people want to do a good job, be rewarded, and customers want to purchase their work product. But what we get is a horrid mish- mash where the worker and customer are worlds apart and neither wants to be so. So goes the rust belt and no one wins, period.
I have no issue with some one getting a good wage, that is right, but I do have a big issue with the UAW shop floor bullies putting caps and limits on human potential and what can be and should be. Friging tyrants are all about intimidation and nothing about employee development or enterprise success.

Scamp

10 reasons for no bailout
 

The auto industry sees other industries getting government bailouts, and wonders why not? Others hear the pleas of the Big Three carmakers and wonder, why?
<O:p</O:p
Democratic leaders in Congress crafted a plan to fork over $25 billion to <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/ /><st1:City w:st=Detroit</st1:City>, above and beyond the $25 billion in loans the government already committed to help the Big Three make more fuel-efficient cars.
<O:p</O:p
But a majority in Congress, along with the Bush administration, balked at the idea. Critics of the bailout plan argue that the real problem for General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler is that their cost structures are bloated, their management doesn’t work, and they can’t make cars of high enough quality to attract American buyers.
<O:p</O:p
Throwing money at the same people who couldn’t get it right wouldn't solve any of that. Following are 10 top reasons why a bailout is not a good idea:
<O:p</O:p
1. A bailout would provide money only for short-term survival. It wouldn't alter carmakers' flawed business models. GM is running through cash at the rate of $2 billion a month. So $10 billion from the government would give it only five months’ breathing room. Can they turn over their business practices in that period? Please. The temptation would be simply to come back to taxpayers for more.
<O:p</O:p
2. A government handout would allow the Big Three to avoid necessary cost cutting. Because of a strong union, the average GM employee received $70 an hour in combined pay and benefits last year. And it’s not just line workers who are making too much. GM chief executive Richard Wagoner garnered about $24 million a year in 2006 and 2007, while leading his company toward oblivion.
<O:p</O:p
3. Bankruptcy isn’t all bad. It doesn’t mean liquidation. It means taking the painful steps the companies have been unwilling to contemplate to date. The real losers in such a deal are carmakers, equity shareholders and creditors. Bankruptcy would give the automakers the chance to throw out existing employee contracts with their onerous health and pension systems. The unions would be forced to temper their demands if they want the car companies to survive. In the case of GM, it could also dump some of its uncompetitive product lines such as Pontiac and Saturn. Discontinuing five of GM’s eight domestic brands would save the company $5 billion annually.
<O:p</O:p
4. Taxpayer money won’t change the fact that many foreign cars are made better than their US <ST1:p</ST1:pcounterparts. Kelley Blue Book announced its top 10 brands for resale value this week, and not one of the Big Three was on the list. Chryslers, for example, keep only 24.2 percent of their sticker price on average after five years. By contrast, Hondas retain 44.5 percent of their value.
<O:p</O:p
5. Bailout funds would help automakers continue their outsourcing of auto jobs to foreign countries, where costs are lower. All of the Big Three have increased the percentage of manufacturing and assembly done overseas in the past year, especially in <st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on">Mexico</st1:country-region>. In May, Ford agreed to build $3 billion auto plant in suburban <st1:City w:st="on">Mexico City</st1:City> and upgrade two other Mexican plants, the largest foreign investment in Mexican history.
<O:p</O:p
6. Big Three bankruptcies wouldn’t mean the end of auto industry in the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region>. Foreign companies, which already have plants here, could pick up the slack and open new factories. Some 78,000 Americans already work for foreign carmakers, a number likely to rise in the wake of any US automaker demise. The depressed South could benefit particularly from increased production of foreign auto companies.
<O:p</O:p
7. Other industries have survived bankruptcy just fine. Most of the major airlines have spent time in bankruptcy, including United, Continental, Delta, Northwest, and US Airways. Their predicament looked particularly dire after 9/11. But the major carriers made it through. And to the extent that they suffered, low-fare competitors such as Southwest and JetBlue picked up the slack, often offering superior service in addition to cheaper prices.
<O:p</O:p
8. Bailing out the auto industry would only encourage other sectors to beg for government handouts. Remember that the $750 Billion Troubled Assets Relief Program was designed only to assist banks, but now insurance companies and even credit card giant American Express are trying to get in on the action. Homebuilders, who arguably are as strapped as the automakers, could lobby for some of the action.
<O:p</O:p
9. Stockholders deserve no mercy. Some argue that they should be compensated for the fact that GM and Ford’s share prices have hit their lowest levels in decades. But in a free market, stock prices go down as well as up. The automakers’ problems have been clear for years, so investors had plenty of time to get out. As for Chrysler, it’s owned by private equity firm Cerberus, no innocent victim itself.
<O:p</O:p
10. Bailouts have been tried in the auto industry, and they don’t work. In the 1970s, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Britain</st1:country-region>’s Leyland hit the skids, hurt by slipping quality in its vehicles and imports from <st1:country-region w:st="on">Germany</st1:country-region> and J<st1:country-region w:st="on">apan</st1:country-region>. Sound familiar? Leyland, which made MGs, Jaguars and mass-market cars, accounted for 36 percent of the <st1:country-region w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region> market. So the government sunk in $16.5 billion to keep it afloat. The result? Unless you’re a car buff, you’ve probably never heard of Leyland, because it no longer exists.
<O:p</O:p

To whom it may concern:
I've had considerable experience in unions, I went through an aprenticeship as a welder for PGE, worked in that trade for 9 years in 2 unions (Boilermakers, steam fitters) and I was a union journeyman carpenter for 7 years. Ive also been briefly in the Longshoreman's union and the IBEW. I also just allowed my CA coontractors license to expire, being retired (27 years and not one complaint!)
That enough union experience? From both sides? I have seen union corruption and Ive seen union's successes. I believe in unions but ANYTHING can be corrupted (see: Ted Stevens!) and frequently is.

What I'm saying is that there's plenty of blame to go around here but lets start at the top. Thats where the HUGE hole is---leadership getting paid up to 4,000 times what a union worker makes whle the decisions they make bankrupt the company.
I'm not against some kind of managed bankruptcy where everything is torn up and started over But evidently youve given little or no thought about the consequences to the country.
You've already seen your pension funds and 401k's cut in half in less than 4 months---wanna see them cut in half again in less than a week? Wanna see millions more Americans out of work?
Its amazing that the bUsh administration wanted to bail out the financial industries but not the manufacturing side---I thought you guys were supplysiders

If the auto makers go, that will be the last of America's big manufacturing industries, all the rest are gone. And then what? As usual, the repuglicans have no plan at all---whats your solution----cut corporate taxes again? Oh that will put people to work right away for sure!

I wish you'd tell the guy you voted for in '00 and '04 to run away from America's problems even faster than he already is so we can get to fixing them sooner. this is the worst presidential hand off situatuation since Hoover, another repuglican, handed thr Great Depression off to Roosevelt.

And Colonel Taxhater!! I see you dropped your extremely racist "Obama= half honkey Line!!" Good for you!! Now this website looks more American again and I can stop confronting your racism every time I see it!!

Dear commie sympathizer
 

Obviously, your inability to read properly and thoroughly is still one of your obvious faults, many as they are. If the Big 3 all file for bankrupcy, which I hope they do, it will NOT ipso facto cause millions more Americans to be out of work. Your understanding of what constitutes a bankrupcy and the follow-on steps is minimal or nonexistent. And your understanding of supply-side economics is equivalent to my knowledge of ancient embalming techniques: zip, zilch, zero, and nada. How will cutting taxes put more people out of work? If your belief that higher taxes results in higher employment, why not just advocate 100% taxes, then you could have 100% employment. Yup, right down the communist party line. And you bet your sorry ass that I'm a tax hater; anybody that has an IQ only slightly higher than an onion feels the same way.

And stop the whining about the earlier bailout - most of your liberal/socialist reps and senators also supported it. The cause of bailout can be laid at the feet of your Fudge-Packing buddy, Barney Frank, a (gasp!!) Democrat.

If you think that FDR's solution to the Great Depression was good, you need to read some recent academic publications on the matter; what your Socialist president did in fact prolonged and exacerbated the Depression, and it was only the onset of WWII that caused the ultimate end of it. One of those wonderful albatrosses FDR gave us is the Social Security system, a Ponzi scheme of the highest order, about to implode on America because it is actuarially unsound. Other examples are commodity subsidies etc. etc., bureaucracies that should have died decades ago, but still function for some unknown purpose, etc. etc.

And although I removed part of my signature - certainly not in any response to you - that Barack Hussein Obama is a half-honkey, he's still a bastard.

If you were a Union member, then I’d say you learned nothing at all. Unions are a business like any other business. The good ones tend to the membership in a ethical, honest, and fair way plus support the enterprise with an added value mind -set. My heart hurts for those forced into Union membership and have to put up with the shop floor tyrants ; AKA Stewarts, day after day after day. That is a mind bending and brain dumb down experience to say the least. I have done projects in Detroit and have first hand knowledge of the UAW shop floor bullies and seen the results, firsthand, like right in my face. When human beings emote apathy and indifference in the work place that is a sure sign that bad ju ju is happening. Those UAW shop stewards could give a fig less about the people or the enterprise or the customers, their squirt is about human control, nothing more and nothing less.

And I totally reject the leftist concept that the Unions are the put upon , oh poor us, entity and then go about racing about the village with torch, stake and hammer in hand and screeching ‘Kill the monster , kill the monster”, no, I don’t buy in. There are fine and good folks on both sides of the issue and the UAW anointed monsters may not be monsters at all, maybe they are customers. And maybe the UAW Pres. insults the intelligence of the least able. Propaganda and distortion is the fall back position for the cowardly caught with hand stuck in the candy jar.

Scamp (AKA: To it may concern)

Bottom line, I dont buy into your hate and insult trips, my family and exteded family have never done harm to you or yours, ever. You put down the Gauntlet, and it has been picked up.You fuc with me or mine, then watch out.

GM to spend $1billion of the bailout money… in Brazil

Another brilliant idea from the automotive folks who flew their private jets to go begging:

Via The Baron, General Motors to Invest $1 Billion in Brazil Operations — Money to Come from U.S. Rescue Program

General Motors plans to invest $1 billion in Brazil to avoid the kind of problems the U.S. automaker is facing in its home market, said the beleaguered car maker.
According to the president of GM Brazil-Mercosur, Jaime Ardila, the funding will come from the package of financial aid that the manufacturer will receive from the U.S. government and will be used to “complete the renovation of the line of products up to 2012.”
“It wouldn’t be logical to withdraw the investment from where we’re growing, and our goal is to protect investments in emerging markets,” he said in a statement published by the business daily Gazeta Mercantil.
Meanwhile, he cut the company’s revenue forecast for this year by 14% to $9.5 billion from $11 billion, as the economic crisis began to cause rapid slowdowns in sales.
GM already announced three programs of paid leave, and Ardila added that GM Brazil “is going to wait and see how the market behaves in order to know what decision to take” with regard to possible layoffs.

Outsourcing your tax dollars overseas.
“Buy American”.
http://faustasblog.com/?p=7946

Lemme see: guess the UAW union doesn't operate very well in Brazil, so the GM folks decided to increase business down there. But if indeed GM was allowed to spend any of our tax dollars outside the US, shame on them, and the legislators that allowed it to happen.

All this bailout/sellout is yet another reason why we need a complete revolution in this country, by getting back to the US Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't specifically require the federal government to do it, then by definition, it shold not be allowed.

It would be the pure kiss of death if the UAW sets up shop in Brazil. They have a sufficient supply of corrupt punks and thugs, so no need to add another layer of corruption, human despoliation and intimidation. Jeez, talk about the life expectancy of a fruit fly, the UAW would be ground to a pulp and pitched into the binjo ditch, right pronto.

Scamp

I don`t know if I`d worry too much about the UAW. They`d certainly have their own squad of bone-breaking goons alongside.
Organized labor=Organized crime.

As things play out, even congressional Demos are getting jaded about the status quo in Detroit. Well they should, at this late date there isn’t a plan to have a plan nor is there any capability to get beyond the status quo and finger pointing. I’d say about three decades too late for retooling and restructuring. That the UAW and the big three are still on totally different pages , not even in the same book or library, doesn’t bode well for recovery chances.

Scamp

If they file bankruptcy , then those unworkable contracts are void. The average worker in the big three makes $70.oo an hour and that is passed right along to us in the form of higher car/truck price. The average worker at Toyota makes $40.00. Now I'm not real smart, but a $40.00 per hour wage passed on to the public would be less than a $70.00 wage.
The 3 companies just need to fail and re structure, and get away from the UAW.

Ron

Ron
 

That voiding sound you hear is all those UAW contracts being shredded, if the Big 3 opt for Chapter 7. It would be the best thing for America, making our autos more competitive with other countries', witha more levelplaying field because of better wage comparison. I would be willing to wager that 90% of the former UAW would work for an auto maker without a UAW contract, given the chance.

Just when you thought this bailout business couldn't get any worse...
 

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-pr....story?AAAARGH

Economic rescue could cost $8.5 trillion

Heavy spending to battle the financial crisis is unlikely to abate soon. Analysts say next year's deficit could top $1 trillion.

Reporting from Washington -- With its decision last week to pump an additional $1 trillion into the financial crisis, the government eliminated any doubt that the nation is on a wartime footing in the battle to shore up the economy. The strategy now -- and in the coming Obama administration -- is essentially the win-at-any-cost approach previously adopted only to wage a major war.

And that means no hesitation in pledging to spend previously almost unimaginable sums of money and running up federal budget deficits on a scale not seen since World War II

Indeed, analysts warn that the nation's next financial crisis could come from the staggering cost of battling the current one.

Just last week, new initiatives added $600 billion to lower mortgage rates, $200 billion to stimulate consumer loans and nearly $300 billion to steady Citigroup, the banking conglomerate. That pushed the potential long-term cost of the government's varied economic rescue initiatives, including direct loans and loan guarantees, to an estimated total of $8.5 trillion -- half of the entire economic output of the U.S. this year.

Nor has the cash register stopped ringing. President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are expected to enact a stimulus package of $500 billion to $700 billion soon after he takes office in January.


The spending already has had a dramatic effect on the federal budget deficit, which soared to a record $455 billion last year and began the 2009 fiscal year with an amazing $237-billion deficit for October alone. Analysts say next year's budget deficit could easily bust the $1-trillion barrier.

"I didn't think we'd see that for a long time," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "There's a huge risk of another economic crisis, a debt crisis, once we get on the other side of this one."

But the Bush administration and the economic team that Obama is rapidly assembling like a war Cabinet are vowing to spend whatever it takes to avoid a depression; they'll worry about the effect later.

"I don't think that there's any way of denying the fact that my first priority and my first job is to get us on the path of economic recovery, to create 2.5 million jobs, to provide relief to middle-class families," Obama told reporters last week.

"But as soon as the recovery is well underway, then we've got to set up a long-term plan to reduce the structural deficit and make sure that we're not leaving a mountain of debt for the next generation."

The mountain is already there, and rising faster than at any time since the 1940s, when the United States was fighting a global war.

Analysts say the current flood of red ink calls into question Obama's ability to launch programs such as middle-class tax cuts and a healthcare overhaul. In 1993, a deficit only a third the size of next year's projected $1 trillion prompted President Clinton to abandoned his campaign pledges of tax cuts.

Once the financial crisis eases, higher interest rates and soaring inflation will be risks. If they materialize, they could dramatically increase the government's borrowing costs to meet its annual debt payments. For consumers, borrowing could become more expensive even as the price of everyday items rise, holding back economic growth.

"We could have a super sub-prime crisis associated with the meltdown of the federal government," warned David Walker, president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and former head of the Government Accountability Office.

But even deficit hawks such as Walker acknowledge that the immediate crisis is priority No. 1. Just as with World War II, the government can worry about paying the bills once the enemy is defeated.

"You just throw everything you have at the problem to try to fix it as quickly as you can," said David Stowell, a finance professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. "We're mortgaging our future to a certain extent, but we're trying to do things that give us a future."

Washington could wind up spending substantially less than the sum of the commitments. Though the total estimated cost of the government's efforts adds up to $8.5 trillion, only about $3.2 trillion has been tapped, according to an analysis by Bloomberg.

And not all the money committed is direct spending. About $5.5 trillion in loan guarantees and other financial backing by the Federal Reserve is included in the total.

"The only way those commitments would become obligations would be if the economy completely collapsed, in which case it's a whole new ballgame anyway," said John Steele Gordon, a business and economic historian.

The government even stands to make money on some expenditures, such as the $330 billion it has used to buy equity in banks and other financial institutions through the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program

In the $1.2-billion bailout of Chrysler in 1980, the government ended up gaining $311 million when it sold stock options back to the company three years later.

But the federal efforts to forestall a depression are still historic in scope.


A $1-trillion deficit next year would represent about 7% of the nation's total economic output, or gross domestic product. That would top the 5.9% reached during the height of the Great Depression in 1934 but would fall well short of the deficits of World War II. In 1943, the high point, the deficit amounted to 30% of GDP.

The national debt is soaring too. In September, the National Debt Clock in New York City ran out of digits as the figure ticked over $10 trillion. The debt is now larger than the 45% of GDP it reached at the end of the Great Depression, but less than in 1946, when war spending had pushed the debt to 129% of GDP, said Gordon, author of "Hamilton's Blessing: The Extraordinary Life and Times of Our National Debt."

There's a potentially crucial difference, however, between the spending then and the commitments now:


Much of the Depression-World War II spending was on industrial production -- building new factories and converting existing plants to produce tanks, planes and ships. Huge sums also went into developing new technologies.

Those investments, combined with pent-up consumer demand and savings from the lean war years, quickly led to budget surpluses and sharp economic growth in the late 1940s as the baby boom began.

Analysts warn not to expect that to happen again. This time the government spending is largely ethereal, with the Federal Reserve printing more money to inject liquidity into the financial system and keep banks and other institutions afloat. And savings rates are low.

"Too many Americans have overextended themselves with regard to credit and debt, and too many have been following the bad example of the government," Walker said. "It is imperative that we recognize that this country has been living beyond its means and that we face large and growing structural deficits even after we turn the economy around."

Walker said he understands the need to attack the financial crisis. But the spending only adds to the looming problems of unfunded Social Security and Medicare commitments as baby boomers begin to retire.

He noted that the Moody's bond-rating firm fired a shot across the government's bow in January with a warning that spending on entitlement programs poses a long-term threat to the triple-A rating for government bonds. And that was before the financial crisis.

Interest rates remain low because of the crisis. But they will rise, particularly when the U.S. government starts borrowing more money to cover its growing debt, analysts predict. That could cause inflation to increase as well.

"We could easily enter into a highly inflationary situation because of all the stimulus we have and all the borrowing we have once it works its way through the economy," MacGuineas said. "The single most important priority right now is to stabilize the economy . . . but it really means that there is a huge risk on the other side

And on top of that...
 

http://wbztv.com/national/financial.....2.876880.html

AP: Bush Admin Ignored Financial Crisis Warnings


Timeline: U.S. Credit Crunch & Financial Failures
View Market Summaries & Leading Stock Changes
WASHINGTON (AP) ― The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

"Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories," California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.

Bowing to aggressive lobbying - along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK - regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.

"These mortgages have been considered more safe and sound for portfolio lenders than many fixed rate mortgages," David Schneider, home loan president of Washington Mutual, told federal regulators in early 2006. Two years later, WaMu became the largest bank failure in U.S. history.

The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of its governing philosophy, which trusted market forces and discounted the value of government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.

Many of the banks that fought to undermine the proposals by some regulators are now either out of business or accepting billions in federal aid to recover from a mortgage crisis they insisted would never come. Many executives remain in high-paying jobs, even after their assurances were proved false.

In 2005, faced with ominous signs the housing market was in jeopardy, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky loans. Today, in the midst of the worst housing recession in a generation, the proposal reads like a list of what-ifs:

Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.

Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.

Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn't be crippling.

Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.

Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.

Those proposals all were stripped from the final rules. None required congressional approval or the president's signature.

"In hindsight, it was spot on," said Jeffrey Brown, a former top official at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, one of the first agencies to raise concerns about risky lending.

Federal regulators were especially concerned about mortgages known as "option ARMs," which allow borrowers to make payments so low that mortgage debt actually increases every month. But banking executives accused the government of overreacting.

Bankers said such loans might be risky when approved with no money down or without ensuring buyers have jobs but such risk could be managed without government intervention.

"An open market will mean that different institutions will develop different methodologies for achieving this goal," Joseph Polizzotto, counsel to now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, told U.S. regulators in a March 2006.

Countrywide Financial Corp., at the time the nation's largest mortgage lender, agreed. The proposal "appears excessive and will inhibit future innovation in the marketplace," said Mary Jane Seebach, managing director of public affairs.

One of the most contested rules said that before banks purchase mortgages from brokers, they should verify the process to ensure buyers could afford their homes. Some bankers now blame much of the housing crisis on brokers who wrote fraudulent, predatory loans. But in 2006, banks said they shouldn't have to double-check the brokers.

"It is not our role to be the regulator for the third-party lenders," wrote Ruthann Melbourne, chief risk officer of IndyMac Bank.

California-based IndyMac also criticized regulators for not recognizing the track record of interest-only loans and option ARMs, which accounted for 70 percent of IndyMac's 2005 mortgage portfolio. This summer, the government seized IndyMac and will pay an estimated $9 billion to ensure customers don't lose their deposits.

Last week, Downey Savings joined the growing list of failed banks. The problem: About 52 percent of its mortgage portfolio was tied up in risky option ARMs, which in 2006 Downey insisted were safe - maybe even safer than traditional 30-year mortgages.

"To conclude that 'nontraditional' equates to higher risk does not appropriately balance risk and compensating factors of these products," said Lillian Gavin, the bank's chief credit officer.

At least some regulators didn't buy it. The comptroller of the currency, John C. Dugan, was among the first to sound the alarm in mid-2005. Speaking to a consumer advocacy group, Dugan painted a troublesome picture of option-ARM lending. Many buyers, particularly those with bad credit, would soon be unable to afford their payments, he said. And if housing prices declined, homeowners wouldn't even be able to sell their way out of the mess.

It sounded simple, but "people kind of looked at us regulators as old-fashioned," said Brown, the agency's former deputy comptroller.

Diane Casey-Landry, of the American Bankers Association, said the industry feared a two-tiered system in which banks had to follow rules that mortgage brokers did not. She said opposition was based on the banks' best information.

"You're looking at a decline in real estate values that was never contemplated," she said.

Some saw problems coming. Community groups and even some in the mortgage business, like Welch, warned regulators not to ease their rules.

"We expect to see a huge increase in defaults, delinquencies and foreclosures as a result of the over selling of these products," Kevin Stein, associate director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, wrote to regulators in 2006. The group advocates on housing and banking issues for low-income and minority residents.

The government's banking agencies spent nearly a year debating the rules, which required unanimous agreement among the OCC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Federal Reserve, and the Office of Thrift Supervision - agencies that sometimes don't agree.

The Fed, for instance, was reluctant under Alan Greenspan to heavily regulate lending. Similarly, the Office of Thrift Supervision, an arm of the Treasury Department that regulated many in the subprime mortgage market, worried that restricting certain mortgages would hurt banks and consumers.

Grovetta Gardineer, OTS managing director for corporate and international activities, said the 2005 proposal "attempted to send an alarm bell that these products are bad." After hearing from banks, she said, regulators were persuaded that the loans themselves were not problematic as long as banks managed the risk. She disputes the notion that the rules were weakened.

In the past year, with Congress scrambling to stanch the bleeding in the financial industry, regulators have tightened rules on risky mortgages.

Congress is considering further tightening, including some of the same proposals abandoned years ago.

Talked to my brother
 

who works for a bank. He says the bank he works for is filing to get bailout money. They are having problems? Nope, he told me they want the money to buy out other banks. He's disgusted but this is the kind of shit that is happening. Biggest rip off of American taxpayers EVER! I voted against everyone who voted for the bailout. May they all rot in hell.

Pack

Packo,

I did the same thing and I wrote to my congressman and Sen. Kerry to let them know what I did and why. They both wrote back with remarkably similar letters saying more or less that they have a better idea of what's going on than I do and for me not to worry, and they have the situation in hand. Condescending a**holes!

Packo,...
 

Whom could you possibly have voted for? ;) ;)
That absurd: "Bail-out" fiasco and/or FURTHER Political Pissin-away
of Vast Sums of MY/YOUR/OUR or U.S. Taxpayer Monies,.............
was/is pretty-much bipartisan lordly dictated.

Neil

The point of not voting for incumbents and letting them know about it is to let them know that their actions ARE being watched and nothing scares a politico more than knowing he's losing votes...or getting caught on video with 3 hookers, a donkey, and an assortment of priestly robes and power tools.

Here is an important message for the CEOs of the big 3 and decision makers of America
 

Regarding the Big 3 that should be renamed number 2. As a semi-retired retained headhunter I have helped build some of the largest companies in the world and if a company was failing it was because someone was not doing their job that they were hired to do. Definition of CEO ...Chief Executive Officer is the highest ranking executive in a company whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing competitive growth strategies, a major decision maker, managing overall operations of the company, innovator, utilizing all available resources of a company, making sure the company has a product or service that customers want, making sure that all his employees are taken care of. A company is only as strong as its weakest link and the weakest link with the big 3 right now are the CEOs. How dare we stand stupid listening to their excuses. Have the people running America been taking stupid pills? Sure I would help out the big three, but I would also expect resignations from all thee CEOs. I know of at least 20 of some of the best CEOs in the world that would take the lead of these companys and build it better than they have ever been. I would propose a contest to these new CEOs based upon performance and growth. Want to know what the prize is? First prize is a brand new cadilac, second prize is a new set of steak knives, and third ...your fired! Now how about those 3 pink slips and my retainer to present a few good men. Yours Respectfully, Brett D. Harwood
...and when the big three gets back on their feet I would expect all three to help and invest in a high-speed electro-magnetic railway system from San Francisco to New York. ...talk about employing America now! The number one country in the world got there by building things and everyone followed. Building bridges across America in more ways than one will build bridges with many countries. Recession? What recession? ...stop watching television and get creative, innovative, and dream of great things to be accomplished. We have to start thinking again or we are all history.