GM Gets To Dump Its Polluted Sites

ParticleGirl writes with this excerpt from the Detroit Free Press: "GM's unusual, government-engineered bankruptcy allowed the Detroit automaker to emerge as a new company — and to shed billions in liabilities, including claims that governments had against GM for polluting. Environmental liabilities estimated at $530 million were left with the old GM, which has only $1.2 billion to wind down. Administrative fees and other claims will soak up that money, and state and local officials told the Free Press they fear the cleanups will be shortchanged. ... The New York Attorney General's Office, seeking to protect environmental claims for cleanup at Massena and other sites, argued that federal and state regulatory requirements should not be eliminated by a bankruptcy sale. ... But [US Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber] ruled otherwise."

Comments

Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[WindBourne]

Both GM ans Chrysler were let off the hook on the 10's (or it is hundreds) of billions that they owed. Then we forced Chrysler to be sold to Fiat for next to nothing. Fiat Will keep it open for th next 2 years and then close all American plants (unless some are newer than theirs) after absorbing the IP. GM is currently forcing their partners to move operations to China, rather than keep them here. Chinese gov. is insisting on it (jingoism at its best). Worse, we are STILL subsidizing them with loans as well as CARS garbage. What should have happened is that GM and Chrysler SHOULD have been broken up into multiple companies and than allowed to compete. The problem with both of these was BAD CEOS. OTH, if you break them up, then you have multiple CEOs, which is likely to leave at least several of them doing OK to great. As it is, these companies will be gone within 5 years.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, and no.

GM and Chrysler should have been left to die. Period. They're businesses sucked and so did they're products.

The only thing the government bailouts did was keep these bloated poorly run companies alive for a few more years - at the taxpayer's expense. In the meantime, the execs and union members have a few more years of being over paid - at the taxpayer's expense. A few years from now, they'll be back exactly where they were a few months ago and we'll be a few hundred billion dollars poorer.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[ravenshrike]

Horseshit. The unions were much more complicit in the downfall of GM and Chrysler than the last few crops of CEO's at either company. Moreover, given the stock holdings that the union was given at GM, anything bad that happens to that company is now completely their fault. The fact that they sold most of it is absolutely no excuse.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

Please learn the differences among "their" and "there" and "they're" before you decide you're going to tell us a thing or two. It's your native fucking language so quit being so silly.

Another thing that is trendy is trying to use "loose" as a verb because you don't understand the difference between "lose" and "loose". It's trendy because you never saw that anywhere and suddenly tons of people start making this one mistake like the little clockwork sheep that they are. It's just another good way to scream HEY I AM EITHER CARELESS OR STUPID SO PLEASE DISREGARD MY MESSAGE! Functionally illiterate bastards, all of you.

Oh and your mother sucked my dick last night.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

No, your mother did NOT suck my dick last night.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[larry bagina]

It's even worse. Ford (or more accurately, CEO Alan Mulally) saw the impending doom and got ahold of as much cash and lines of credit as they could and were able to avoid bankruptcy. Car companies (especially GM!) don't make money by selling cars so much as they do by financing car sales. GMAC was also the recipient of multiple rounds of government financing and has FDIC backing and access to below-market government financing. In order to increase GM sales, GMAC lowered their standards (sound familiar?) and offers 0% loans. Meanwhile, Ford Motor Credit needs to borrow money on the open market at rates of 10% or so.

If you look at Edmund's analysis of the CARS program, Ford has 4 of the top 10 (including the higher margin F150 and escape SUV). The official government figures, however, are broken out so that high milage (and mostly foreign) cars look more popular.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[YayaY]

It's funny how companies talk about free-market and ask the government not to regulate their market when the economy is good. But then when the economy goes bad, they put their tails between theirs legs and they ask for government help.

This is no longer a free-market A government owned car compagny? It feels like communism.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up +1 LITERATE

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but you are the one shoveling horseshit. Union members don't design the cars. GM and Chrysler have been putting out shit vehicles that would still be shit at half the price. Nice pro-corporate cheer leading though.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[smaddox]

Welcome to the real world. No one likes the government, unless of course the government is giving them a free lunch.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that hourly workers on the assembly lines should have refused to build the crappy designs mandated and approved by GM top management? They should have taken one look at the first Pontiac Aztek off the line and walked out in disgust? They should have refused to build any more inefficent pushrod engines when every other car company had gone to multiple overhead cams?

GM started going to hell on the day when bean counters took over top management. Until sometime in the late 1960s GM was manufacturing company, after that time they became a profitable financial company that happened to manufacture cars as an sometimes unprofitable sideline. And their products clearly reflected this reality.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

This is no longer a free-market A government owned car compagny? It feels like communism.

Welcome to the real world. No one likes the government, unless of course the government is giving them a free lunch.

Hummmm, no longer a free-market?.. communism?.. free lunch?.. 1930s bread lines?.. Hey wait, no one likes waiting in communist bread lines... Also no one likes the Nazi's ether, OMG I see!!!

Hitler runs the free market! OMG I had no idea, We gotta continue to stop this free market thing before the Jews go back to the ovens...

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

Grammar police over here. Why do you get so worked up and offensive about their grammar? I know it's easy to act like a badass on the internet, but it doesn't make you cool. Just makes you look like an asshole with no life. Have a good day.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

Horseshit. The unions were much more complicit in the downfall of GM and Chrysler than the last few crops of CEO's at either company. Moreover, given the stock holdings that the union was given at GM, anything bad that happens to that company is now completely their fault. The fact that they sold most of it is absolutely no excuse.

Do you have any facts to backup your statements?

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[WindBourne]

You going to blame the JANITOR as well? In the end this was PURELY about BAD MANAGEMENT. It is THEIR JOB to made decisions. It is THEIR job to MAKE MONEY. The vast majority of car companies HAVE UNIONS (all of the europeans) and YET, they make money. In fact, the best one currently is VW. They are going like gangbusters. Why? BECAUSE OF GOOD MANAGEMENT.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so glad someone points out the annoying mixing up of "lose" and "loose".

So people know the difference, it is like dropping the soap in a prison shower. You LOSE your anal virginity and your sphincter become LOOSE like you wouldn't believe it. That beats what happens if you mix up the placement...

*neat, captcha is "wicked"...

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[zippthorne]

No, I think he's saying that the union's ratcheted up benefits and obligations upon the company, which forced those crappy designs down the line so that the margins would be high enough to pay for all those obligations. Unfortunately for GM, they depended on ever-increasing sales of ever crappier cars to maintain their obligations to the workers. Namely, the very important and conflicting obligations of workforce size and worker benefits: you can't increase worker pay/benefits without improving productivity (using automation as one of many tools) and laying off extra employees.

Well, you can, if you borrow against a future that cannot ever exist because you're simultaneously cutting corners left and right. And when sales couldn't keep up with the debt/obligations (unexpectedly, due to outside conditions), the gamble paid off: the government took on, co-signed, or relieved those costs.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[QuoteMstr]

If you look at Edmund's analysis of the CARS program, Ford has 4 of the top 10 (including the higher margin F150 and escape SUV). The official government figures, however, are broken out so that high milage (and mostly foreign) cars look more popular.

Thanks. I can't think of a way to describe the government statistics as anything but "misleading". It really doesn't matter, though, whether the Focus or the Escape is at the top of the list, except for PR purposes. What does matter is the aggregate fuel economy improvement, which is not in dispute, and the economic stimulus multiplier factor (which is also not in dispute). By the measurements that matter, the program has been a surprising success.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

Grammar police over here.

The proper term is 'Grammar Nazi'. And yes 'they' will come and take you to the camps...

On a side note, every Saturday is now 'Godwin Appreciate' day here on slashdot. The best reference to Hitler or the Nazi's wins you absolutely nothing just like posting anything to begin with...

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[QuoteMstr]

I know it's easy to act like a badass on the internet, but it doesn't make you cool.

Go ahead, mutilate the English language. But anyone who matters will completely disregard your statement if you can't be bothered to the basic rules of grammar. If your writing is unstructured, then your thoughts most likely are as well.

no life

You realize this is slashdot.org, right? "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"?

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[dunkelfalke]

What IP?

Fiat isn't a small backyard shack it was 50 years ago. Fiat owns Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Iveco, Maserati and even Ferrari.
I don't think Chrysler has got anything IP-wise Fiat doesn't have.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[legirons]

Please learn the differences among "their" and "there" and "they're" before you decide you're going to tell us a thing or two. It's your native fucking language so quit being so silly.

she wrote something informative but misspelled (while clearly understandable). You however are a waste of bandwidth. Journalists who can clearly trace and describe the theft of hundreds of billions of dollars are more important than reviewers who can spellcheck.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[tkrotchko]

Yes, in business, it's cruel to be kind in so many ways.

If they would have been left to normal bankruptcy, GM could have done the right thing, dropped it's union contracts, reshaped it dealers, etc.

Instead, the bankruptcy was railroaded through as quickly as possible to have the smallest impact on the unions. Ironically, this will be worse for the workers in the long run and worse for GM. Definitely worse for taxpayers as we're fleeced to shut down these companies rather than let nature take it's course.

What we're doing is the equivalent of feeding an injured deer in the winter. The deer still isn't going to survive and you wasted a lot of good food that could be used to feed more viable animals.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[MightyMartian]

Actually, what's been accomplished is worse than that. What US and Canadian taxpayers have done is essentially underwrite the inevitable move of manufacturing vehicles by Chrysler and GM to China and Mexico. I guarantee you, in ten years they won't be running any plants in the US. There will probably be more Japanese cars being made here than American cars.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

hope you enjoyed it - shes been dead the last 5 years

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh and your mother sucked my dick last night.

So, You admit being into necrophilia.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[sumdumass]

Actually, as it was pointed out with the differences between the foreign car makers and GM, the total cost of employing someone at the imports were roughly $38 an hour compared to $78 am hour at GM.

The only difference in management is how strong the Unions are. IF they are strong and demand more money, any of the import manufacturers can become the equivalent of GM tomorrow. This is because the laws protect the union to the companies Expense.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[CRiMSON]

And keep the 10's of thousands of people employeed in an already shitty economy. It's not so much about keeping GM alive, as keeping people in a job.

Look at the bigger picture before you sound off...

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Stevecrox]

Why do Fords US cars suck so much? A friend of mine owns the new Ford Fiesta which I think looks stunning and she tells me shes getting 50 MPG in a car thats quite happy to get to 70+ MPH. The Ford Mondeo is a very nice car which gets good mileage and the Ford Focus usually manages anything between 30-60 MPG depending on the engine. I'll admit I can't stand the look of the new Ka but again its a car design to commute inside towns. The 2 Litre Focus TDI (with all the mod cons) is probably the most fun car I've every driven, not as capable as a Audi A4/A3 or a Mercedes C class but alot of fun. While I chucked that car around corners and gunned it off traffic lights I still got 55MPG. It should be noted any Focus below 1.8 litre can't pull the skin off of a rice pudding.

Its the same with GM, Vauxhall/Opel have some very well engineered and fuel efficent cars sure the Corsa/Brianna are probably to small for America. But the Astra and Vectra are both cars big enough to fit 5 grown men, have high safety ratings and get good mileage.

I understand American cars all have to be 20ft long for some reason but why don't Ford/GM sell their european cars in the US. They get great mileage pretty much all have 5 star NCap ratings (very safe), you can usually get all the Mod cons from GPS to Air Con. There wasn't any need for GM to sell itself to Fiat for engine technology when Vauxhall/Opel already had good engine technology.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[WindBourne]

the total cost of employing someone at the imports were roughly $38 an hour compared to $78 am hour at GM.
Really? Please show those numbers BACKED UP by real accountants and real numbers (not something pulled out of the air on Faux News). Just a bit ago, It was argued by the federal gov. that GM and Chrysler unions had to lower their average pay from 36 to 34 which is the same pay as Toyota, Honda, etc had (IIRC, the average length of time by the employees was disregarded; GM and Chrysler had on average a much higher cumulative time).

As to the 78/hour figure, I believe that includes such things as retirement and medical health pay for retirees. OTH, other nations such as Germany and France have socialized medicine where a tax is placed on the good, but it does not count against the employee.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Registered Coward v2]

It's even worse. Ford (or more accurately, CEO Alan Mulally) saw the impending doom and got ahold of as much cash and lines of credit as they could and were able to avoid bankruptcy. Car companies (especially GM!) don't make money by selling cars so much as they do by financing car sales. GMAC was also the recipient of multiple rounds of government financing and has FDIC backing and access to below-market government financing. In order to increase GM sales, GMAC lowered their standards (sound familiar?) and offers 0% loans. Meanwhile, Ford Motor Credit needs to borrow money on the open market at rates of 10% or so.

Ford's failure to declare bankruptcy put it a disadvantage - GM reduced debt costs and other costs via the courts; giving it a decided financial advantage. It's sad but Ford would probably be better of doing the same in order to stay competitive. My guess is they are renegotiating as much as possible with the threat of bankruptcy in the background.

Those 0% interest car loans are really just GM et. al. buying down the loan interest rate with the rebates they offer- you can do the same thing on many loans if you want - pay more points up front and get a better rate. The rate is separate from the underwriting standards.

Buying sales with credit is a double edge sword for the car companies - banks and credit unions are happy to take teh best credit risks and leave them with the B and C risks - so do you write A level loans to B and C to keep sales up and risk having the loans go sour later? Sometimes, if you can take in enough to cover depreciation so when you repo the car you don't lose money it's a strategy worth looking at; but if you lose more on the repo than you make on the sale then it's a sure way to bankruptcy.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

You going to blame the JANITOR as well? In the end this was PURELY about BAD MANAGEMENT. It is THEIR JOB to made decisions. It is THEIR job to MAKE MONEY. The vast majority of car companies HAVE UNIONS (all of the europeans) and YET, they make money. In fact, the best one currently is VW. They are going like gangbusters. Why? BECAUSE OF GOOD MANAGEMENT.

Which brings forth some interesting questions: When a company is profitable, who should get bonuses? And when a company loses money, who should have their pay cut or be fired? Should people be paid according to their contribution to the profitability of a company? And if that's the case, and if management is the overwhelming factor in that profitability, then wouldn't huge executive salaries and bonuses be entirely reasonable for successful companies?

On the other hand, if a company's unionized workforce gets most of the credit for its profits, then shouldn't it get most of the blame for its losses? Granted, GM management did nothing to earn their inflated salaries either, but that just means that liquidating the company would have freed up a lot of workers for employment in more productive sectors.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[linzeal]

It is because of the 'Cadillac' health care plans at GM, it is like 30-40% of that number. If the US is going to compete with the rest of the world if absolutely needs fucking universal health care.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[fatray]

The money that the government used to save those "10's of thousands" of jobs didn't just magically appear. It was sucked out of the private-sector economy. Therefore, that money will not be spent on other goods and services, so other people lose their jobs. The jobs saved are easily identifiable and politically connected, while the compensating jobs lost are not. The vast majority of the jobs saved will probably be lost in a few years, so the net is a huge loss.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

A government owned car compagny? It feels like communism.

If this feels like communism to you, you have no idea what communism is.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[ParticleGirl]

Please learn the differences among "their" and "there" and "they're" before you decide you're going to tell us a thing or two. It's your native fucking language so quit being so silly.

Not that it matters much, but I am a stickler for good grammar but a poor editor-- I, at the last minute before submitting, changed "ARE there exceptions?" to "What ARE the exceptions?" (because surely there must be some) ...except I failed to remove the "re" from the end of "there." I noticed it after I'd submitted, but figured I wouldn't trouble the overworked moderators with a dupe as well as a typo... so my apologies for having ruined your day.

On a side note, I was very tempted to change all of my "there"s to "their's" and "your" to "you're" just to provoke some more vitriol. ...and how do you know it's my native language? I spend more time speaking Spanish these days...

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[sumdumass]

Really? Please show those numbers BACKED UP by real accountants and real numbers (not something pulled out of the air on Faux News).

I'm not sure what is wrong with your Google finger but this information is nothing new and has been a topic of discusion around the entire ordeal since well before the bailouts.

Perhaps the problem is that you are not watching Fox news because you shouldn't be that clueless over something that fucking well known. My guess is your probably not paying attention at all and only like bashing Fox news because you are an idiot who thinks it's fashionable when others do it. That's fine and all but your being pointed out.

Just a bit ago, It was argued by the federal gov. that GM and Chrysler unions had to lower their average pay from 36 to 34 which is the same pay as Toyota, Honda, etc had (IIRC, the average length of time by the employees was disregarded; GM and Chrysler had on average a much higher cumulative time).

Yep, I was right, you are not paying attention at all. Total costs of employmment is not average wages. You are arguing the shirt is green instead of red when your not even looking at the same shirt. By the way, how long ago is a bit? Is it a pinch ago, is it 01 ago, a teaspoon ago, Oh well, it's a mystery I guess.

As to the 78/hour figure, I believe that includes such things as retirement and medical health pay for retirees. OTH, other nations such as Germany and France have socialized medicine where a tax is placed on the good, but it does not count against the employee.

No, it didn't include already retired people. That's a separate fund and part of another accounting snafu. But it does cover wages, insurance, retirement contributions and so on for the current employees. So yes, while it is more then an average wage (which I never said differently), it is not counting people who no longer work with GM. And yes, Toyota or any other car company can be put in the exact same situation if their unions get the kind of control they had over GM.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[sumdumass]

Oh yea, one link didn't show up (should have previewed)

http://www.dailymarkets.com/stocks/2008/11/24/more-on-total-hourly-labor-costs-gm-vs-toyota/

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[jdcope]

Its not so much IP as an entry back into the US market. In this deal, Chrysler gets to build small cars based on Fiat platforms (500 and Panda), and Fiat gets Chrysler manufacturing plants in Mexico to build cars for North & South America, as well as Chrysler's dealer network (whats left of it).

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Shakrai]

What does matter is the aggregate fuel economy improvement

I'd be willing to wager that a fair amount of the carbon that is "saved" by higher gas mileage is offset by the fact that we are building cars to replace ones that weren't worn out yet. The CARS program requires that the traded in car be taken out of service and destroyed. Unless that car was already on it's last legs (which according to the dealers I've talked to is not the case with most of the traded in cars) then we've replaced it earlier than it would have been otherwise. Building new cars generates carbon. Probably a lot more than a mere 2mpg improvement (the lowest amount to qualify for CARS IIRC) saves.

and the economic stimulus multiplier factor (which is also not in dispute). By the measurements that matter, the program has been a surprising success.

The economic stimulus factor is the only argument that you can make for it. It's too bad that the rest of the "stimulus" money the Democrats allocated wasn't as timely and targeted as this. I'm sure those new roads and pork barrel projects that aren't going to be built for 12-18 months will really help with the current recession......

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Shakrai]

Ford's failure to declare bankruptcy put it a disadvantage - GM reduced debt costs and other costs via the courts; giving it a decided financial advantage.

GM also has 535 members of Congress and the White House auto task force dictating to it how it needs to run it's business. Have you seen all of the Congress-critters whining about how many dealerships they are planning to shutter? What happens when some jackass politician intervenes and threatens to cut off their access to the Government gravy train unless they keep more dealerships in his district open?

Ford gets to make it's decisions free of political considerations. In the long run that will more than offset whatever "advantage" GM is getting by taking government money and going through bankruptcy. Ford got to use the threat of bankruptcy to win virtually the same concessions from labor that GM did. That solves the biggest long term problem that they had. Reducing their debt load would be nice but probably not worth the cost of going through bankruptcy and losing control of the company.

A better example might be a comparison between GMAC and Ford Credit. GMAC is getting access to capital at below market rates. This may translate into the ability to offer cheaper financing than Ford Credit. Whether or not this is an issue for Ford itself remains to be seen. There are generally enough sources of cheap credit out there that people should still be able to finance purchases of Fords. It's probably better for Ford that they finance it through someone else if said financing winds up at a below market rate. Ford still gets to sell the car and they don't have to carry a 0% loan on the books for 36-48 months.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That's the broken windows fallacy. Government spending just cannot replace private sector spending, not even when they look equal on paper. Private sector spending is a feedback mechanism. Good decisions get rewarded, bad decisions punished. This means bad decisions get punished before they derail the economy to the point people die.

Government spending has no such feedback mechanism. There is no specific reason that is *has* to go wrong, but there is no reason for the government to do the right thing either. In theory government could do the same as the private sector, nothing forces the government into bad decisions.

But given the number of possible decisions, it seems unlikely to be able to choose good ones without feedback. And that's just what happens : government spending always goes wrong, for the very same reason entropy always increases. There is no good ("certain") reason shards never jump up from the floor to reform the glass you dropped of the table, and there is no good reason government spending cannot be right.

In practice however, government spending always goes awry. Not that you'll ever get democrats to accept that.

The real solution is to make certain that people have votes, and the real world has a veto. In congress the same situation as in the real world. The gold standard seems a good step in the right direction

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[WindBourne]

On the other hand, if a company's unionized workforce gets most of the credit for its profits, then shouldn't it get most of the blame for its losses?

Who in their right mind would say that the union gets credit for a companies PROFITS? If they had certain benefits and then gave them up to help the company, then yes, they deserve to take credit for HELPING the bottom line (and the union should also be wise enough to argue before giving them up to either have stock or that they get a part of the bonus). But otherwise, labor is labor. It is normally management that gets the bulk of the credit. AND to be fair, they almost always take it even if not deserved.

As to blame, so many in management want to blame EVERYBODY EXCEPT for themselves. Hell, look at the fact that bank management are getting all sorts of bonus even thought most were ran into the ground by the very same ppl. Insane. We should not have bailed out the banks, but if we were really that concerned about lending, we instead should have created new banks. Heck, the 1 trillion would be lent out already, instead of sitting on an account to make a banks bottom line look better or going to bonuses.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

You got that backwards, we have a government owned by car companies, and pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, etc.

Oh and it's called Fascism.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

There will probably be more Japanese cars being made here than American cars.

Only so long as we remain a viable market (meaning: we have disposable income to spend on cars) and a viable country for heavy industry to operate (and we're rapidly and foolishly dismantling what we have left of that.) Our government and our corporate elite are fast turning us in to a relative backwater. Now, how we're going to continue to create the wealth that gave so many people a standard of living that is the envy of many is open to question. All these fools that carry on about the new-age "service economy" don't seem to get it: there are two ways that a nation can become wealthy: sale of natural resources, or the production and sale of manufactured goods. If you have neither then, well ... welcome to the third world.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[TechyImmigrant]

Your friend's UK gallons are bigger than your US gallons.

50 MPG in the UK is 40 MPG in the US.
 

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Registered Coward v2]

Ford still gets to sell the car and they don't have to carry a 0% loan on the books for 36-48 months.

Except GM is giving a zero percent loan either - instead of say, $3000 in rebates you get a "no interest" loan. What you are doing of course is paying all the interest up front; buyers of course are suckered into believing they're getting a good deal because they're paying no interest.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[couchslug]

"There will probably be more Japanese cars being made here than American cars."

No loss to the US except pride.

Since our corporate revenues go to the kleptocracy either way, why not to a well-run Japanese corporation that produces quality products and employs US workers?

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the AC who wrote the "grammar nazi" post. I was referring only to the misuse of "they're" contained in this post by another AC. That is all. This can be known because I replied directly to that person and did not quote your text at all. I meant no offense to you though if you insist on being offended I will see that as your own poor decision-making. However, if you are really so oversensitive then perhaps you should think about developing a thicker skin if you want to write for public Web sites. Yes, you are oversensitive because you were clearly not the target of my criticism and you still felt a need to defend your grammar and diction.

Furthermore, the word "they're" nor any of its homophones appear in your summary. So again it appears that you are clutching at straws to find some way to feel like my post referred to you. Having failed to find such a way, you apparently decided to invent one. That, or you are claiming authorship of the AC post I referenced above. If you are, please do so unambiguously.

If you are indeed the author of that AC post, consider that I had no way to know that when I responded to it. So again, how can this be personally about you? Please excuse how I put this but some men and a very large number of women have this idea that they are always the center of attention. The remedy is to relax a bit and get over yourself. I am sorry for how that sounds but you have actively invited such a response. I pray that you have the maturity and self-honesty to recognize how you have directly given me a reason to say this because your alternative is to get upset about it.

Incidentally, just because I think there is little excuse for such sloppy use of the written word does not mean it ruins my day. That's a bit drama-queen of you to suggest that it would, or perhaps anger is the only reason why YOU would criticise and you are projecting your trait onto me. To be frank with you, I have always considered it childish to pretend that you know how another person feels or how they react to things merely because you dislike what they say. I suppose you would be surprised to know that I have nothing against you and have no reason to believe that you are anything other than an intelligent lady, if perhaps a reactive one.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Joce640k]

They could have given those 10,000 people a million bucks each and it would have been cheaper and stimulated the economy more.

PS: The money is coming from the taxpayer.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[WindBourne]

That was interesting. According to the NPR report, the average GM hourly cost was 31.35/hour while Toyota's was 27/hour (not surprising, GM's is older and more experienced). So, now we look at what the report shows as high; Health care costs. GM's is 1500 while Toyota's is 200 (both per car). So, is that REALLY, the health care costs of JUST THE UNION WORKERS?
Last year the automaker, known for its innovative approach to health care, spent $5.2 billion to cover 1.1 million retirees, employees and their families. Prescription drugs cost GM $1.9 billion, and the company projects overall medical spending will increase by $400 million this year. That could be offset by a provision in the Medicare drug benefit to pick up a portion of firms' retiree drug costs. But the figure that prompted Wagoner to raise his voice is $1,500. That is the amount of money added to the price of every single vehicle to cover health care, a cost that his foreign competitors do not bear.
The answer is NO. That is the TOTAL HEALTH CARE OF THE COMPANY (the executives, management, retires, and of course, the union workers), being divided up amongst JUST THE UNION WORKERS.

Now look. I realize that ppl like you LOVE to read and follow Faux news and almost certainly you just HATED thinking for yourself. It is hard for neo-cons to think intelligently (I love the part where you neo-cons bitch about the monster obama defict, but ignore the fact that 10 TRILLION DOLLARS of 12 TRILLION DEBT is owned by republicans). But the simply fact is, if you USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN FOR JUST 30 SECONDS, you will realize that 1500/car did not even make sense. The average time to put together a small car at GM was 17 hours (and 19.5 at toyota for same class of car; Toyota is not as efficient). So, you were thinking that a person who put together about 2 cars / week was really paying 3000 PER WEEK for health care or 12,000 PER MONTH? SERIOUSLY? YOU REALLY HONESTLY THOUGHT THAT? COULD YOU NOT DO SOME SIMPLE FUCKING MATH? You just accepted FAUX NEWS' and rush's garbage?

When you graduate high school, then come back and start posting again, dumass (see, I can act just like you) And try to learn some manners.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[MachDelta]

Ford is weird like that. They make some wonderful cars for the EU market, and then utterly fail to bring them to the US. This happened with the Ford Focus a few years back, where the Euro Focus was being hailed as an amazing car, while in the US they flat out refused to import the platform, citing the "expenses" of bringing over the car. Meanwhile Mazda took the exact same platform and produced the smash hit Mazda 3 & 5. Only recently was it announced that the 2010 US versions of the Focus would use their international platform as an "experiment" that might actually convince them to do what they should have done years ago.
Also, to add insult to injury Ford has never considered releasing the Focus RS in north america, the best they've ever done is the SVT which was soundly crushed virtually every other sporty compact on the market.

As far as Opel/Vauxhall cars go, you can buy some of them in North America but not too many. The Opel Astra is simply the Saturn Astra, which is a great little car. The Opel GT has been doing quite well as the Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice too, though personally after driving one I must say I was not impressed. The Vectra (now Insignia) isn't itself sold in NA but the platform itself is hugely popular, being shared with the Chevy Malibu, Pontiac G6, and Saab 9-3.

Oh and one last point, GM isn't selling itself to Fiat, Chrysler is.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[sumdumass]

That was interesting. According to the NPR report, the average GM hourly cost was 31.35/hour while Toyota's was 27/hour (not surprising, GM's is older and more experienced). So, now we look at what the report shows as high; Health care costs. GM's is 1500 while Toyota's is 200 (both per car). So, is that REALLY, the health care costs of JUST THE UNION WORKERS?

You should learn about the costs of employment verses the average salary. They are not the same and yes, there is a hell of a lot more costs to employment then healthcare. There are pension programs, employment taxes, FICA contributions, unemployment insurance and tons of other costs.

You ignorance of the subject is past amusing at this point. Like I said, maybe you should start watching Fox News instead of relying on your incorrect understandings reports on NPR. Fox News attempts to dumb it down for people just like you.

The answer is NO. That is the TOTAL HEALTH CARE OF THE COMPANY (the executives, management, retires, and of course, the union workers), being divided up amongst JUST THE UNION WORKERS.

See above and take some business classes. This is pretty elementary stuff we are talking about here.

Now look. I realize that ppl like you LOVE to read and follow Faux news and almost certainly you just HATED thinking for yourself. It is hard for neo-cons to think intelligently (I love the part where you neo-cons bitch about the monster obama defict, but ignore the fact that 10 TRILLION DOLLARS of 12 TRILLION DEBT is owned by republicans). But the simply fact is, if you USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN FOR JUST 30 SECONDS, you will realize that 1500/car did not even make sense. The average time to put together a small car at GM was 17 hours (and 19.5 at toyota for same class of car; Toyota is not as efficient). So, you were thinking that a person who put together about 2 cars / week was really paying 3000 PER WEEK for health care or 12,000 PER MONTH? SERIOUSLY? YOU REALLY HONESTLY THOUGHT THAT? COULD YOU NOT DO SOME SIMPLE FUCKING MATH? You just accepted FAUX NEWS' and rush's garbage?

Your just stepping in it deeper. IF you paid attention to the links I provided, you would have seen that both you were completely wrong as well as neither was from Fox News. BTW, you don't even have a valid reason to put Fox News down and if you cite what I think you are going to, you will be schooled on how wrong you are there too.

Now I'm going to ask you to use your fucking brain for at least once in your life. Learn about employment costs.

BTW, the 10 trillion of debt owned by republicans happened over 28 years with two wars in the last 7 years contributing to quite a bit of it. That's roughly 350 billon per year, Obama on the other hand has sank over a trillion in less then one year. Which do you think is worse, 2 trillion per year over 28 years or 250 billion a year over 28 years? Oh, and yes, here is your change to use that fucking brain of yours.

BTW, I'm not sure how you missed it, but I specifically told you that the extra costs were not just with health care in the last post. Why you are concentrating on it while ignoring every fucking thing else is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you can explain why you are ignoring most of the information in order to press a point that is so fucking easily refuted? You must be some special kind of retard or something.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

Who in their right mind would say that the union gets credit for a companies PROFITS? If they had certain benefits and then gave them up to help the company, then yes, they deserve to take credit for HELPING the bottom line (and the union should also be wise enough to argue before giving them up to either have stock or that they get a part of the bonus). But otherwise, labor is labor. It is normally management that gets the bulk of the credit. AND to be fair, they almost always take it even if not deserved.

While I make no claim about their soundness of mind, the United Auto Workers, the union representing workers at General Motors, states on their own website that UAW workers deserve a share of the profit -- from their 2007 wage negotiation with GM (at http://www.uaw.org/contracts/07/gm/gm02.php) they say

Profit Sharing
The profit-sharing formula will continue unchanged. Your bargaining team resisted management attempts to put a cap on profit-sharing payouts; UAW GM workers will share fully in any profits that their hard work and sacrifice make possible.

It certainly looks like they are claiming at least a portion of the credit, as well as a portion of the profits. I don't see them scrambling to take a portion of the loss in 2009, though.

Note this is not to excuse GM management, which should be looking for a new job rather than piloting a company they have already ran aground.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[floodo1]

I get so sick of hearing the idea the old false idea that consumer purchasing is a feedback mechanism. Mostly it is, but in countless situations people don't "vote with their dollars" (so to speak). There are all sorts of non-self-interested reasons to buy something, like my girlfriend likes it more, or that I simply can't afford what's in my best interest, or maybe I don't have time to buy what's in my interest (like eating fast food instead of cooking). The very people that invented the simple portrait of consumer dollars representing consumer interest are the very people that now realize the mistake that they made. Perhaps the most obvious influence here is the power of marketing.

The other fallacy is that governent spending / control HAS to be bad. I agree that in most situations it turns out that way (largely because of the fundamental disconnect between the interests of voters and the interests of those that represent them), but it's not inherent.

Both of these add up to the tired right wing line that the market is always greater than the government.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[mpeskett]

Furthermore, the word "they're" nor any of its homophones appear in your summary.

I think you meant to say "Furthermore, neither the word "they're" nor any of its homophones appear in your summary."

Zing!

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[cbraescu1]

And how exactly can they still be *Japanese" cars if being manufactured in the US? it's like saying the Apple laptops are American even though they are Made in China.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

Their, there, and they're. It's not that hard, man.
Hint: You should have used 'their'.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Shakrai]

You should learn about the costs of employment verses the average salary. They are not the same and yes, there is a hell of a lot more costs to employment then healthcare. There are pension programs, employment taxes, FICA contributions, unemployment insurance and tons of other costs.

Now I'm going to ask you to use your fucking brain for at least once in your life. Learn about employment costs.

When I worked in the insurance industry we used to have a spreadsheet template that we would take to benefit fairs/employee meetings. We would punch in the employees annual salary and family situation (single/married/kids) and it would spit out the actual amount of money that the employer was paying out. This would include the salary itself, the employer portion of FICA, health insurance, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, employer contributions to 401(k)s and 403(b)s, employer matching on annuities/other investments, etc, etc, etc.

Imagine the surprise on the employees face when he learned that for every $1 he is paid in salary he actually costs the company anywhere from $1.40 to $1.60 depending on his benefits package, number of dependents, etc. Once they saw that figure it was usually enough to end the grumbling about not being paid enough.

Health insurance was the largest single post-salary expense for the employer but it was almost always less than 50% of the total. The only time I saw it exceed 50% was for expensive groups (i.e: lots of employees with health issues) and even at that it only exceeded 50% for those with families. Given this I'm somewhat skeptical that moving the burden of paying for health care to the government instead of the employers is going to make that much of a difference for the competitiveness of American industry in the global economy. Particularly when one of the ideas the Democrats are floating for financing health care "reform" is yet another tax on employers.

I'm thinking that the grandparent needs someone to come into his office and patiently explain to him that health care costs and salary are not the only items that his employer is paying to keep him on the books. He might be in for a surprise.

He might also want to look at what the real long term problem with health care is -- rising costs -- and ask himself why the current bills that the Democrats are talking about don't do a damn thing to address that problem. I'm not a particularly big fan of the idea of the government taking over even a part of the health care system but you might convince me to get behind it if the package is also going to address health care inflation. If it doesn't address that then it's not worth doing. Putting millions of more people into an entitlement program that's going to face 8%-10% annual increases in cost is simply not sustainable over the long run.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[m0ng0l]

Because the profits, go back to a corporation that is headquartered in Japan. That's why a car that's made in Mexico, from parts made in China, and steel from Japan, can be called an "American" car, when it's got a Chrysler / GM / Ford badge on it.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[The Grim Reefer2]

The jobs saved are easily identifiable and politically connected, while the compensating jobs lost are not. The vast majority of the jobs saved will probably be lost in a few years, so the net is a huge loss.

It's OK, as long at the jobs are lost after the next election, that is the important thing. [/sarcasm]

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, the word "they're" nor any of its homophones appear in your summary.

I think you meant to say "Furthermore, neither the word "they're" nor any of its homophones appear in your summary."

Zing!

I did, and I openly admit you are right. Touche. Now if Ms. Particlegirl will come out of hiding and address the points I raised then that would mean all of us are being open and honest. Somehow I doubt that I will see her response and it won't be because she didn't read this.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

Those 10's of thousands of jobs forced into existence by deficit spending. GM would have died decades ago if it wasn't' for debt. It's a shitty company with shitty management making marginal products and extraordinary expense. The only difference now is they are borrowing money from the taxpayers rather than pension funds.

Capitalism died with communism. Most people just don't realize it yet because the American flag still flies over our capital.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[bi_boy]

The Ford Fiesta is coming stateside, probably in 2010 as a 2011 model, check: http://www.fiestamovement.com/

Ford is in the process of transitioning to using more European based models in the states, or rather shifting to a global-model rather than; sexy European Focus and ugly-stick-beaten North America Focus. This began last year, also in this plan was the use of more EcoBoost (smaller displacement, forced-induction) engines which is already beginning to appear in Fords line-up.
http://www.motorauthority.com/ford-lineup-to-be-completely-upgraded-by-2010-six-european-models-confirmed-for-us.html

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

Because those aren't the cars that Americans want.

I like my 2.0L Zetec Focus; great car. It's a 2001, still going strong. I drive it pretty hard (on my 7th set of tires) and no major failures yet. Stick shift - had to special order it just because of that. Got it 2 years after they introduced it to the US market. There's little things I like better about it too, like the short-throw rocker switches for the power windows rather than the fat finger buttons you have to press in half an inch on the US models.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[ahabswhale]

Wow, your post is so fucking wrong it's amazing. You're one of these guys who thinks that capitalism has some kind of magic fucking pixie dust that makes everything wonderful. Guess what, it doesn't. The system is gamed in every fucking way imaginable to make sure the playing fields are anything but level and that the so called "invisble hand" does nothing but stroke very specific benefactors.

As for your "Good decisions get rewarded, bad decisions punished" crapola, are you fucking kidding me? The fucking dickwads on Wall Street are already circle jerking the shit out of themselves with bonuses while millions more lose their jobs, retirement, and houses. So please spare me the broken windows fallacy bullshit. Power corrupts and warps anything it touches including your god, Capitalism.

FYI...I'm actually a capitalist but I'm realistic about what it is and isn't. Adam Smith was definitely on to the right idea but he didn't get it quite right. Friedman took Smith's ideas and made them far far worse.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Ifni]

Very good points. I'm not too keen on government taking over healthcare, but my one consolation is that it has to get worse before it gets better. The private industry has failed, and though much of that failure is due to unmitigated greed, much of it is also due to problematic regulation and entrenched practice.

The system is broken from top to bottom. There are a limited number of slots available for new medical students even though there is a shortage of doctors, and many good candidates get turned away (conversely, many bad candidates are accepted in years when there are more spots than good candidates). Once accepted, school is exorbitantly expensive, incurring massive debt to the students (this is a serious problem with the educational system, which is a whole other argument). Once students begin practicing (first as interns, then as residents) they work ridiculous hours, forcing sub-optimal performance in life or death situations, which leads to excessive mistakes. Mix with a sue happy populace and medical insurance costs force prices for healthcare to skyrocket. Now, very few people can afford proper medical care without insurance, and the insurance companies cheat the doctors and the patients as well as the businesses that pay a significant portion of the insurance costs. From what I have seen, it costs more per person to be covered under a business healthcare plan than it costs to buy an individual plan, but because the employer shares the burden, it costs the EMPLOYEE less, while the insurance company enjoys a larger margin.

So, much of the change needs to start with the educational system and the AMA, which no private industry can seriously expect to force. Then, changes I can't even begin to fathom need to take place in the legal system in regards to malpractice and also in terms of acceptable hours for medical professionals.

But, I digress, this is a discussion about the botched bailout of the auto industry where our elected leaders ignored the screaming of their constituents (except in Detroit) and spent over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to line the pockets of the fat cats that paid for their elections. I don't know about you, but I am voting every single one of those fuckers out next election. Any one of them who didn't vote "no" gets a "no" vote from me to make up for their missing one - abstaining is equivalent to a "yes" vote as far as I'm concerned. And the same goes for the bank bailouts. There is no such thing as "too big to fail" - governments do it all the time, and life goes on. If a government can fail without it being the end of the world, a business certainly can.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Ifni]

Bah, I forgot to write a conclusion to the statements made in my introductory paragraph. I expect that the plan for government run healthcare will fail. We've seen examples of it all over the world where nations that have had socialized medicine are realizing the mistake they made. Why our government thinks it is smarter than them when it failed to even see the economic meltdown coming, I can only imagine (I knew before the height of the housing market that it was going to burst, and I am not a professional - of course, I suspect they did too and are merely playing CYA). It will fail, and it will fail big. But out of its ashes I hope that something better than our current system will rise. It will take 10 - 15 years, I suspect, but eventually it will improve in a way that business as usual would not likely produce. So, I'm taking the long view - it's the only hope left to me.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

Me again, the "grammar nazi". I read this discussion again and this time I noticed what caused your defensiveness. It's still excessive defensiveness though, because I had to dig for this. There are two separate entries: the firehost submission and the actual accepted story summary. The accepted story summary does not contain the word "there" and does not contain any of its homophones.

The firehose submission has one minor error. The word "there" was used where the word "the" should have been used. That's not an inability to distinguish "there", "their", and "they're". It's just a typo. That takes it outside of the realm of carelessness and well into the realm of "humans are not perfect". I also had to actually go looking for this -- it was not in the comment to which I made my original reply nor was it in the summary for that discussion. This means you were still excessively defensive and your decision to react this way is still without an adequate explanation. None of this has to do with whether you primarily speak Spanish but instead has to do with whether you were being irrationally reactive.

Anyway I hope I made my point. You're alright by me and I still think so. Just don't try to get on your high horse with me and the feeling might just be mutual. I'll try not to get on my high horse with you and call it even.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[polar red]

to a corporation that is headquartered in Japan.

which doesn't mean a thing ... who owns the stock ? right : people with loads of cash who don't give a fuck for nationalism. nationalism is the new religion : it KEEPS YOU STUPID !

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. I'm pretty sure it was Chrysler that was sold to Fiat and not GM. And speaking of Vauxhall/Opel, those were owned by GM. And from what I remember hearing it sold off some of its european assets, despite having a lot of the more recent development done under them. (A lot of that direct injection and high boost turbo stuff wasn't being done on the American side, but brought over once the bugs were ironed out. Just look at the cars from 10 years ago.) Oh wait, Fiat made out like a bandit by both getting access to the U.S. market through Chrysler and getting the nice engine tech on the cheap through GM's European sellout... I guess that's what's going on.

One of the main problems with the U.S. auto companies is that once they get to the point of getting something right, some ass-clown executive decides it's now the time to kill the line. Then they replace it with something that doesn't at all fit the same niche or has a whole other slew of new problems. Apparently they don't understand that you can actually develop some degree of customer loyalty if there was some bother to iron all the bugs out. (Believe it or not, there's some folks that like the cars - and would get another if just a few rough edges were taken care of.) It seems like every U.S. car that was just getting to the point of being popular gets the axe the next year. Apparently that kind of thinking may be what killed the entire Pontiac division. They finally got rid of a lot of the B.S. models that didn't fit the brand (wtf were they doing with minivans and SUVs anyways?), then they started building some cars that actually looked fun and exciting (like that G-8 or Solstice), and now the whole division is gone. (I guess it makes for an unusual niche of contemporary collectables though.)

Toyota and Honda build some cars that could be considered boring as hell to look at, but at least they can be credited on consistency and keeping what's good around long enough to build a reputation on. I don't like saying it much, but my next car is likely to be one of those. (And likely with more production done in the States than by the companies bailed out on my tax dollar.)

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[sogoodsofarsowhat]

Crimson it is you who should look at the bigger picture before you show your lack of knowledge. Did you build your own business? Do you employ people? Do you pay their wages/salaries? No? Then STFU. I own 3 manufacturing companies and 1 distribution company. Built with my hard work and my own money not family money, not government money, money....i saved working lower jobs and suffered to get them off the ground....i take no handout from the government or their development councils. I have 2 plants in the USA that have not laid off a single worker. NOT ONE!.....sure im not as big as GM or Chrysler or AIG or any of these companies...but i am still in business, still profitable, and still standing with NO DEBT. Tax me...penalize me for my efforts...i will not carry you any farther...and when you are living a 3rd world existence....i will laugh at you and the UAW and the Dems...for this is your making.....America became the most powerful and successful nation in the world with the shortest history because of the free market and capitalism...you and yours are crapping all over that....and when all that is left is crap...you enjoy eating it. But dont preach to me....i make jobs, i employ people and i do it all without your silly incentives / help from the government. I do it the only way it can be done, by my own sheer determination, by the sweat and toil of my mind and body. But i will not support your idiocy. I currently pay about 40% in personal Taxes and over 55% in corporate taxes....and this is not good enough....we are getting very close to the point where i say SCREW this...im outta here....and when i reach that point....you will be poorer and worse off than when i was still here......it would do you good to read and understand Atlas Shrugged...But you wont....oh you might read it...but you dont understand it.....i read it late in life i was 33 when i first read it...i had already built my first 2 manufacturing companies. It put into words so much of what i had come to know as truth..... Mark me troll, mark me bad karma....it does not matter....what i am and what i do and what i bring to the table you will never have nor will you ever understand why your silly little scheme doesnt work. Fool. You would take from others to help those who will not help themselves. Sort of like trading freedom for security....you will get neither and deserve neither.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[sogoodsofarsowhat]

Actually Smaddox...i own several companies...all profitable and without debt. I want NOTHING from the government except to leave me be. They screw up everything they touch.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

How, exactly, is dropping union contracts (screwing workers) the right thing? Enough of the anti-union crap that permeates this place. This is about piss-poor leadership, insane foreign trade policies that lower American import taxes to practically zero while not making our alleged "partners" do one damned thing, and a government/corporate structure that actively works against the interests of the American people. It is scarcely limited to the auto industry, and is going to destroy all of us one by one if we let it.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Zoxed]

> No one likes the government...

Well I like many aspects of government: it regulates the rapacious effects of "free-market capitalism", provides democracy, oversight, welfare, justice systems, security, protects the vulnerable etc...

Yes it has faults and makes mistakes, but I can not see how society can manage without them ?

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[SonnyDog09]

Ford has tried to sell its eurocars in the US, and folks would not buy them. They sold the Mondeo (and the Mistake...er Mystique, the Mercury badged version) for a while, but there were not that many buyers for a model between the Escort and the Taurus. I don't think they every sold the Ka over here, but I do remember seeing a few on the roads around Dearborn (Ford's HQ) and they looked to be positively suicidal sharing the roads with Excursions and Expeditions. Just because the Euros will buy something does not mean that Americans will. One size does not fit all.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Zoxed]

> Car companies (especially GM!) don't make money by selling cars so much as they do by financing car sales.

I think this is not just the car industry (incidentally I understand they also make a lot of money from spare parts and tied-in servicing). Many other products are sold near cost to tie in people, eg games consoles (to sell the games), vacuum cleaners (bags), printers (ink) etc.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Wow, your post is so fucking wrong it's amazing. You're one of these guys who thinks that capitalism has some kind of magic fucking pixie dust that makes everything wonderful. Guess what, it doesn't. The system is gamed in every fucking way imaginable to make sure the playing fields are anything but level and that the so called "invisble hand" does nothing but stroke very specific benefactors.

And guess who gamed the wall street system. What gets blamed for the mess according to everyone. Oh wait ... "regulations". The government in other words. Of course the fix for "wrong", "too much", "ill-conceived", ... regulations is ... more regulations. You know, because this set of congresscritters is so much less self-involved and so much more flexible and smart than the last batch.

What do I hear ? Nancy Pelosi not exactly Maria Theresa ? Not exactly Einstein either ? Well ... what could possibly go wrong ?

Obviously those more regulations are done in the same way as last time : without knowing their effects beforehand ... by people who refuse to change tactics when proven wrong ...

Any 2-year-old can tell you what the new regulations will do : new loopholes. New loopholes will lead to new bubbles, which are actually positive feedback mechanisms (like writing out more bad loans has been designed to be such a loophole : you get to write money in the books twice, and if you lose it the government pays it back to you. Every kid can figure out how to create money that way : just loan to every I-need-a-new-520-inch-tv unemployed non-english-speaker in New York. Of course what that will do to the economy in a few years ... is very clear indeed). New bubbles will lead to ... more regulations.

This principle of constant government interference is somehow more stable than not gaming the system.

As for your "Good decisions get rewarded, bad decisions punished" crapola, are you fucking kidding me? The fucking dickwads on Wall Street are already circle jerking the shit out of themselves with bonuses while millions more lose their jobs, retirement, and houses. So please spare me the broken windows fallacy bullshit. Power corrupts and warps anything it touches including your god, Capitalism.

I have a God, thank you very much, and it's not capitalism. I do not seek to replace him either.

Again the only reason those "wall street dickwads" can pay for those bonuses in the first place is government interference. Without such they'd have been out of a job.

So I fail to see why capitalism, which would have blocked these bonuses if allowed to run it's course, instead of the government (a little bit Bush, a lot Obama), who really paid for it, out of our pocket.

FYI...I'm actually a capitalist but I'm realistic about what it is and isn't. Adam Smith was definitely on to the right idea but he didn't get it quite right. Friedman took Smith's ideas and made them far far worse.

You know who took (I agree ... mostly) right ideas and screwed them up beyond recognition ? Keynes.

He invented merely a whole new form of socialism that deceived just about everyone, and made good-sounding capitalist arguments in favor of it. They look good, they sound good, and they're flat out wrong.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Bakkster]

How, exactly, is dropping union contracts (screwing workers) the right thing?

It's not dropping union contracts that's needed, it's getting rid of the UAW. They're just as corrupt as the leaders of the big three. There's a reason an entry-level GM worker gets paid 50%-2x more than the equivalent Toyota worker, and you don't see them complaining. If the big three are going to continue to have this extra financial burden on EVERY SINGLE laborer, then the foreign automakers will continue to pay a meager wage to their workers and take over the industry. Go union?

I have several friends who are engineers in the auto industry for a parts supplier. At their plant, two UAW workers were fired for clocking each other in (working 20 hours, getting paid for 40). Six months later, and UAW had gotten them their jobs back, AND their six months of lost pay.

UAW wasn't the only problem GM and Chrysler had, but it's certainly one of them.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

GM/Opel licenced most of the diesel technology from FIAT Group.
The new KA is a FIAT/Ford shared design, and the Corsa is a shared platform with the FIAT Grande Punto.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[tomtomtom]

While it is (I think) in general true that the US carmakers' European models are often superior to their US models, I'd bear in mind that mpg figures for US cars always look smaller than for UK cars purely because the units are different. (US gallons are smaller than Imperial gallons).

A UK car doing 50mpg is equivalent to a US car doing around 42mpg... and that's before you account for differing measurement standards as well, if you're looking at advertised rates rather than measured or car-reported performance.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[trout007]

They shouldn't have been just left to die. Just let them declare bankruptcy like any normal company. There are valuable parts and big liabilities. That is what bankruptcy laws are for. Making sure those with secured credit get paid if there is anything valuable left. I think the reason for this deal is as follows. By going completely outside of the law the government has made corporate bonds worth much less because you are no longer guaranteed to be first in line in a bankruptcy. In fact you are going to be called greedy and demonized by the press. Why? Because government bonds are losing their value because everyone thinks we are going to liquidate the debt. (Print money and pay off the bonds with dollars worth less). So to make government bond markets more attractive is helps to undermine corporate bonds. Finally this doesn't save jobs. First there is the point that the rise in inflation and taxes to pay for it costs jobs. But if there is a market for cars than if GM went bankrupt and couldn't produce as many cars then other car manufacturers who have run their company better would see an increase in demand for their cars. That would require them to boost production and employment to meet the demand for these cars. Who are they going to hire? Most likely people with car manufacturing experience like those laid off from GM.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

The other fallacy is that governent spending / control HAS to be bad. I agree that in most situations it turns out that way (largely because of the fundamental disconnect between the interests of voters and the interests of those that represent them), but it's not inherent.

So wait ... there is a fundamental disconnect between the motivations of the voters and the motivations of the elected.

And yet they will not act against eachother's intrest ??????

Care to explain a bit further. Why would 2 groups with fundamentally different motivations always act in eachother's intrest. Because you don't have to prove "sometimes", even wolf and sheep sometimes act in one another's best intrest.

But there is a more fundamental problem. Suppose we are a perfect democracy. Perfect. Every elected is 100% selfless, 0% corrupt and honestly devotes his entire life to the betterment of the electorate. Then there is still one thing that has a rather decisive vote involved : reality. People aren't realistic.

You claim "I simply can't afford what's in my best intrest". That may be true, but that means it would not be in the best intrest of society to give that specific (obviously scarce) thing to you. You see reality is limited , in everything. Literally, in e-ver-y-th-ing. What prices and money do is modifying your behavior in such a way the whole of society stays within the limits of reality. There is no such limit on the wishes of the electorate, or on the wishes of the elected officials.

Worse : even if that electorate or those elected officials wanted to stay within the limits of society, it would be extremely hard for them to do so (just ask Lenin, who made a very honest attempt at doing so, with scores of very smart people attempting to do what prices do).

The real problem is, of course, when those wishes exceed what reality has to offer. Then the government serves you pine needle tea (very nutricious, cures cancer you know, or so socialists claim), yet somehow scores of people keep dying from malnutrition.

What you don't understand is that for all it's flaws, there is no alternative to capitalism. Stores run empty in Venezuela, a mere 2 years after socialism was given a try. That's government spending at work. And North Korea, well ... we all know about North Korea. There is still capitalism in Venezuela and North Korea, it's just applied to the country as a whole instead of to individuals, who have *zero* options of bettering their situation.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

The money that the government used to save those "10's of thousands" of jobs didn't just magically appear.

Actually, yeah, it did. Think it through: if nobody is working, nobody is paying into federal or state or property or sales or estate or etc., etc,. taxes, either. Where, then, does all this "money" the government is spending come from? And even if "less people are working" then logically, less people are able to pay taxes all around and the government should have less money to spend, not more. What? Did they take out a couple of loans from the Swiss on the Lincoln Memorial or the Washington Monument? Surely taxes on "big business" isn't running things: the last 25 years of Regans and Bushes have seen to that. Where does this magical money for government spending come from, then? A: Nowhere. They Just Make It When They Want It. And if that's true then it has NO VALUE because it isn't BASED ON ANY STANDARD OTHER THAN PRINTING PRETTY DESIGNS ON WEIRD PAPER. And on... And on...

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[TheLink]

> Because the profits, go back to a corporation that is headquartered in Japan.

So what? I thought the USA was having problems getting tax money from US corporations - so many of the big ones use tax havens. Even if the official HQ is in the USA, they can move the money in so many ways that they end up paying very little to anyone.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[toddestan]

Quite simply, the union workers are going to get screwed no matter what, whether it's now or later. The billions of taxpayer dollars pumped into GM and Chrysler were not a solution - it changed nothing and is only delaying the inevitable. It sounds cruel, but I would prefer we cut our losses now and move on.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[TheLink]

While the unions were a problem, I believe the big problem was stuff like GM having to pay for retirees healthcare and pensions.

GM made promises it couldn't keep. It's basically a Ponzi scheme that blew up (only works as long as the company keeps growing).

While shifting that sort of thing to the Government isn't such a bad idea ( the present US system is below par for a developed nation- very expensive and mainly benefits the very rich), if you're not careful, it'll just be the politicians making unkeepable promises for yet another Ponzi scheme that just blows up later.

BTW if governments stopped being so stupid about making life hell for smokers, they'll find that smokers pay for themselves and more. In the UK while smokers cost the NHS 5 billion pounds a year, the tobacco tax revenue is 10 billion. My guess is if you tax stuff right the obese people will also pay for themselves and more too :).

In short, if you do it right it won't be a ponzi scheme - it'll actually be sustainable. While it's unfortunate that it involves the smokers and the obese dying for their country, someone has to make the sacrifices (and hey I'm not obese or a smoker ;) ). I figure it's fine as long as they do it of their own informed free will. Discourage people (especially minors) from smoking, but hey if adults want to smoke in "smoking allowed" pubs/establishments (that should be taxed more ;) ), let them fucking smoke.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[toddestan]

Once you take into the account the energy and environmental costs of building the new replacement vehicles and scrapping the old vehicles, I seriously doubt that this program did anything to help the environment. Actually, with all the improved green vehicles in the works, like the Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf, better hybrids, etc., it would have been better to have waited a couple of years to replace that still running old Ford Explorer, rather than replacing it now with a mid 20's MPG car like a Focus.

As for the economy, the CARS program is a disaster. It really surprises me that everyone seems to forget that everyone is paying for this with our taxpayer dollars. It's really nothing more than a transfer of money from other sectors to the automotive sector, which has had enough bailouts as far as I'm concerned. And in the meantime, we're destroying real wealth in the form of the perfectly good vehicles we are scrapping. It may look good now as it has caused a short-term flurry of economic activity, but it's not sustainable, doesn't solve any of the fundamental problems in the automotive sector, and we have yet to pay for it.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[sumdumass]

I'm always amazed at how little people know of what it actually costs to be employed. Especially after being told that there is more to it them wage plus health care benefits. Now my post is modded redundant- probably for telling the guy this twice (or it's some freaks with mod points).

Anyways, yes something needs to be done with the costs of health care. Just like you, I don't see anything in the bills being promoted to address that outside of denying care to some people.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

The mods aren't understanding the difference in the MPG and terms given:

(a) European "gallon" is larger than the US by definition. It's something like 20% larger if not more; I ran the numbers before but I recall it's quite a difference. This is also why US gallons are so "cheap" and partly why the MPG numbers are so high.

(b) This MPG and performance difference is exacerbated by the fact you seem to be talking diesel engines, which while popular in Europe, are not the case whatsoever in the US, even in our truck market. A diesel engine is immediately going to get higher MPG (of same defined volume) than gas/petrol given the nature of what you're burning. Modern diesel engines are usually not available in the US market. This has nothing to do with Ford and GM; even BMW, Audi and Mercedes have very limited sales of diesel engines in the US despite their availability, i.e. BluTec and the Audi's TDIs.

(c) I'm not sure where you get off comparing a Ford to an Audi or Mercedes. They are not in the same class. The only reason the Ford maybe seems "fun" to you is because it's a lighter car and you generally lack standards in evaluating vehicles (and that Mercedes are no longer as good in recent years as they were esp. their lower end vehicles such as the GLK and C class). Most of the Audi and Mercedes vehicles have larger engines for the equivalent US size but much higher weight. Your "chucking" around corners is just flat out inexperience. Is the Audi or Mercedes price difference justifiable in the difference in car? Probably not, but performance wise, I have modern American gas engine cars as well as German brand vehicles (I realize many are built elsewhere), and the Mercedes and Audi flat out kill the US vehicles in engine performance and ride quality, while getting similar MPG if comparing similar weight and vehicle classes.

(d) "I understand American cars all have to be 20ft long for some reason" Again, shows your complete lack of understanding of this market. That may have been the case a few years ago but no longer. I would say the average vehicle size in the US being purchased is a small crossover SUV size or smaller, like the Audi Q5, Nissan Murano. Several years ago, the Explorer was still the it size. People aren't/weren't buying Audi Q7s, Expeditions, Suburbans, Escalades as much, etc. due to fuel prices then the economy, and the bother of driving and maintaining a larger vehicle.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[ravenshrike]

? When did I blame the workers. Blaming the workers and blaming the unions are two entirely different actions. Now, the workers are somewhat complicit, but the autoworkers union has long since ceased to be a democratic organization. It's chicago politics writ to business. The people who actually want to work are certainly not going to be introduced to any levers of power, and because unions are allowed by law in certain states to force membership, that will never change.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[ahabswhale]

OMG dude, you're so brainwashed.

Let me guess, you think Friedman is a genius, right?

FYI...the disaster we are in right now was only possible because of two things that reduced regulations and gave greater freedom to Wall Street: the de-fanging of Glass-Steigal and allowing the existence of CDSs. Most regulations are put in place to prevent assholes from fucking everything up. Government systems are generally put in place with minimal regulation and as people figure out how to fuck people out of money, the government adds more regulation. So what happened is that we had a very very long spread of financial stability curtesy of Keynsian economics that gave the folks in government a false sense of security combined with the rampant Friedmanism to just let the markets work themselves out which led to this deregulation. And guess what? Within 10 years time we're in the worst economic downturn since the depression.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[CodeBuster]

If you want to blame somebody for this then blame the golden boy of the left, our hopeful President Barak Obama; who in his own words, "feels beholden to the trade unions". Those trade union jobs, or at least as many as possibly could be, were going to be protected no matter what the overall cost was to the American taxpayer. The real losers here, as usual, are the American taxpayers who are once again getting the shaft in the form of lower wages, hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and higher taxes all so that a few thousand union jobs can be "saved". It would have been cheaper and fairer to simply give the union members their pensions and a severance package along with their pink slips. Why should the American taxpayer be compelled to pay such a terribly high price, with hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in the general economy, so that a few thousand or even ten thousand union jobs can be saved? I wouldn't invest a single red cent of my own money in GM (new or old) or Chrysler so why the hell should the government take my tax money and invest in those loser companies while telling me that it is a "good investment"? Yeah right, because everyone besides me knows that bearshit really is better than buckwheat? Not bloody likely.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[CodeBuster]

And keep the 10's of thousands of people employeed in an already shitty economy. It's not so much about keeping GM alive, as keeping people in a job.

But at what price? Everytime we use the power of government in the form of laws and subsidies to "save" one job we end up losing dozens of others. Why should an union worker getting $30 per hour to put steering wheels on crappy cars be able to use the coercive power of the state to say that his job is worth more than ten or twelve of ours? Do you want the government making those kinds of calls? Remember that the government redistributes through coercion and force; is that really how you would like to see things worked out in our society, through coercion, corruption and force? We are looking at the bigger picture and that is precisely why so many of us are against "saving jobs" in this way. How much should we ask you and the rest of us to sacrifice so that a union job can be "saved"? At what point do you abandon the "ends justify the means" argument with regard to wasteful government spending? after a billion dollars has been spent? Perhaps one-hundred billion or even a trillion?

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Can we please stop with the alien brainwashing accusations ?

OTOH, remarks like that fully and clearly illustrate the ideas your point is based on.

It's been shown what Keynesian economics (also known as socialism) does : it prevents recovery from crises (which happen even under 100% communist systems).

Not that anyone with half a brain can seriously expect actual research to generate rational thought in you, but I'm fairly sure we'll see more brainwashing accusations. Perhaps you could call me Bush, or ...

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[ahabswhale]

Please share with me where Keynes has ever stated he's a socialist. Also share with me any tangible evidence of the sort other than the fact that he believed the government did need to regulate the markets. Keynes was what I would call a moderate capitalist. He didn't believe that everything just magically fixed itself.

Frankly, I think you need to study economics more. Pure capitalists are just as idealistic and retarded as their communist counterparts. They are ideas that don't live in reality. In the end, it's far more complicated than either camp can put a simple equation on and if you see it otherwise than you simply live in a fantasy world. Perhaps you should read this and learn something:

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[ahabswhale]

Link got deleted, here it is: http://socyberty.com/economics/was-john-maynard-keynes-a-socialist/

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

I've read a few other articles on your site and I basically conclude it's another "justice before actual data" science. Their version of justice, of course.

Let's take the top article on the front page (http://socyberty.com/issues/affirmative-action-policy-vs-anti-affirmative-action/), it describes the lofty affirmative action policies. Obviously it falls in the trap that the whole left has fallen into : it claims anti-white racism is affirmative action. Such a position will obviously push racism, both by allowing many people to be racist supported by law and by breeding resentment in the group being discriminated against.

It heaps all sorts of praises on those policies, and yet it somehow misses the little detail that pro-centrally-controlled-society sites always miss : We've had these policies for a while, what effect have they had ? What are the numbers ?

Regardless even of whether the effect of affirmative action was positive or negative (which is another discussion), the results of the past implementations should be the first thing to guide future implementations.

Obviously, performance in the real world is not even mentioned in the article.

Why are so anti-real-world-data ? In my not so humble opinion for a simple reason : they don't care. They are merely interested in pushing "fair" rules on society (according to their standard obviously, and if I may say so not very well reasoned), and what effect these rules have ? They don't know, they're not interested, they don't even want to know, please nobody tell us. The only thing that matters to them is whether their rules are pushed on society. They may not explicitly say using force, but given the rules they intend to push it's clear massive violence will be required to kill the non-believers, and if their rules are even slightly unbalanced, much more violence to kill the ones who see the evidence of failure before them. They are massively anti-freedom. They are literally against freedom of thought.

Such a site cannot function as an authorative source, for obvious reasons : it has a thinly veiled ideological agenda, and a relatively extreme one at that.

And Keynes was for direct government control of markets. Direct interference through every available means, in all markets. Without limitation, without consideration of the expected effects. That does not make him a "moderate" capitalist, it makes him a moderate communist, also known as a fascist (can we please avoid references to that particular fascist, please ? Yes socialists used to be in favor of eugenics and he drove that a bit far (not that Stalin didn't drive it further, but hey, even Che didn't believe Stalin was a "rightwing hawk", and we've got to tell people all evil is from the right, right ? Even if it means massively "bending the truth" about fascism : that it's merely moderate socialism), anyway the socialist eugenics theory has little bearing on today's situation since now socialists believe (wrongly) the total opposite) Back to Keynes. He advocated direct government control of markets, but without totally destroying the market forces ("totally" being a necessary qualifier). And he does indeed show all other marks of fascism : he is in favor of a welfare state. He is in favor of huge public firms supported by tax funds. And yes, before the consequences of his politics became clear, he was indeed in favor of Nazi Germany.

He is a moderate communist (they like to be called socialists, and to be frank, they are correct for any reasonable definition of socialist). He is a fascist.

And this is a much more reliable paper analysing the political position of John Maynard Keynes. Written by 2 actual economists. John Maynard Keynes, Socialism And Economic Policy Of Nazi Germany.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[ahabswhale]

lol, I was waiting for Godwin's Law to come into play and on that note...you're a complete crackpot. We have nothing further to talk about.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[jcr]

How, exactly, is dropping union contracts (screwing workers) the right thing?

The contracts weren't economically feasible, and that's one of the things you do in a bankruptcy: you either liquidate the business (chapter 7 or 13), or you restructure it (chapter 11) to make it a viable operation going forward.

The worst part of the bailouts and the bankruptcy is the terrible precedent it sets: the president decided to override the existing body of law that we have to deal with failed businesses. The upshot is that you'd have to be fucking nuts to invest in or loan money to any company with a union, because of the danger of the union getting the government to change the rules on the fly.

-jcr

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[jcr]

Only so long as we remain a viable market (meaning: we have disposable income to spend on cars) and a viable country for heavy industry to operate (and we're rapidly and foolishly dismantling what we have left of that.

I agree that our tax and regulatory regime makes it far more sensible to build cars outside the USA, but there are some states where it's still worth it to run a factory. Michigan is not one of them, of course.

-jcr

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[jcr]

Both of these add up to the tired right wing line that the market is always greater than the government.

I would state that somewhat differently: I would prefer to buy what I choose, than to have my earnings taken from me to buy what you choose. Whether my decisions meet your approval or not, they're mine to make if I'm a free man.

Scratch a liberal, find an autocrat.

-jcr

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[jcr]

Look at the bigger picture before you sound off...

The bigger picture is that by keeping these zombies alive, the government makes us all poorer by allowing failed organizations to continue to squander resources. If the people wanted GM to keep doing what they were doing, we'd have been buying their products. The market is a profit and loss system. Losses in business serve a vital function, just like pain does to a living being. It says "quit doing that".

-jcr

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[jcr]

A few years from now, they'll be back exactly where they were a few months ago and we'll be a few hundred billion dollars poorer.

That's only the direct expenses. Besides the hundreds of billions that go down the GM rathole, we lose out on everything that could have been done with that money by competent people and organizations.

-jcr

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[jcr]

The fucking dickwads on Wall Street are already circle jerking the shit out of themselves with bonuses

As it happens, the market was canceling those bonuses, and eliminating the incompetent organizations you're bitching about, until some geniuses in the legislature decided (over the objections of a majority of their constituents) to hand them hundreds of billions of newly-inflated dollars to let them continue business as usual.

Don't blame the market for paying out those undeserved bonuses.

-jcr

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[ahabswhale]

rofl...they were getting those bonuses even before the government stepped in. As for bailing them out...virtually every economist out there said we had no choice if we wanted to avoid a full blown depression. I'm no fan of giving them money either but I'd rather do that than live on the street begging for food. Perhaps you never studied the depression but it was an unimaginably bad time for most people and I can assure you that you wouldn't want to sample it for even a week let alone 10 years.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

What we're doing is the equivalent of feeding an injured deer in the winter. The deer still isn't going to survive and you wasted a lot of good food that could be used to feed more viable animals.

Aw, you're just trying to sweet-talk yourself into a position on Obama's Health Care plan's Death Panel, aren't you?

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how liberals outlaw any discussion of the previous accomplishments of socialism ...

After all nothing could possibly defend their past behavior, so "you have nothing more to say".

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

If I was pushing those policies I would also refuse to talk about them if someone asked "hey what happened last time central government control was forced into everybody's lives ?". Because the only answers to that questions are beyond cruel.

What's obviously left to be explained is why you're pushing them anyway ? Because they get you a little bit of free money in the short term ?

Surely the party that's screaming how everybody "ignored the long term" would not do such a thing ? But then you must have a different argument. And arguments is something that has yet to be seen in your posts. Ad-hominems, and redirects to extremely biased sites lacking any credentials, yes, but actual argument, that's conspicuously missing.

But you're right obviously : by imposing an unpayable debt on everyone, you may get some very short term cash. Obviously due to money representing actual value, and actual value not increasing at all, you won't be able to spend it.

But hey if illusions is all you have - vote democrat.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[riondluz]

Both were handled exactly the way they wanted to be 'handled'; which is to say: making the lemonade
from the lemons they so wonderfully grew (and insuring their profit at our expense as much as possible).
One need only listen to the director of GM operations in
China over a year ago spouting on about how they were growing in leaps-n-bounds to know where manufacturing
was headed. Then followed the 'meltdown'. What is the result? Cerberus, the new dog in town,
unloaded Chrylser onto Fiat but kept the financial services, then acquired GMAC. Look at who is in charge.

Point being that the services and financing sector is all 'Detroit' really wanted in the 1st place.
Offshoring jobs and closing factories was the plan all along.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

The fucking dickwads on Wall Street are already circle jerking the shit out of themselves with bonuses

As it happens, the market was canceling those bonuses, and eliminating the incompetent organizations you're bitching about, until some geniuses in the legislature decided (over the objections of a majority of their constituents) to hand them hundreds of billions of newly-inflated dollars to let them continue business as usual.

I will have to ask you for citations from released documents of a sampling of publically traded companies (especially finacial firms) prior to mid-2008, otherwise this is just idealogically inspired wishful thinking!

Don't blame the market for paying out those undeserved bonuses.

Funny, then why were those described by the various companies as a standard practice before the 2nd quarter of 2008, much less when the actual TARP program was being debated in the US Congress? The primary objection to the recovery the bonuses was predicated on how they were a customary and expected part of the compensation plans!

Sorry to gore your sacred cow jcr... However any honest look at the situation shows that, in this particular situation, the market was heavily rewarding failure and the primary fault of the Government was letting the practice continue for so long.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to blame somebody for this then blame the golden boy of the left, our hopeful President Barak Obama;

aka the bete noir de la droite.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[jcr]

this is just idealogically inspired wishful thinking

I'm talking about companies that were going out of business. That's how the market pulls the plug on incompetence.

-jcr

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[jcr]

Perhaps you never studied the depression

I have studied the depression, and that's why I know that the best thing a government can do in a financial crisis it to get the hell out of the way, and let the necessary liquidations and repricing take place. By bailing out failed organizations, the government allows them to continue to do the wrong things.

Watch and learn.

-jcr

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[ahabswhale]

ROFL...that guy is a fucking psychotic nutbag. First off he's not an economist and second his rant at about 14:00 about the reason for the depression was because rich people had money is such a ridiculous twisting of words it completely invalidates him as being even remotely unbiased. What the guy was actually saying is that to have a stable economy you must have a strong middle class and when the depression started the wealth was too strongly weighted into a small group of people. In addition this fucking moron doesn't seem to know that severe economic downturns were the NORM prior to the great depression where these instabilities happened every 10 to 15 years. I could go on and on but it's a waste of fucking time because there's no way in hell you'd ever change your mind about any of this (because you're fucking brainwashed) and frankly I don't give a flying shit what you believe because you're just one of many random piss-ants on the internet who thinks they understand something because some arch-conservative who talks really loud makes them feel warm and fuzzy about their black or white world. In short, you haven't studied a fucking thing other than crap from mouth-breathers who just add to your confirmation bias. It's really sad. There actually are some conservatives who understand the nuances of history and economics but unfortunately they don't get listened to. FYI...I'm not a democrat. Hell, I voted for fucking Reagan. But I'm not a fucking sucker either.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handle poorly

[jcr]

that guy is a fucking psychotic nutbag.

That's about the level of discourse I've come to expect from opponents of liberty. Thanks for letting me know right off the bat that you need not be taken seriously.

-jcr

LLC's in a nutshell

[Anonymous Coward]

Heads you alone win, tails you and everyone else loses.

Good work Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure are getting things done.

Sweet

[smchris]

As radio announcer Thom Hartmann says, corporations want to privatize the profit and dump the liabilities on the commons. That's the ticket.

Re:Sweet

[clang_jangle]

They don't merely want to do that, they actually do it. A corporate entity's rights are vastly superior to those granted a human citizen here in the US. That's what makes this country a socialist state for the rich, and a totalitarian state for everyone else.

Re:Sweet

[Ironsides]

Oh? Name one right a corporate entity has that is superior to that of a citizen?

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone pointed out in an earlier discussion here, that makes our country corporatist, in that the government exists for the corporations, not the other way around.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

After being convicted of killing a person they are allowed to continue conducting business. A citizen would be incarcerated, effectively ending their ability to conduct business.

Re:Sweet

[KDR_11k]

The ability to crush private people with legal costs. It's not spelled out on the books but they'd be stupid to do that.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFS, n00b! WTF do you think this story is about?

Re:Sweet

[zippthorne]

They can deduct their cost of living from their income to offset the taxes they have to pay.

Try deducting your car's mileage or your restaurant or grocery bills or depreciating your house, car, furniture, appliances, etc. on your next return and see where that gets you.

Re:Sweet

[fermion]

I do not know of a case where a private firm paid for the cleaning and mitigation of it's own mess. It just isn't done. It is just too simple to delay the process, in which the case we the people have to step in to protect ourselves, hoping to get some compensation later on.

For instance, the Exxon Valdez has never been fully cleaned up and the funds to help those damaged has yet to be paid. You can bet if I burned down the exxon building, they would make every effort to have me pay for every cent that I could.

After 30 years, GE is finally cleaning up some of the hudson river. It is unlikely they will do the job they were originally asked to do. To this day, we are paying for the storage of nuclear waste, with no plan to get rid of it, and more on the way.

The point is that we are to protect ourselves, we must have regulation, fines, and monies for mitigation. The later comes from taxes on the corporations, of which we have seen less of in the past 30 years. What we have seen is skyrocketing deficits from the war on drugs, war on terror, and general expenditures to protect we the people from the few that values money more the people, the socio- and psychopaths that seem to make up some percentage of those in control.

So I am not so worried that the costs are externalized. If we are to maintain our lifestyle we must protect ourselves against our souless neighbors. My concern is that in our zeal to make government small, we are leaving ourselves open to abuse by those without ethics. It would be one thing if I could get the firms who metaphorically shit on my lawn out of the neighborhood in the same way I can with drug dealers, but I can't. But if they pay taxes, and there are regulation, then at least I do not have to personally pay to have it cleaned up.

Re:Sweet

[sumdumass]

Actually, you can deduct all of those things if they are part of your income generation and not incidental private expenses.

I don't think you realize that a corporation is nothing more then an income generator. You can write the same shit off without a corporation being present as long as it follows the same guidelines of income creation.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Limited liability and perpetual lifetime. The 1st one is good for capitalism and investors however the very thin ice argument can be made that this limited liability allows corps to do things on investors behalf that the investor would not want to get his hands dirty with. The perpetual life... When US citizens die they get the family estate gets dinged by IRS for taxes owed as well as an additional estate tax. There isn't an equivalent for corps just because a CEO dies or retires does not mean they get dinged with extra taxes.

Re:Sweet

[kestasjk]

And how is that a right? (Go ahead mods, mod me "Redundant" because you disagree as with the GP)

Re:Sweet

[10101001 10101001]

Actually, you can deduct all of those things if they are part of your income generation and not incidental private expenses.

"Incidental" private expenses? Last I checked, people worked precisely to enjoy "incidental" private expenses, which rather makes all expenses non-incidental.

I don't think you realize that a corporation is nothing more then an income generator. You can write the same shit off without a corporation being present as long as it follows the same guidelines of income creation.

That's just the thing. If corporations are, by definition, nothing more than income generators, then there exists no "incidental" expenses. Meanwhile, individuals have to audit their own spending to seperate the "incidental" from the "necessary" and be under risk of auditing and fining by a government that might very well disagree with their assessment. Clearly, corporations have an advantage.

Re:Sweet

[sumdumass]

No, there is no advantage to either. Corporations are subject to the same auditing and all. They are subject to the same restrictions on deductions and such. Of course there is a disadvantage where collateral and inventory is considered income for the purpose of taxes.

The difference is you have been exposed to one and only imagine the other.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

A corporate entity's rights are vastly superior to those granted a human citizen here in the US.

See, now I'm baffled.
American's seem to love big business, but resent it when it invariably turns nasty.*

Take the example of the European Commission calling-up Microsoft regarding their inclusion of Internet Explorer; many Americans were scathing in their criticism of the EC. (I recall hearing Leo Laporte on one of his podcasts speaking with glee on hearing that Win7 E may ship browserless and leave EU users struggling to access the web.)

Please don't misunderstand ... I'm not US-bashing (I quite like Americans). I think I could really get behind you guys if you just didn't let your corporations become so powerful.

* I do realise I'm not dealing with a hive mind here at Slashdot, and that there are many people with different stances.

Re:Sweet

[toddestan]

Actually, you can deduct all of those things if they are part of your income generation and not incidental private expenses.

Try writing off the mileage from commuting to and from work, or the business attire you have to wear to work, and see how far that goes with the IRS.

Re:Sweet

[sumdumass]

If the business attire exceeds 2% of your income, it is a legitimate write off. As for the commute, that's considered preparing for work. However, if you stop at one work place then travel to another, it is a complete write off.

Please don't comment about tax issues if you have not filed more then a 1040ez in your life.

Re:Sweet

[toddestan]

I don't know where you pulled that out of, but it's not true. Business attire is generally not eligible for a tax write-off, the only exception is a uniform that you would not normally wear outside of work (like for a nurse or a mechanic). But you can't write off things like suits, sportcoats, and polo shirts.

Re:Sweet

[sumdumass]

Why don't you try schedule A of the 1040 long. I clearly offers the same deductions that are availible to business.

The thread is about corporations verses private right?

Re:Sweet

[toddestan]

Why don't you try schedule A of the 1040 long. I clearly offers the same deductions that are availible to business.

I just looked it up in case it changed, and nope, still can only deduct uniforms that are not suitable for ordinary wear. Also things like hard hats and safety glasses.

The thread is about corporations verses private right?

Exactly. If I had my own business and was incorporated, if I needed business attire as part of running my business, I could have my business buy it and get a tax write-off*. But if I'm employed by someone else, and this requires me to buy business attire if I want to stay employed, I don't get the same write-off.

*Okay, to be honest I'm not sure if this is how the system is supposed to work, but I know people who do this and the IRS doesn't question it.

Re:Sweet

[sumdumass]

I just looked it up in case it changed, and nope, still can only deduct uniforms that are not suitable for ordinary wear. Also things like hard hats and safety glasses.

And that's all the corporations can deduct so where it the problem?

Exactly. If I had my own business and was incorporated, if I needed business attire as part of running my business, I could have my business buy it and get a tax write-off*. But if I'm employed by someone else, and this requires me to buy business attire if I want to stay employed, I don't get the same write-off.

You could not write it off through the business. If the business purchased the clothing and it didn't already meet the other requirements, it becomes an asset and counts as income the first year. There probably isn't a deduction schedule for clothing either.

Have you ever filed a business return? Thing like buying a new office furniture and everything down to copy machine paper counts as income at the end of the year if it was purchased that year. That is why you are allowed to depreciate a lot of it. And when you get rid of it, if you get more then your depreciated value, you have to pay a capitol gains on it.

*Okay, to be honest I'm not sure if this is how the system is supposed to work, but I know people who do this and the IRS doesn't question it.

Those people are cheating on their taxes. Most smaller companies do things like that but if they have any (silent) partners or go into bankruptcy, they "can be" hit for embezzlement as well as tax fraud. The embezzlement charge is more likely with bankruptcy charged because it's easier to show your personal benefit from it.

Re:Sweet

[sumdumass]

I need to rephrase something.

Things like buying a new office furniture and everything down to unused copy machine paper counts as income at the end of the year if it was purchased that year. Obviously what you have used is an expense.

The point is, expenses are unique to the business and buying clothing or large ticket items will not be an expense or a deduction unless your business is buying and selling them.

Re:Sweet

[demonlapin]

if I needed business attire as part of running my business, I could have my business buy it and get a tax write-off

That's not legal, and just because the IRS hasn't audited them yet doesn't mean it would be cool with that. You can't use incorporation to avoid personal taxes.

The road to hell...

[Majik Sheff]

is paved with good intentions. Notice to government officials and their supporters: QUIT TRYING TO FIX STUFF, YOU ONLY MAKE IT WORSE.

Re:The road to hell...

[FooAtWFU]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

If you look it up, that's actually a shovel-ready infrastructure project that's part of the stimulus package!!

Re:The road to hell...

[Mr. Arbusto]

What you say reminded me of a product poster at Depair

http://despair.com/government.html

Re:The road to hell...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... because it was the fact that the government meddled in things too much that actually caused this crisis, right? If only they'd stayed out of it and let the market take care of it itself...

Re:The road to hell...

[flameproof]

Modup!

What do you want them to do?

[Brian Gordon]

They have no money to pay for it. Even if the government didn't excuse the debt, it wouldn't ever be paid.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[brad3378]

Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[JeffSh]

exactly. The alternative is that GM goes completely out of business and is no longer a going concern, and then the liability of cleanup still falls on government, if it ever got done at all.

So, there's not really good news anywhere in all this. I hate it just as much as anyone else, but we need to be practical.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[Rogerborg]

In other words, fuck the environment, fuck everyone else, fuck any responsibility for anything that any corporate entity does to anyone or anything, ever. Capitalism means being able to take a huge steaming dump in the neighbor's pool and then just walk away from it, and that's the way it should be.

I think that's what you meant to say.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, the system could and should be weighted towards subdising and guaranteeing jobs that clean up pollution, rather than jobs that create it. They both keep people in work, and they both provide a service to the tax payers that are paying for them. The difference is the visibility of that service. Unfortunately, Joe Voter would rather his taxes go towards subdisising his God-given right to buy a "cheap" SUV (cheap if you ignore the tax money that he already paid to enable it to be built), than to some theoretical hippy horseshit like cleaning up the water table under his kid's schoolyard.

Sorry... sorry, I think my Soma is wearing off. For a moment there I almost thought that we don't live in the best of all possible worlds. My bad.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then help them out but demand they pay it back later. Oh the companies just LOVE the US now.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, fuck the environment, fuck everyone else, fuck any responsibility for anything that any corporate entity does to anyone or anything, ever. Capitalism means being able to take a huge steaming dump in the neighbor's pool and then just walk away from it, and that's the way it should be.

Now you're catching on.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[Brian Gordon]

Taking care of the environment costs more, not less.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The alternative is that GM goes completely out of business and is no longer a going concern, and then the liability of cleanup still falls on government, if it ever got done at all.

$530 million is a lot of money, but what's the total salary and benefits of GM's BoD and C*O-level executives? I'll bet it's in the billions. Make them pay for it -- by garnishment of wages if they stay on, or if they quit, make the IRS responsible for collecting the money. I guarantee you, we (as in We, The People) will get the money back. They might, I don't know, have to sell off a few private jets or something. Boo hoo.

Oh wait, that would be socialist and if it became standard practice we might scare off the top talent who have the unique skills needed to run American business! Oh noes!

Re:What do you want them to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

The alternative is that GM goes completely out of business

...and the downside is? A crappy business that's been a drain on the US taxpayer for the past 30 years finally disappears?

Re:What do you want them to do?

[QuoteMstr]

So you think it'd be a good thing if, at a sweep, we lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and our last domestic manufacturing base?

Re:What do you want them to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think it'd be a good thing if, at a sweep, we lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and our last domestic manufacturing base?

Yes, yes, I do. If you're not making a profit you need to make room for the companies that are.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[sumdumass]

You will be saying "Oh noes" when the best job you can get is flipping burgers at some drive through joint.

And yes, it's worse then becoming a socialist country. The Constitution give the US government no powers to do what you have described. If they attempted to do it, then you can expect them to ignore the constitution in matters that you find important too. Matters like searches, habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial and so on. Perhaps they will ignore the first amendment while they are at it.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[rhakka]

that's not true. the leglislative branch can dole out money for anything it likes. It can't make laws that give it sweeping new powers, but it does have power of the pursestrings, so if it gives you money it certainly has the right to tell you to give it back and under what conditions.

If they don't take any money from you, THEN the us gov has no power to garnish wages or the like, except perhaps if a previous arrangement had been broken and that was a term of that arrangement (I don't know what the pollution cleanup agreement was, but knowing about the superfund I imagine that the feds gave GM some money to help with it).

man, every time you turn around these days you hear about constitutional stuff totally misapplied. funny no one really cared when real consitutional issues like honoring treaties, habeas corpus or domestic spying were the norm. Now that it's not even a constitutional question it's all over the place. Funny stuff.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[vadim_t]

Short term. Not long term. Crap accumulates. At some point you'll have to get rid of it.

Would have making the chernobyl reactor with a containment vessel cost more than what ended up being spent on cleanup and abandoning the city?

Re:What do you want them to do?

[sumdumass]

that's not true. the leglislative branch can dole out money for anything it likes. It can't make laws that give it sweeping new powers, but it does have power of the pursestrings, so if it gives you money it certainly has the right to tell you to give it back and under what conditions.

No it can not. It is bound by restrictions in the constitution and the only thing that gives the government power is the constitution. You need to retake your government and civics class.

If they don't take any money from you, THEN the us gov has no power to garnish wages or the like, except perhaps if a previous arrangement had been broken and that was a term of that arrangement (I don't know what the pollution cleanup agreement was, but knowing about the superfund I imagine that the feds gave GM some money to help with it).

What the fuck are you talking about? They can tax you, it's specifically allowed int he constitution. What they can't do is tax you more then anyone else because of some hidden agenda or past action that was legal. They also cannot create a post facto law which would punish actions that were legal when it happened.

man, every time you turn around these days you hear about constitutional stuff totally misapplied. funny no one really cared when real consitutional issues like honoring treaties, habeas corpus or domestic spying were the norm. Now that it's not even a constitutional question it's all over the place. Funny stuff.

First of all, the domestic spying was not a constitutional issue. It was a legal issue. Second of all, what fucking rock have you been hiding under? All of those receive outcry with court cases challenging the habeas corpus. It seems that misapplied isn't the word your looking for, it would be selectively applied and your comment is a great insight into your own thinking.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Wow, sumdumass, you're really living up (or down) to your username today.

You will be saying "Oh noes" when the best job you can get is flipping burgers at some drive through joint.

The point, which you're clearly missing (or dodging, I suspect) is that a hell of a lot of Americans can't get any job better than burger-flipping -- or even that -- because of the supposed expertise of these executives of giant corporations who supposedly possess some expertise in running businesses. All this "top talent" rhetoric has been clearly exposed as the bullshit it is. The C*O's don't have any more idea than the rest of us how to fix this mess, and they bear the responsibility for getting us into it in the first place. We owe them no consideration whatsoever going forward.

As to your second point, the government can sue like anyone else. I'm not suggesting criminal prosecutions or suspensions of the Bill of Rights. Just go after these bastards in the one place they really care about. Once you go into bankruptcy, you make yourself pretty vulnerable, you know.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[sumdumass]

I guess the truth is a troll.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[sumdumass]

The point, which you're clearly missing (or dodging, I suspect) is that a hell of a lot of Americans can't get any job better than burger-flipping -- or even that -- because of the supposed expertise of these executives of giant corporations who supposedly possess some expertise in running businesses. All this "top talent" rhetoric has been clearly exposed as the bullshit it is. The C*O's don't have any more idea than the rest of us how to fix this mess, and they bear the responsibility for getting us into it in the first place. We owe them no consideration whatsoever going forward.

I'm not missing or dodging anything. Life is what you make of it, not what the government hands you. As for your rant on C*O's, who cares, that has nothing to do with anything I said.

As to your second point, the government can sue like anyone else. I'm not suggesting criminal prosecutions or suspensions of the Bill of Rights. Just go after these bastards in the one place they really care about. Once you go into bankruptcy, you make yourself pretty vulnerable, you know.

And in order to do it, they will have to change the laws and include people who were operating under a different and legal set of rules at the time. This is called an Ex post facto and is forbidden by the constitution. Also, when you remove the veil that shields non-acting owners of corporations, you will effectivly drive all business out of the US that isn't specifically needed like whopper floppers.

You cannot just sue for anything. You need a basis in law in order to do so. Things are the way they are now because the law is the way it is now. Changing the law will not go back on anyone and it will make things worse. You can't retroactively punish people and it's not a good idea to be using the government as a whipping post for people you don't agree with. Sooner or later, it will be you who is getting whipped.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

hundreds of thousands of jobs

More like 88,000 (no wait, 68,000).

our last domestic manufacturing base

Are Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, Ford, Chrysler, etc etc all somehow tied to the GM anchor as well?
AFAIK, they all build things in the US too...
Hell, so do BMW, Nissan, Honda.

GM wouldn't have just vanished either, someone would have bought them and given people jobs (although, maybe not with the cushy union deal they had).

The alternative is we all keep paying for GM's failure for the next few decades, just like we have for the last few.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[an unsound mind]

So you can magically conjure yourself a job through sheer willpower alone?

Re:What do you want them to do?

[sumdumass]

There is nothing magical about it. You make yourself employable through training, conditioning, creating job experience and a good work record. Yes, that might take some will power but it isn't magic.

And if you are not a total buffoon, you can also do the entrepreneurial thing and start your own business to make your own employment. Again, nothing magical going on there except cognitive reasoning skills. Most people can perform those types of magic though.

What did you have in mind? That you should be able to sit there and expect some company to pick you up in a limo and take you to the job interview? Do you think you are somehow owed a job? Life is what you make of it, not what the government gives you.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[BlueStrat]

I guess the truth is a troll.

Welcome to Hope & Change.

Strat

Re:What do you want them to do?

[an unsound mind]

Making yourself employable is pointless when there's no jobs - and job experience without a job?

Also, I'm very disabled. Life really ain't what I make of it.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[sumdumass]

Making yourself employable is pointless when there's no jobs - and job experience without a job?

So driving the rest of the jobs out of the country is a good thing?

Also, I'm very disabled. Life really ain't what I make of it.

Very irrelevant. I am legally disabled too and you can make life what you want it to be. It seems to me that you are having coping problems.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking care of the environment costs more, not less.

Taking care of the environment costs polluters more, and society less. Pollution is an externality. If my economic activity costs society a million dollars, ignoring that cost doesn't make it cheaper.

If I make a million dollars profit, but cost society half a million dollars in environmental damage, the books balance if I pay that half million in Pigovian taxes. If I cost society a million dollars for half a million dollars of personal profit, I damned well better stop what I'm doing, because it is economically wasteful.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[SEE]

$530 million is a lot of money, but what's the total salary and benefits of GM's BoD and C*O-level executives? I'll bet it's in the billions

You lose the bet, by two orders of magnitude. Thanks for playing.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[ultranova]

I'm not missing or dodging anything. Life is what you make of it, not what the government hands you.

Which conflicts with your claim that "the best job you can get is flipping burgers at some drive through joint" if GM's executives are forced to pay for the mess they have made, causing top scamming talent to flee the country.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[sumdumass]

No, it doesn't conflict with anything. You see, there is now and then there is the now if those changes are made. Right now, life is what you make of it, if those changes are made and all the decent jobs leave the country-(which they will faster then then they are now because of the anti business enviroment) then it is a college degree to flip whoppers at the royal butger hut because that is the best job availible without leaving the country.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[rhakka]

if the congress had authorized a loan to clean up pollution, for example, they could certainly demand repayment under any condition they like and specify in the leglislation in question. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that makes this unconstitutional. it's called "providing for the general welfare of the united states". repayment is not a tax. In that respect, congress could give and take money pretty much as they see fit, as long as it is in terms of loans, or the satisfaction of a grant condition, and not a tax. And, oddly enough, they do use this power regularly. Such as withholding highway funds if drinking ages are not mandated: there my not be a federal drinking age, constitutionally (that, I'm not sure , but they sure as hell can make it attractive to do what they like without running afoul of constitutional problems.

They cannot, as you say, target a tax at Bob the CeO of GM. But they sure could, if they wished, require repayment of a loan should the terms of a loan be defaulted upon to be guaranteed by anyone they care to have sign on the dotted line. I have no idea if that's the case and I'm not advocating necessarily for targeting CEOs specifically.. not ruling it out either... just saying there are ways it could be done without running afoul of any constitutional rule against taxation.

If congress had not, however, given the company any deals to do cleanup involving loans or grants, then sure, they can't just tax Bob with a "You fucked up" personal tax. But then, I didn't say they could, perhaps I wasn't very clear but I did clearly note that IF they gave an entity money the terms of repayment are what allow them to get it back any way they like.. when they write the deal.

my last bit on the constitutional thing was a knee jerk reaction to a different conversation I had yesterday. Sorry to confuse the conversation here; you're right that it didn't really apply and wasn't very accurate to begin with. don't post angry ;)

Re:What do you want them to do?

[rhakka]

fuck, edit would be nice. left a bit hanging. I don't know what the constitutional issues are with a federal drinking age being directly mandated, but regardless, they can make states fall in line simply by the pursestrings without needing direct federal law mandating a drinking age.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

What was the penalty if GM didn't clean up their mess? A fine.
And what is the penalty if GM doesn't pay the fine? Nothing.
By the transitive property, the penalty for not cleaning up your mess is nothing.

The lesson is that fining companies when they break the law doesn't work.

May I propose that penalties be levied against an entity that can be imprisoned if they do not comply with the law...like the CEO.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[sumdumass]

if the congress had authorized a loan to clean up pollution, for example, they could certainly demand repayment under any condition they like and specify in the leglislation in question.

They can't change the rules retroactively in order to punish someone or some entity. They also cannot force anyone to take the loan out. So even if they did create such a screwed up law, it would be up to the company and the executives to agree with it before anything would be binding.

There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that makes this unconstitutional. it's called "providing for the general welfare of the united states". repayment is not a tax.

You need to go back and study your constitution again. This time, hopefully you will have a competent teacher. The General welfare clause is not, I repeat- IS NOT, a blank sheet of paper giving the government unlimited authority. You are supposed to look at the general welfare clause as being reasoning for the powers granted to congress. They can only use it in pursuit to a constitutionally appropriate interest which is spelled out in constitution. In short, you need a qualifier.

And yes, if the loan was forced onto the companies, it would be considered an impost which is a tax and must be uniform throughout the country. But we are not talking about a loan anyways. The situation is where a company is filing bankruptcy and is getting out from under their obligations to clean up an environmental situation.

In that respect, congress could give and take money pretty much as they see fit, as long as it is in terms of loans, or the satisfaction of a grant condition, and not a tax. And, oddly enough, they do use this power regularly.

See above. And no, they don't do this regularly, they used to but then the courts said it was unconstitutional so they attempt to provide extra funding if certain conditions are met.

Such as withholding highway funds if drinking ages are not mandated: there my not be a federal drinking age, constitutionally (that, I'm not sure , but they sure as hell can make it attractive to do what they like without running afoul of constitutional problems.

Actually, they did run afoul of constitutional powers. This was already decided in South Dakota v. Dole in which the court ultimately upheld the lower courts ruling, but did so because the amount (less the 5% of federal highway funds) was not enough to be considered coercive. Had it been much more, it would have been tossed out. The court used a 4 prong test to measure the constitutionality of the law and if any other laws don't fall within that test, it will be struck down.

They cannot, as you say, target a tax at Bob the CeO of GM. But they sure could, if they wished, require repayment of a loan should the terms of a loan be defaulted upon to be guaranteed by anyone they care to have sign on the dotted line

And these people can either not sign the dotted line or file bankruptcy and get out from under it. And yes, each person who would be impacted by that would have to sign the loan and not be under duress or pressure in order for it to be binding.

I have no idea if that's the case and I'm not advocating necessarily for targeting CEOs specifically.. not ruling it out either... just saying there are ways it could be done without running afoul of any constitutional rule against taxation.

What you are talking about now is someone taking a loan out in a company's name and personally vouching for it. Bankruptcy will discharge it just like it does all other debt, and all the participants have to be freely willing to sign onto it. I wouldn't sign to guarantee a loan for a company I worked for. I don't see why others would.

If congress had not, however, given

Re:What do you want them to do?

[rhakka]

You missed the part where I was saying IF.. IF.. IF the companies had taken money.. for instance, as a loan to clean up pollution... then this sort of thing could have been written in as a part of the repayment agreement.

I am not saying the government could just willy nilly impose these kinds of sanctions that had not be agreed upon in the first place. I hope you got that by the end of your response.

As for personally guaranteeing debts, I can say as the owner of a small company, if your stance is that you will never personally guarantee the debts of the company you run, then you wouldn't get very far in small business. Every time we have a line of credit with a vendor that's a clause of the agreement. Something similar for larger companies... obviously not for the full value of any damages or what have you, but certainly large enough sums to be motivational.. shouldn't be any problem for a company that intends to actually follow the rules it is agreeing to. If they do not, then why should the top earners profit from their deception?

There are reasons to do it of course. For instance, if I am a CEO who gets paid in stock value, and my company is given a grant or low interest low to, say, clean up the pollution we created, that would help out my stock value. Or, it would certainly reduce a liability and increase the valuation of the company, its profitability, whatever metric you want to use to determine by pay, it's a good thing typically. I could get good benefit signing such an agreement, if I do it in good faith. However, I can't then get a double benefit by taking the money and spending it on something else! That's what appears to happen now.

Now, I could as a small owner declare personal bankruptcy as well.. and if my company went down laden with massive debt, I would probably have to. But it's hard to go bankrupt with lots, and lots of cash. not impossible of course, but harder.

so perhaps initially the decisionmakers of larger companies may not be willing to expose themselves to the liabilities of the company. But it is done all the time in small business and I see no reason why it should stop simply because your decisions become so large that it involves the american taxpayer as a whole instead of just your vendors and clients...

Re:What do you want them to do?

[sumdumass]

You missed the part where I was saying IF.. IF.. IF the companies had taken money.. for instance, as a loan to clean up pollution... then this sort of thing could have been written in as a part of the repayment agreement.

I am not saying the government could just willy nilly impose these kinds of sanctions that had not be agreed upon in the first place. I hope you got that by the end of your response.

No, I didn't miss it, I said they would have to agree to it and it couldn't be forced on them by the government or a bankruptcy court. I don't know anyone who would voluntarily submit to that kind of loan when the idea of a corporation already removes those burdens. It would be much easier for them to default on the clean up and stick the government with the bill anyways.

As for personally guaranteeing debts, I can say as the owner of a small company, if your stance is that you will never personally guarantee the debts of the company you run, then you wouldn't get very far in small business. Every time we have a line of credit with a vendor that's a clause of the agreement. Something similar for larger companies... obviously not for the full value of any damages or what have you, but certainly large enough sums to be motivational.. shouldn't be any problem for a company that intends to actually follow the rules it is agreeing to. If they do not, then why should the top earners profit from their deception?

As an owner of a small business, once your bradstreet and dunn rating is high enough, you do not have to guarantee any loans. Maybe you should work on that. Anyways, there is a difference between vouching to a creditor to run your business then to accept liability for repayment of something when going through a bankruptcy (like GM). You can also just default on the cleanup and be done with it. Chances are, if you are too poor to pay for the clean up, you are probably going to file bankruptcy anyways when the lawsuits come in.

There are reasons to do it of course. For instance, if I am a CEO who gets paid in stock value, and my company is given a grant or low interest low to, say, clean up the pollution we created, that would help out my stock value. Or, it would certainly reduce a liability and increase the valuation of the company, its profitability, whatever metric you want to use to determine by pay, it's a good thing typically. I could get good benefit signing such an agreement, if I do it in good faith. However, I can't then get a double benefit by taking the money and spending it on something else! That's what appears to happen now.

Not really. You are working under the assumption that stock values will rise with what you think is good. It doesn't always work that way. It may be easier to just dump the stock and stiff the cleanup. However, you will have a fiduciary duty to not lose money in the process if it's legal to avoid. I do not know why anyone would do such a thing when the laws already separate you from it.

Now, I could as a small owner declare personal bankruptcy as well.. and if my company went down laden with massive debt, I would probably have to. But it's hard to go bankrupt with lots, and lots of cash. not impossible of course, but harder.

Here is the problem, if you have lots and lots of cash, then why would you need a loan? If the clean up is going to be more then you have, just spend what you got then bankruptcy your way out of it. Or you could use assets as collateral and get a loan that you do not have to worry about being personally responsible for.

Now I guess we need to get something clear here. It is and has been illegal to pollute for many years. If you started a company last week that polluted this week, you may need to clean it up to avoid jail time for your actions. However, if the act was legal when it was done (like with GM) then the cleanup is

Re:What do you want them to do?

[rhakka]

re: lots of cash, "lots of cash" to an individual going through bankruptcy is a lot different than "lots of cash" to a large company. that's kind of the crux of the problem: very rich people can drive large companies into bankruptcy, avoid their obligations, and yet remain rich. That's a peversion, frankly. also that's why the company might need a loan even though the board or CEO has "lots of cash". or the govt might just be incentiving certain actions which, again, if you're going to actually follow through on it might not be such a big deal to take on the personal obligation.

my company has specifically avoided bradstreet and dunn because we have not historically taken on debt beyond the normal net 30 terms with vendors, we've been strictly cash otherwise. however having avoided that whole section of business I was also unaware of how other people actually use it, since no one asks if we even have a number except on very rare occasions. thanks for the lesson on that. I would say that the government at least shouldn't care about credit ratings so much: it should care about getting the results its paying for regardless of the financial rating of the company.

i'll concede it's pretty complicated and that I'm not informed enough to "fix it" though.. you make some good points that I'll need to think more about.

Re:What do you want them to do?

[sumdumass]

re: lots of cash, "lots of cash" to an individual going through bankruptcy is a lot different than "lots of cash" to a large company. that's kind of the crux of the problem: very rich people can drive large companies into bankruptcy, avoid their obligations, and yet remain rich. That's a peversion, frankly. also that's why the company might need a loan even though the board or CEO has "lots of cash". or the govt might just be incentiving certain actions which, again, if you're going to actually follow through on it might not be such a big deal to take on the personal obligation.

Sort of. They can't intentionally drive the company into bankruptcy and need to make and effort to avoid it. Otherwise the people running it will be liable civily as well as criminally for it. Corporate separation does not remove any fiduciary duties to the company or other share holders and it doesn't isolate you from your own actions.

my company has specifically avoided bradstreet and dunn because we have not historically taken on debt beyond the normal net 30 terms with vendors, we've been strictly cash otherwise. however having avoided that whole section of business I was also unaware of how other people actually use it, since no one asks if we even have a number except on very rare occasions. thanks for the lesson on that. I would say that the government at least shouldn't care about credit ratings so much: it should care about getting the results its paying for regardless of the financial rating of the company.

I too was at first confused and blindsided on that when a vendor asked me for the number when opening an account with them. I bet more of your vendors use it then you actually realize. When my numbers started improving, even without increasing business, my main vendor doped a price point on me and I started getting larger discounts with the same volume of orders. That may not happen with every vendor but it is another reason to piss around with it.

i'll concede it's pretty complicated and that I'm not informed enough to "fix it" though.. you make some good points that I'll need to think more about.

Corporate taxes are pretty steep once you start making over a certain amount of money. Take Exxon for instance, they profited roughly 48 billion dollars in 2006-2007 and paid 43-44 billion in taxes. They reported an effective tax rate of 44% for that year. That's with all the subsidies and so on too. I discovered this when I was looking at their profit statements and SEC filings in order to see how much they were gouging us at the pump. Now 40 billion dollars seems like a lot of money but to put it in perspective, Exxon operates in 5 different countries and sells to 25 other, the make motor oil, diesel, and other fuels as well as chemicals and so on. If you went by the gasoline sales alone for the same year, their entire profit averages out to about 20 cents on the gallon.

Anyways, after paying 40 billion in taxes for one year and being in business for several years like that, if they couldn't pay to clean up some field, I don't have a problem with the government stepping in and do something about it. There are some companies who when it is known they will pollute, have to set up a trust accounts and make payments to it to ensure funding will be there for the cleanup. I used to work for a company like that when I was in the Environmental services industry and did a lot of the clean up of spills and contaminated sites. We did mostly petroleum contamination remediation but also dealt with about anything in an emergency spill. An example of a company that has to pay into a trust for cleanup is electric generation facilities. If they are nuclear, they pay into a nuclear fund each year over the life of the plant. If they are coal or gas, they pay into another trust they set up as they operate.

As was the problem with GM, the sites that are polluted were considered polluted when it happened. Laws changed and our standards have increased and what was once acceptable is now not. Things like heave metal pollution and paint chemicals and some stuff just wasn't considered as a pollutant years ago.

Say it with me. Corruptionnnnn!

[Anonymous Coward]

So if the government is willing to do this for a company that is going into bankruptcy, imagine what they are doing for industries and companies that turn a profit.

This is just another tell tale sign that our government has been bought and paid for.

Re:Say it with me. Corruptionnnnn!

[FlyingBishop]

Yeah, it's high time our government stood up and made impossible demands of industry. That'll show 'em!

Say hello to Daley-engineered practices!

[ravenshrike]

W00T, Chicago-style corruption finally gets it's big break.

Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[reporter]

If General Motors (GM) were allowed to enter bankruptcy without a government bailout, then GM would likely have been purchased in whole, or in parts, by a European or Japanese auto company. The purchaser would have assumed all of GM's liabilities. Of course, the sale price would have been set to reflect the costs of these liabilities.

However, because Americans allowed Washington (and Barack Hussein Obama) to effectively nationalize GM, Americans received the worst of all worlds. Washington poured billions of dollars into the company, and that money comes from future taxpayers. GM retains its rotten management although some talking heads at the very top of the pyramid were replaced: that management misread the market and failed to steer research and development toward highly efficiently small cars when gas prices were skyrocketing. Unions with their gold-plated medical insurance (now paid by the government) retain a stranglehold on the company, now literally owning part of GM.

Worst of all, we discover that the "new" GM will not be paying the costs of cleaning up the environmental pollution that the "old" GM caused.

We could have avoided all these problems if either Toyota or Renault had purchased the relevant bits of GM. Why do Americans "fear" working for a Japanese or French boss so much they are willing to nationalize a car company?

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[FlyingBishop]

BS. If it were a free market, people would purchase the good parts of GM, and the rest would sit and languish, eventually petering out. If you had to purchase the good with the bad, no one would do it. That's a recipe for a loss, not a gain. The only way that would work is if they could be paid to take on GM's responsibilities. No one will buy something they know will be a loss.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think we're just going to roll over and give up one of the last great bastions of American manufacturing, you can kiss Barack's patriotic ass. He kept that company in America where it belongs. Oh, and we'll clean up the pollution and then some soon, it's just a bit farther down on the list than averting economic disaster (based on the latest expert reports, disaster is actually being averted pretty effectively).

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Attila Dimedici]

Why do Americans "fear" working for a Japanese or French boss so much they are willing to nationalize a car company?

Americans don't fear working for a Japanese or French boss, the UAW (the union bosses much more than the rank and file) fears a Japanese or French owner of these companies because in either of those cases if the UAW insisted on wages above market, the owners would just close the plants. This takeover never had popular support among Americans, check the polling data.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[cdrguru]

If GM had escaped from its union contracts through a bankruptcy, it would have started a trend of other severly underwater employers using the same tactic to escape their union responsibilities. No Democrat administration could possibly allow the end of union featherbedding and union gold-plated benefits. Hence the bailout, with the assurance that the unions would continue to receive their benefits.

There was no other way it was going to happen without a Reaganesque union-busting administration at the helm. Obama is going to give us unions whether we want them or not through the fair choice act, so how could he destroy them?

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

Kiss my fucking ass you Republican assclown. Fuck you and your "capitalism fixes everything" mental handicap. Here's a fucking hint, mouthbreather: capitalism got us into this mess.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

We could have avoided all these problems if either Toyota or Renault had purchased the relevant bits of GM.

Newsflash: Get real. Nobody wanted to buy any part of GM as long as it came with the union contracts, pension liabilities, overbuilt factories, overextended dealer networks, environmental liabilities, etc. And whenever anyone suggested substantial cutbacks, Congress would swing into action to defend employment in their districts.

I think Obama's guys did pretty well here. Will the two new companies survive? Who knows. As they say on ESPN, that's why they play the games.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Is this some game where we say the opposite of what is true? It's deregulation that allows the market to go nuts.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Xylantiel]

If General Motors (GM) were allowed to enter bankruptcy without a government bailout, then GM would likely have been purchased in whole, or in parts, by a European or Japanese auto company. The purchaser would have assumed all of GM's liabilities. Of course, the sale price would have been set to reflect the costs of these liabilities.

While it is fine to complain, this is living in a dream world. The whole point of bankruptcy is to shed liabilities because they CANNOT all be actually met. GM's parts would have been bought for less than pennies on the dollar (because everyone else is broke too) and that tiny amount would have been split up among its creditors -- effectively leaving them with nothing. This is the whole point of bankruptcy. This is to teach the creditors a lesson that they should pay more attention to what the company is doing before it goes down the toilet.

Instead of that certain disaster, we have what is a sort of experiment in government-assisted Union ownership. At worst it is a total flop and GM dies when the economy is not quite as bad as it was earlier this year and the blow is a little softer to the american domestic workforce.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Dustie]

If you think we're just going to roll over and give up one of the last great bastions of American manufacturing, you can kiss Barack's patriotic ass.

Americans really are good patriots!

They would rather bring down the whole nations economy and pollute the world than lose some brand to foreigners even though they can't even compete anyways. Bravo! No wonder Americans got the reputations they do - even in nations that are supposed to be their closest allies in wars around the globe.

Did you ever travel out in the world? Sadly most places I have been they dislike Americans because of the few rotten apples you got (Well, I assume it is a minority at least!) that behave as if they own the globe.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

However, because Americans allowed Washington (and Barack Hussein Obama) to effectively nationalize GM,

Sorry but when you specifically mention Obama in a comment like that makes it sound like he had some primary responsibility in the nationalization of GM. Before Obama ever came to power, the Bush administration had donated about $15 billion to GM, becoming a major shareholder. I think that the government would have ended up nationalizing GM no matter who was president.

That aside, I completely agree that the government should have let GM go bankrupt so that another automaker could have come in and purchase the company. That would have hopefully allowed GM to get out of their ridiculous contracts with the autoworkers union and they could have become a more efficiently run organization.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

Not likely. I'm sure it would have been structured as a sale of assets and the liabilities would still be abandoned. Pension benefits would still be taken over by the government via the PBGC.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

Tip One: If you want to be taken seriously, stop mentioning "Hussein" in your posts; it's a flag to anyone who isn't already on your side that your voice is not worth consideration.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[bzipitidoo]

You sound disparaging of unions. Businesses are always pulling crap. They'll take everything we let them take. They're always looking for an angle, always trying to game the system. They feel they must, to stay competitive. If we let them, they would lower wages to nothing, pay in "company credit" good only at the highly profitable, highly marked up company store, lobby for bad laws that are entirely too favorable to them, and use our police, paid for by our taxes, to enforce those laws. Unions arose in defense against this sort of abuse. The workers saw that the corporations got their way through organized might that no individual could hope to match. They had to organize. For their part, many businesses are secretly glad of restraints that work. They're often unwise but not completely stupid, they know there are destructive forms of competition. It's a comfort to know they don't have to engage in some of that sort of competition because their competitors can't do it either. Some of their protesting is for form. A pity the free market extremists don't see that.

Businesses are like professional athletes who are so committed they'll do anything they can to win. Taking performance enhancing drugs would be the least of it. How about busting a competitor's knees? Bribing or threatening the officials, or the competition? Sabotaging facilities, or the competitors? Pretty easy to win if the competition's transportation couldn't get them to the game, or they all came down with the flu. Then there's changing the rules of the game. Suppose a team got a dubious rule passed that coincidentally bars most of an opposing team's players from playing, while disqualifying almost none of their own? Then later on rails against those same rules as examples of government red tape and interference, when they themselves were the ones who put those rules there? It's easier to bully governments into making changes if they've first been made to look stupid and incompetent. We have to have good rules and enforcement, unless you'd prefer chaos and seeing all the best athletes dead of stress, steroid abuse, and the myriad other hazards of the profession before age 30?

This dumping of polluted sites is classic. Mining operations pull that one all the time. They get to estimate how much pollution their operation will cause, because they wrote the laws on that. Naturally they underestimate as much as they can. For a few years they mine the material and rake in the profits. They shelter those profits, and then declare bankruptcy and leave us to clean up the massive mess they made. Of course the mess is ten times more expensive to clean up than they estimated, and because they planned to declare bankruptcy all along, they did nothing to mitigate the mess when it would have been cheaper.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[QuoteMstr]

Barack Hussein

Thanks for letting me know when I could stop reading your post.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Repossessed]

Because what we really want is a reapeat of the administration that causes wages to make a downward trend even as inflation spun out of control.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

How so? GM and Chrysler going under isn't a mess, it's what needed to happen.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[night_flyer]

so is he ashamed of his name again?

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Barack Hussein

Thanks for letting me know when I could stop reading your post.

Presumably GPP thinks John Sidney McCain III would have done better. ;)

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[mrlibertarian]

If GM had escaped from its union contracts through a bankruptcy...

Why should GM "escape" its union contracts through a bankruptcy?

Can't we just treat the union contracts as a liability? During the bankruptcy process, all we have to do is transfer the shares from the current shareholders to the creditors. If creditor A is owed $20 billion, creditor B is owed $30 billion, and creditor C is owed $40 billion, then give them 22%, 33%, and 44% of the shares, respectively. Anything that is owed to the unions (e.g. the net present value of every union member's pension) would be taken care of by this process, since the debts owed to the unions would be treated just like any other debt owed to a creditor.

Once this process is complete, there are NO liabilities left, by definition. The creditors are now the new shareholders. They elect their board of directors, and the directors try their best to make the new shareholders happy. Maybe that means liquidating the GM assets, maybe it means trying to keep the car company going. In either case, there are no union contracts that would need to be "escaped". Those contracts were with the original company, and that company no longer exists. That's not to say the liabilities demanded by those contracts are "forgotten" or "escaped"; rather, the liabilities between the original company and the unions would be considered to be "paid off" when the shares were transferred from GM to its creditors.

So, why does the government need to get involved? Why should the bankruptcy process be political?

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Daniel Dvorkin]

so is he ashamed of his name again?

[sigh] Is John Sidney McCain III ashamed of his full name? If not, why didn't he use it in his campaign literature?

This wide-eyed, fake-innocent "but it's just his name" bullshit is really childish. You know perfectly well that the only reason to say "Barack Hussein Obama" in a regular political conversation is to make him sound more foreign, more menacing, more eeevil. Look, you don't like the guy, you don't like his policies, fine. There's plenty to criticize on that basis. But the Birther / Secret Muslim / Not One Of Us rhetoric accomplishes nothing except reveal much of the opposition to Obama as racist, religionist, xenophobic craziness.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

Unions are abysmal to. I'm going to buck a trend and go with an Airline analogy. Remember a few years ago when Delta went bankrupt. Its pilot's union had managed to finagle wages something like 3x the industry standard and absurd benefits. One of the first things Delta did in bankruptcy was to re-negotiate all those union contracts. It worked out pretty well, Delta returned to profitability in ~2 years if I remember correctly.
Unions are a necessary evil. They are needed to ensure that workers aren't run roughshod over. However, in cases where the Union gains too much power and uses it unwisely, they can destroy companies. Afterall, the purpose of unions is almost in direct opposition to the profitability of the company. Delta was my first example, they were almost certainly a contributing factor in the car companies downfall. Is there a reason that autoworkers should have their healthcare covered for the rest of the lives by a company funded health program? I can't think of a reason.
It doesn't really matter though, the unions have been rewarded with an automaker to do with as they please for their troubles, and its too late for any of us to do anything about it.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[MightyMartian]

And the taxpayer will be on the hook for the cleanup. Yes, a wonderful deal had by all, well almost all.

I think the time has come to start making corporate officers and management personally libel, and then start seizing assets and tossing them in jail when things like environmental cleanup are evaded by the company. Wouldn't it be something to a former CEO sitting in a prison cell while every asset he owns is sold off to pay for the decisions that he made. It would be a victory for personal responsibility.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[sumdumass]

Are you speaking of the failure of a presidency Jimmy Carter?

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[FriendlyPrimate]

Geeze...what's with this incessant need for conservatives to resort to childish name calling? Hussein Obama? Real mature. And how the heck does a post like this get modded up to 5? Is Slashdot being overrun by GOP comment-for-hires?

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[FriendlyPrimate]

The assumptions made in this post are ridiculous. Everything would have be rosy if GM had just been allowed to go bankrupt? GM wasn't ENTIRELY at fault for their downfall. Don't forget that nobody is purchasing cars because of the financial crisis. They would still be around if that had not occurred. You say that someone like Toyota would have swooped in an bought up the pieces. But how realistic is that? NO car companies are doing well right now, not even Toyota. This isn't the environment for car companies to be expanding. Maybe in a couple of years they could have bought up the pieces. But by then, all the domestic parts manufacturers would have long gone bankrupt (but I guess you'd blame their demise on bad management also, right?), and people would have been out of a job for years. That would have had a devastating ripple effect on the rest of the economy (25% unemployment, etc...). Fear of working for a Japanese or French boss has nothing to do with it. I'm no fan of GM (or unions for that matter), but letting GM and Chrysler disappear would have decimated our economy. Obama made the best choice given the grim options he had. Implying that free-market principles would have fixed everything in the end is just plain wrong, unless you think that letting the U.S. economy go in the toilet is okay, since other economies (like China, which isn't burdened with things like environmental regulations and minimum wage laws) would "fill the gap".

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[FriendlyPrimate]

I used to be a full-fledged Libertarian who believed the mantra that all regulation is bad. But unfettered capitalism is not the panacea you think it is. Unregulated capitalism is like a race car without brakes. It can go really fast, but is prone to horrific crashes. And unregulated capitalism essentially means NO middle class. If you want to see what unregulated capitalism looks like, look at what it was like in the United States at the turn of the 20th century (or look at China today). You had two classes of people...the haves and have-nots. The lower class had to work 14-16 hours a day, 6 days a week, for slave wages, with no job security (you get hurt, you get fired). Don't like working like a slave? Tough luck! It was good for the economy though. Sick people didn't live long enough to be much of a drain on the economy. The so-called "socialist" policies put in place during the 1930's resulted in the expansion of the middle class in the 40's and 50's. Otherwise, you'd likely still be working in a sweatshop right now. Of course too much regulation is bad for the economy. But no regulation at all leads to hell-on-earth working conditions for most, and all wealth concentrated in a very small population. Therefore, the best choice is some limited regulation and intervention by the government when absolutely necessary.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[TheUglyAmerican]

The problem isn't unions good/bad, business good/bad or government good/bad. Its simpler than that. I know it sounds trite but the old adage is true, "power corrupts." Whatever the power, union, big business or government, it will become corrupt and ultimately only interested in its own growth and expansion. I think we know that and try to balance power with power. So you have big business that we balance with unions and government. But what eventually happens is these centers of power start working together to advance common agendas. The net result in any case is, we get screwed.

If you read Robert Bellah's "The Good Society", he argues that we need a strong "civil society" to offset the powers in economic realm and the political realm.

Unfortunately we just argue back and forth in the political realm as if there lies the solution to our problems.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose merely calling him Aitch, just like everyone said Dubya.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[BitZtream]

Funny how some businesses 'must have unions to protect employees' but others don't. Tell me exactly, why is it the only place I see unions are where the employees are treated far better than they are worth and have all sorts of bullshit incentives.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[cdrguru]

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but our current President's full name is indeed Barak Hussein Obama. You can try to deny it, but them's the facts.

So I don't understand any childish name calling. Just stating the full name of the President. Sure, lots of people would like to pretend that isn't his middle name. Sorry, but it is true.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

Because I don't think unions serve much of a purpose anymore with all of the worker protection laws that are on the books now. Everything the unions can achieve for members is icing on the cake.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[cdrguru]

One of the basic reasons why GM was underwater finacially was because of pension committments made as part of union contracts. Their only way out of these, legally, was to declare bankruptcy and have the government take over the pension plans. As far as I know, no other legal transfer of them was possible, other than outright sale of the entire company.

Penion plans are written in ways to as to prevent them from being shifted around or passed over to the government except in very limited circumstances. It is done this way to make it very difficult to get out of such obligations - which is a good thing. Except the problem that nearly every major employer that has existed for more than 30 years is facing is underfunded pension obligations. The basic reason behind this was some optimistic forcasting in the 1960s and 1970s by both company management and unions. The end result is a pension plan that would have been fine if the economy of 1965 continued on today. It did not. All of the companies affected have fewer employees today than they did in the 1960s and 1970s and a completely different financial picture.

What this means for retirees is that the company they retired from can't afford to continue their benefits. The rules and regulations controlling pension plans and their administration require that the company go bankrupt in order to pass the obligations over to the government pension office.

So sorry, you can't treat the union penions as creditors - that isn't how the rules operate. Besides, the total value of the pension plans for GM likely exceed the GDP of the US today. Certainly, it vastly exceeds the value of GM in 2008. Or any time in recent memory.

One of the biggest problems with the whole pension idea was that it could be a pay-as-you-go funding process. So that in 1980 the pension plan had to pay out 5 million dollars so all that had to be in the pension fund was 5 million dollars. The company then ahd to pay in the same amount, plus a little more, for 1981. The pension obligations were able to be met in that way. The problem is, the pension plans were not 100% funded for the life of every retiree from the moment of their retirement. Nor was it ever calculated on the basis of how much money was available for a person from the moment of their retirement. These were all defined-benefit plans where you got X dollars a month for the rest of your life, however long that was.

This means that as retirees began living longer and longer the total value of their pension plan just kept going up and up. As per the plan. So there is no specific dollar value that could ever be assigned to a plan - it just required more and more funding from the company. In 1970 it sounded reasonable. By 1990 most companies with defined-benefit pension plans had realized there was no way the plan could possibly continue much longer. Now we have airlines, manufacturers and just about everyone else bailing out of their pension plan somehow - and the government makes it very difficult to walk away without going bankrupt. Because the only entity that can possibly take over is the government itself.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Lost Engineer]

In this case unions drove the cost of labor so high that the business died. The investors got nothing and the union got to keep their pay for the most part. Why shouldn't I disparage them? They forced me through politics into a raw deal.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[cdrguru]

Why do Americans "fear" working for a Japanese or French boss so much they are willing to nationalize a car company?

The first thing a Japanese boss would do is throw the union out, just as has been done in all of the Japanese car plants in the US. A French boss might not do that, but they might as well. I believe BMW threw the union out of their plant in the US.

So a foreign owner would probably mean no union. No Democrat administration could tolerate that. I don't think anyone in the federal government gives a rat's ass about what the American people want. Nobody likes the bailout situation and nobody is in favor of what happened with GM. That didn't stop the Executive Branch from doing it. Note that neither the House nor Senate ever voted on a plan for GM.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a reason that autoworkers should have their healthcare covered for the rest of the lives by a company funded health program? I can't think of a reason.

The same reason we had to let AIG pay out 5 billion in taxpayer money as bonuses to the fools who nearly destroyed the world economy - it's in the CONTRACT. And the "troubles" you seem to think are insignificant were actually $20 billion in unpaid, previously-agreed pension obligations. The ownership stake actually *saves* taxpayers money, as otherwise we'd be stuck paying that $20 billion through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Just Another Poster]

Unregulated capitalism is like a race car without brakes. It can go really fast, but is prone to horrific crashes.

Compare the panics and crashes of the 19th century under "unregulated capitalism" with the Great Depression.

And unregulated capitalism essentially means NO middle class. If you want to see what unregulated capitalism looks like, look at what it was like in the United States at the turn of the 20th century (or look at China today). You had two classes of people...the haves and have-nots.

China is not "unregulated capitalism", but insofar as capitalism is left alone in China, a large Chinese middle class is growing.

The lower class had to work 14-16 hours a day, 6 days a week, for slave wages, with no job security (you get hurt, you get fired). Don't like working like a slave? Tough luck! It was good for the economy though. Sick people didn't live long enough to be much of a drain on the economy.

14-16 hours a week for 6 days is 84 to 96 hours per week. In fact, the average workweek for manufacturing, coal mining, railroads, building trades and postal employees was around 52 hours, according to this (page 48).

The so-called "socialist" policies put in place during the 1930's resulted in the expansion of the middle class in the 40's and 50's. Otherwise, you'd likely still be working in a sweatshop right now.

Highly unlikely. How many "sweatshops" do you see in places like Hong Kong and Singapore?

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[pipingguy]

...and its too late for any of us to do anything about it.

Don't buy their cars.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[floodo1]

Wages aren't protected by laws on the books. I mean the minimum wage is a joke, so it doesn't count.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[floodo1]

we've never had real regulation because we always compromise with the capitalists :( You're straw manning regulation.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[ScentCone]

we've never had real regulation because we always compromise with the capitalists

Yeah, we're going to have to look for another example, where the regulatory authority has all of the necessary power. I know! Hugo Chavez. There you go. He's just found that another 34 radio stations needed to be regulated off the air because they weren't towing his line, and dared to question some of his policies. He's just indicated that any reporters questioning the government's actions will be jailed. There, some nice, solid, uncompromising requlatary power in action.

Let's see... oh, I've another one! Joseph Stalin, hard at work centrally regulating the eeevil market place. He had a few rough spots to work out early on though, so a few million people had to die. But after that, that centrally managed economy just worked wonders, didn't it? Fantastic.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[russotto]

If General Motors (GM) were allowed to enter bankruptcy without a government bailout, then GM would likely have been purchased in whole, or in parts, by a European or Japanese auto company. The purchaser would have assumed all of GM's liabilities. Of course, the sale price would have been set to reflect the costs of these liabilities.

No, that only happens if the company is bought whole. If nobody wants it with all the liabilities (which seems likely in GMs case), then the company can be sold off without the liabilities. Another company could purchase "substantially all the assets" of GM. From that sale price the creditors would be partially paid, and anything left the creditors are stuck with; the entity owing them has ceased to exist.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Haxzaw]

I am not a Bush basher or an Obama apologist, but Bush started the whole thing. By stating, "However, because Americans allowed Washington (and Barack Hussein Obama) to effectively nationalize GM", you ignore the fact that Bush started the bailout nonsense. True that Obama has taken it to a whole new level, but he sure didn't start it. Of course, one could look back several years at the first bailout of Chrysler as the starting point, but that was a different situation, and Chrysler paid the loan off. I see no reason to believe that the banks or car companies will ever pay back any of this money. Americans don't necessarily fear working for these other countries' companies, and Americans didn't nationalize the car companies, the Government made the mess, and the companies are not nationalized - the Government does not own them.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[DNS-and-BIND]

Frankly, I think of it as subverting the Obama brand. It's not just a name, it's a brand. And words have power. Referring to him in such a manner robs him of the messianic power of the "Big Mr. O who will save all of us from certain destruction" meme that is very prevalent (heck, it's a religion in certain quarters...i.e. the mainstream media.)

All I heard for decades was how vitally important it was to subvert the existing authority in every possible way. Funny how subversion is a bad thing as soon as you become the establishment, eh?

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Foobar of Borg]

Yeah, we're going to have to look for another example, where the regulatory authority has all of the necessary power. I know! Hugo Chavez. There you go. He's just found that another 34 radio stations needed to be regulated off the air because they weren't towing his line, and dared to question some of his policies. He's just indicated that any reporters questioning the government's actions will be jailed. There, some nice, solid, uncompromising requlatary power in action.

Let's see... oh, I've another one! Joseph Stalin, hard at work centrally regulating the eeevil market place. He had a few rough spots to work out early on though, so a few million people had to die. But after that, that centrally managed economy just worked wonders, didn't it? Fantastic.

Someone call Godwin. His law needs updating!

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[jyx]

Just out of interest, do you have the actual final figures of what the airline pilots negotiated and got. Do you also have the total renumeration for all the Delta executives and money spent on 'non core business'.

I'm not saying that the pilots didn't get greedy or that the executive were themselves overpaid or spending frivolously but I think it would be an interesting comparison. After all, the pilots and the planes are the money earners and probably deserve the most attention in an airline business.

Unions, like business, aren't evil. However, like anything with humans involved, once they got to much power they both seemed to be. We lived in an interesting time when both the unions and business got powerful, greedy and hurt themselves (and a heap of bystanders) in the wash up.

Blaming unions for the downfall of a business is not fair or accurate (unless of course the unions had stated 'we are brining this company down because of reason X).

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the Australian banking system. Well regulaated, competitive, and came out of the financial crisis with the top 4 banks still retaining triple A credit ratings. The regulatory framework was put in place after the banks demonstrated in the late 80s and 90s that capitalism is really shit at regulating anything... it just becomes a free for all. Sure that's the capitalist way companies fail and others take their place, but on the other hand, you get this incredible risk taking behaviour on the corporate scale. It's a well established fact that anything with an exponential graph describing it will reach it's limits pretty fast. Yet corporations (without regulation) were allowed to continue and then when the merry go round came to a jarring halt they suddenly remembered "oh my... we're in a spot of bother... we need government intervention NOW". The thing that I don't understand is why Americans like the above poster automatically equate regulation with Stalin/Chavez? It's a bit drastic comparing regulations such as having enough assets to cover your liabilities, limits on negative gearing, proper accounting practices to repressive regimes. There's many many examples of regulated industries which have succeeded BECAUSE of regulation and not in spite of it. I would argue that the corporate world has shown us many many times that it cannot regulate itself (dot com crash? sub prime mortgages? housing bubble?) so it need at least SOME kind of regulation in order to prevent something like this happening again. Just like any engineering firm has to build/design stuff according to a set of standard regulations, so the financial industry needs to be held to certain standard, ESPECIALLY now that much of the financial "engineering" going on seems to have little to do with reality. (Apart form the massive, very real losses, jobless and bailouts).

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[mambodog]

Barack Hussein Obama

I see what you did there...

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[ScentCone]

sub prime mortgages? housing bubble?

You're kidding, right? The ONLY reason there were so many sub-prime mortgages was because the government created them, through regulation. The whole mess was a direct result of the government essentially mandating that lenders give insane loans to people who couldn't possibly afford them. The huge wash of nonsense easy housing loans directly drove up the price of residential real estate, causing the bubble. And of course, it collapsed because it was never there in the first place.

Of course the results might not have been so bad if the entities pushing the loans (Fannie/Freddie) had the capital to weather the storm. You'll recall the Bush administration going before congress to warn that those two were wildly under-capitalized, and that they either needed more cash set aside, or needed to quit backing BS loans. Of course, you know who shouted that down (see Barney Frank, the wise Democrat in charge of the oversight committee). Do a little Googling, and you can see video of him lecturing the Bush administration about how Fannie was just fine, thank you, and should actually increase the number of loans it guaranteed to people with little income to actually pay for them.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[MrPhilby]

You're a fucking disgrace to your nation.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'd say you're not a complete convert yet. No offense, but your analogy "Unregulated capitalism is like a race car without brakes. It can go really fast, but is prone to horrific crashes" is a pretty terrible way to understand what happens in a freer market. Regulation isn't about slowing a runaway train of good times and profits. It's about stopping corporations from cheating and lying. This is the conceptual hurdle that a lot of libertarians can't get over. It's not about government meddling in your business. It's about government putting into concrete law morality for corporate behavior.

For example, a Great Depression era law called Glass Steagall was partially repealed which opened up the way for banks to start behaving under risky brokerage laws. But, banks have FDIC protection and the intention of FDIC insurance is that the government will protect some of your deposits provided that you operate by conservative banking rules. So, as soon as the predictable (and repeat of history) collapse happened the government found itself on the tab for all that risky bank behavior.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[rollingcalf]

"How many "sweatshops" do you see in places like Hong Kong and Singapore?"

Not many. But they have even more regulation and are closer to socialism than the USA. They are not the free-for-all capitalist havens that you think they are.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[toddestan]

Don't buy their cars.

I would hope this would mean they go out of business, but instead the government would just bail them out, again.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[rollingcalf]

"You're kidding, right? The ONLY reason there were so many sub-prime mortgages was because the government created them, through regulation. The whole mess was a direct result of the government essentially mandating that lenders give insane loans to people who couldn't possibly afford them."

Nonsense. The regulations for lending in the low income and minority communities never required or encouraged banks to make ridiculous ARMs, zero-down-payment loans, or loans without proof of income. In addition, many of the largest banks involved in the overlending madness were exempt from those regulations.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[demonlapin]

Minimum wage is over $14k a year. Are you serious? A guy with a bad work ethic, a fifth-grade education, and no experience is worth $14k a year?

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[demonlapin]

pilots and the planes are the money earners

Well, they're doing the labor, but then again they're not the ones planning the routes, negotiating gate fees, or bargaining on new aircraft. Compare upthread to those who argue that the UAW aren't responsible for bad designs (which were, in that argument, what killed GM/Ford/Chrysler). Either you're responsible for profitability, or you're not.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[demonlapin]

Just as soon as the line workers are each held personally responsible for the proper performance of their jobs, too. The timing chain on my old car broke 30,000 miles before it was even supposed to be inspected, and cost me $3000 for a new engine. At the time, that represented over 10% of my yearly household income. I'd be happy to go back and take it out of his pocket. I mean, who is he to evade screwing up his job?

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[demonlapin]

lots of people would like to pretend that isn't his middle name

Who cares what the guy's middle name is? He didn't pick it; his parents did.

I can't stand his political beliefs, but nobody is responsible for their name unless they go to court and have it changed.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[demonlapin]

The first half of the 20th century were an odd experiment in civilizational suicide which is not likely to be repeated any time soon. Europe decided, after having gone out and conquered the whole damned planet, to kill itself in stages. World War I killed off the aristocracy, and World War II killed the industrial heartland of Europe (and colonialism, FWIW). The US and Canada were left in possession of the only intact industrial architecture in the world, an immense amount of natural resources, and the best talent of the world. FAILING to become gobsmackingly wealthy in such a situation would have required an incredible amount of effort.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[plnix0]

You sound disparaging of unions. Businesses are always pulling crap. They'll take everything we let them take. They're always looking for an angle, always trying to game the system.

Unlike unions?

If we let them, they would lower wages to nothing

Of course, if people are willing to work for nothing, there are certainly businesses willing to pay them nothing. Now re-read that sentence and look for the key phrase.

lobby for bad laws that are entirely too favorable to them, and use our police, paid for by our taxes, to enforce those laws.

Sounds like a problem with government.

A pity the free market extremists don't see that.

So-called free-market extremists don't permit the sorts of abuses you've described anyway.

How about busting a competitor's knees?

Certainly not permitted by free market extremists!

Bribing or threatening the officials, or the competition?

When the "officials" are governments, i.e. users of force, no "free market extremist" would permit that.

Sabotaging facilities, or the competitors?

Those property-rights supporting extremists don't support that stuff either!

This dumping of polluted sites is classic. Mining operations pull that one all the time. They get to estimate how much pollution their operation will cause, because they wrote the laws on that. Naturally they underestimate as much as they can. For a few years they mine the material and rake in the profits. They shelter those profits, and then declare bankruptcy and leave us to clean up the massive mess they made. Of course the mess is ten times more expensive to clean up than they estimated, and because they planned to declare bankruptcy all along, they did nothing to mitigate the mess when it would have been cheaper.

Again, damaging of others' property, which we free-market extremists have no tolerance for.

Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"

So you too are a free market extremist!

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[plnix0]

And is there a reason that taxpayers should honor a contract between a failed company and its employees?

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

I can't find exact numbers, but if you are curious, here is a nytimes article indicating that Delta cut its pilot pay across the board by 32% even before bankruptcy. Prior to this, they were the highest paid in the industry by a good margin.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you're responsible for profitability, or you're not.

I'm not going to comment on the specific "case" of GM vs UAW, but your general point is way too simplistic. There are many realistic scenarios where workers are doing their jobs well and then the owners/executives of a company/corporation make bad decisions that hurt the business. A good example would be Enron; or do you think every clerk consented, or even knew about the fraud being perpetrated by the top executives?

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as soon as the line workers are each held personally responsible for the proper performance of their jobs, too. The timing chain on my old car broke 30,000 miles before it was even supposed to be inspected, and cost me $3000 for a new engine. At the time, that represented over 10% of my yearly household income. I'd be happy to go back and take it out of his pocket. I mean, who is he to evade screwing up his job?

Poor installation can cause a timing chain to fail, but if by "broke" you mean the chain actually came apart then it's far more likely the timing chain had a manufacturing defect. In that case the guy/gal assembling your car is blameless, as the assembly line workers in automobile plants usually just install parts made in another factory (most likely a third-party supplier who may or may not be in union).

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[demonlapin]

I'm sure it was a manufacturing defect, and it probably came from some small supplier. Although I'm not a big union fan, my point wasn't about them, and it still stands: that guy, personally, cost me $3000 in repairs that I could ill afford. I don't see people clamoring for personal liability to attach to those guys, so why should executives face the same? (For non-criminal behavior.)

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[demonlapin]

No, the clerks were doing their jobs well, but then Enron wasn't bad decisions - it was fraud. My point is that a lot of people were arguing the labor theory of value: the UAW workers made all the money for the company, which was then driven into the ground by bad management. Bad management can kill companies, but so can bad workers, and it's pretty hard to argue that the UAW's unionized workers were responsible for the company's profits when times were good, but that they bore none of the responsibility when things went south.

There's a really interesting book called Sabotage in the American Workplace that has a story from a line worker that dedicated his life - and he was a long way from the only one doing it - to sabotaging the cars they manufactured so that nobody would ever buy one from the company they hated so much. When workers are that short-sighted, they deserve what they get.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it depends on the approach of the union. Traditionally unions and employers have an adversarial approach to bargaining. In my opinion this leads to union workers that are of the mind: I'm not going to do a thing more than in my contract and I better be well paid for it. That's not necessarily a bad thing; workers deserve to get paid for their work.

On the other hand, if unions and employers approach each other in cooperative bargaining, where each side explains what they want and what they can offer each other to make it happen... it seems to lead to employees that have pride in their company. They seem to be more willing to keep the company going, doing whatever needs to be done (and yes the union still is there to insure that they get compensated for it).

The problem I have with unions (that I've been part of) is that the members of the union seem to be encouraged to do as little as possible; if something's not in their job description, don't do it. The people that come into the company that are bright and worth keeping can't stand sticking it out with all of the people that drag the company down, so it's a race to the bottom of the barrel.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[floodo1]

Yes because everyone that makes minimum wage has a bad work ethic, a fifth-grade education, and no experience!

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[floodo1]

That's not the whole story of sub-prime. Banks took the risky loans because they could get combine them with less risky loans and get them rated as investment worthy and then sell them off to other people. THIS created the lending craze that fueled the bubble. Yes politicians wanted these guys to promote home ownership but no one in their right mind wanted them to get as crazy with it as they did. But they weren't in their right mind because they were looking at how by making these loans they could make a buck today while the bubble is rising.

The sad thing about the housing bubble is that even the layman could see it. My parents bought their house in 2000 for $97k, and at the height of the bubble it was worth nearly $250k. And no once could have seen it coming!!! /sarcasm).

Of course neither of us is doing the collapse and it's causes any justice because it was ridiculous convoluted. In the end the people most responsible were the people actually making these loans (and their ridiculous models)

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[demonlapin]

No. Minimum wage just makes it unprofitable to hire someone worth less than the minimum wage + taxes. It doesn't mean that they're automatically going to produce that much, so very-low-productivity people are never hired. Not all minimum-wage workers are worthless idiots, but an adult who's been working minimum wage for, oh, six months? There's probably a very good reason they're not rising up.

I didn't work for minimum wage for very long as a teenager because I had skills that were worth more.

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[floodo1]

Wow, so it's unprofitable for employers to employ the millions of people that they DO employ at minimum wage? And all of those min wage peole are "very-low-productivity" as evidenced by their minimum wage pay?

Maybe you should watch the part in Roger & Me were the ex-auto workers couldn't make it at a fast food restaurant because the pace of work was too fast for them. Kinda dispels your idea that minimum wage = low productivity.

Minimum wage is a workers protection against employers driving wages down to a point that is unlivable. And it's a pretty poor protection at even that minimal task.

Just like I thought, because YOU got off minimum wage quickly means that everyone can! ... Except that not everyone has the same opportunities as you :( Contrary to popular myth not everyone is afforded the boots sufficient to allow them to "pull themselves up by the boot straps".

Re:Here is a Reason Why the Free Market Works Best

[demonlapin]

Argue with yourself if you like, but I said that the very-low-productivity people never get hired, at any wage, because you can't profitably hire someone whose work is worth less than the minimum wage + taxes. I did NOT say that minimum wage means that you're worthless; it means that you're worth at least the minimum wage. But it doesn't mean that everyone who would have gotten a job without it got the same job but with higher pay. The only time that would obtain would be in a very tight labor market - when wages would be driven up anyway.

ex-auto workers couldn't make it at a fast food restaurant because the pace of work was too fast for them. Kinda dispels your idea that minimum wage = low productivity.

Too fast? At a fast food place? IOW, their productivity at FAST FOOD was so poor that they weren't even worth minimum wage? Sounds to me like they were guys who didn't deserve to have their previous jobs.

As for myself, while I did have plenty of steps in the right direction - I did well in school, got a full scholarship to college, and had a two-parent household - none of those is dependent on growing up rich (because I didn't). The guy who cuts my yard has a ninth-grade education, if that, and has barely enough backup resources to keep his car running - but he's pulling down $30/hr cash doing lawns. The detail shop I take my car to does an amazing job. The guy that runs it started working at 16; by 20 he had saved up enough to start his own place, and five years later he's looking to expand.

So I get that you love the minimum wage, and think it should be higher. How high would you set it? Why not set it at $20/hr? Do you acknowledge that, at some point, the minimum wage starts to do more harm than good?

Is this surprising?

[tji]

They declared bankruptcy.. the company failed and went into bankruptcy protection in an attempt to salvage something.

Their shareholders (owners) lost billions of dollars, and the GM of old is no more.

Yes, it's important to recognize the responsibilities of old-GM that are not being addressed now that they are gone. But, this should not be surprising, and it's not that unusual either.

Re:Is this surprising?

[arose]

Their shareholders (owners) lost billions of dollars, and the GM of old is no more.

Of course, the company was never profitable, they never made anything, they will know better then run companies into the ground for short-term profits now...

Re:Is this surprising?

[nurb432]

Normally, when a company goes into bankruptcy, the assets are liquidated and the bondholders/etc get to split the cash. Sure there might not be much left to spread around, but its part of the process.

That didn't happen here, and i say it wasn't a true bankruptcy. Nor was Chryslers, with their assets being given to a foreign entity...

Re:Is this surprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

But how else will the free market fanbois get a good rant in?

Re:Is this surprising?

[Dustie]

The earth (pollution) should come before investors. Then investors would also see a need to push the company to pollute less.

Re:Is this surprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

It did.. The investors don't get squat. The shares of old-GM are gone, investors lost everything.

Maybe you mean debtors. They are owed something in the bankruptcy process as assets are liquidated the debtors are re-payed, at least partially.

The breakdown between how much should ho to debtors (e.g. parts suppliers) vs. cleanup funds is certainly debatable.

Re:Is this surprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally, when a company goes into bankruptcy, the assets are liquidated and the bondholders/etc get to split the cash.

That's Chapter 7 - liquidation. Chapter 7 bankruptcy is very rare. GM, like most corporations going through bankruptcy, is going through Chapter 11 - restructuring. That's where the Judge makes the company pay off as much of the debt as it can, cancels the remaining debt, and compensates the creditors with stock in the new company. The theory behind it being that the restructured company will be worth more to the creditors and the public at large than selling the parts off at a fire sale.

Re:Is this surprising?

[Hadlock]

They probably should have changed the name of the company at the same time, such as Universal Vehicles or something, as a holding company, and legally spun off each major division to avoid BS lawsuits like this. Keeping the same name might be nice for traditionalists, but what came out of bankruptcy is essentially a new, private company.

Re:Is this surprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are thinking of a chapter 7 bankruptcy or liquidation. This was a chapter 11 or reorganization (Another type is chapter 13 which is usually for smaller companies to delay debts). So yes, it was a bankruptcy, just a different type than you are thinking. The idea of chap11 and 13 is to keep the companies running and save jobs, investors might get it in the shorts but the jobs are considered to be the important part (although there may be fewer of them as it consolidates its still some of them) This is a pain because with all the bailout funds the government is a big investor now.

going out of business sale

[Anonymous Coward]

come one come all, everything must go! pretty soon the only thing left inside the usa will be weapons and software and not the software i will let on my PC because it comes from a convicted monopolist in Redmond Wa.

unusual not

[confused one]

While the bankrupcy itself was unusual, it's not unusual at all for corporations to receive relief on environmental cleanup and associated fines during bankruptcy. State and Federal governments ends up with the tab for the cleanup.

Re:unusual not

[Anonymous Coward]

Wut!? What happened to the polluter pays principle? Of course, if a byer of the property is knowingly bying a piece of polluted land from the bankruptcy liquidator, the responsibility to clean up the property transfers to the byer. This is how it would appear as if the GM would "get off the hook", so to speak.

Re:unusual not

[confused one]

If the polluter dies in bankrupcty and after liquidation there are insufficient assets, then the polluter can't pay. You can't get more money from them because they don't exist anymore. This was somewhat of an unusual bankrupcy, the details of which seem to be hard for some people to grasp... GM's "good" assets were "sold" to a new entity to form a new company. A tranfer of assets occured. The "bad" assets remain with the old company; this includes the polluted lands. The newly formed company has been released of any liability associated with the old company by the bankrupcy court. The old company is still liable - they're not "off the hook"; but, they're not likely to be able to pay for the clean-up.

Re:unusual not

[petermgreen]

And what happens if the bankrupcy liquidator can't find anyone who wants to buy that bit of land because the cost of mandated cleanup work makes it's effective value negative?

Re:unusual not

[Anonymous Coward]

So the old company seems to take a form of a garbage bank, dealing only with the "bad" assets. It will probably take years to deal with the formed asset junk. Then again, some investors or the goverment will get their hands on some nice property for a very low price without considering any possible cost of a clean up.

Re:unusual not

[confused one]

same thing that happens to any piece of abandoned land. It reverts (or rather, defaults) back to the local government.

GM is just another government agency

[nurb432]

And since when does the federal government own up to things?

Re:GM is just another government agency

[larry bagina]

I'm sure they will once they in control 100% of healthcare rather than just 50% of it.

ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome to life in the Third World, muhfukkas!

Enforce this time

[kmahan]

Hopefully the EPA will not let GM slide this time around. Mandatory vigorous enforcement at all their current sites. So that when GM declares bankruptcy again they won't be leaving as big a mess.

Obama has taken trickle down to the wrong level

[Shivetya]

Wall Street, instead of having to wait for Reagan's tax breaks to make money found a new comer who accelerated the plan buy just paying them the money upfront.

GM and Chrysler were bailed out for Wall Street and the Unions. Though don't confuse Unions with the rank and file, I am talking about the leadership who decides where the money is spent and offer muscle to intimidate anyone the administration doesn't like (see AFL-CIO's new leader who thinks murder and violence are fine if you can get away with it - or pay it off).

GM had the ultimate sweet heart deal of the two rescues. Not only did they get out of cleaning up all their pollution they also got a tax bump by keeping the tax write offs from bad GM to prop up new GM. Hence companies which play by the book and make sensible deals like Ford get doubly screwed.

Send Washington a message, avoid GM and Chrysler products. We are being run over by the goons in Washington and since our vote counts for very little the next year the only fight we have left is our pocketbooks

Re:Obama has taken trickle down to the wrong level

[ImNotAtWork]

see AFL-CIO's new leader who thinks murder and violence are fine if you can get away with it - or pay it off

care to provide some examples? I would be interested in seeing them.

Re:Obama has taken trickle down to the wrong level

[Anonymous Coward]

Send Washington a message, avoid GM and Chrysler products. We are being run over by the goons in Washington and since our vote counts for very little the next year the only fight we have left is our pocketbooks

This is America, only stupid people and those that need a cheap car buy GM and Chrysler products.

Can you make your bias any more evident

[dontmakemethink]

The profitability of the 'new' GM requires no explanation. $533M in environmental cleanup is a negligible expense by comparison to the value of the brands GM has developed globally. If the government was willing to buy out GM entirely, obviously they would be willing to absorb the clean-up costs to facilitate GM's survival under other ownership. The costs were inevitably going to fall on taxpayers no matter who bought GM, but only by buying out GM do taxpayers stand to get anything back. Anyone wishing a company that has employed millions of Americans through to retirement to be sold to a foreign corporation over some messy dump sites has a tainted sense of patriotism. Even critics of the Obama administration should praise them for keeping GM American.

And the term "Barack Hussein Obama" is the undisputed flag of politically bigoted. Please continue using it to openly declare your ignorance and irrational paranoia.

Re:Can you make your bias any more evident

[sumdumass]

When is using a man's full name some negative when he is the President of the United States?

I mean seriously, if you think there is something wrong about his name, please inform us. I'm sorry you don't like it or fear something from it, but it is the reality we have.

Re:Can you make your bias any more evident

[demonlapin]

We all know it's his name. And I'm really on your side. But nobody but Rush and Co. call him "Barack Hussein Obama", so even if it's accurate it's a pretty good mark that you're a crank.

BTW: not a slam on Rush, just his radio persona. Before anyone calls Rush an idiot, consider that he makes millions of dollars a year from working three hours a day, five days a week.

Rational expectations

[QuoteMstr]

The fundamental basis of Chicago economics (which we've been using for the past 40 years) is that people and thus businesses are rational actors and make decisions that are best for their own interests.

That's pernicious fucking bullshit. People and companies make irrational decisions all the time. Consider the EPA cleanup mess: according to the idea of rational expectations, the prospect of having to pay for an EPA cleanup would be a strong deterrent to polluting. In reality, nobody cares, because the person who decides whether to pollute will be gone by the time the consequences of a decision to pollute become apparent. Thus, the company as a whole makes a rather irrational decision to pollute regardless.

You need proactive enforcement to stop these kinds of violations. Generally, trying t stop a given behavior by threatening companies (or people) with consequences over a time horizon of a few years is completely ineffective in stopping that behavior.

Re:Rational expectations

[floodo1]

Yes and some of the most famous people behind the rational actors ideas now admit that it's far more complex. The example that I heard one of them cite was buying something because your girlfriend or wife liked it more than what you'd otherwise rationally purchase.

The rational actors idea dovetails so nicely with the "non-accountability" in government to form the argument that the market is a direct feedback mechanism while the government has no incentive not to just waste money :( :( (as if democracy isn't supposed to be a feedback mechanism with rational voting)

"GM"

[Anonymous Coward]

From Wikipedia's General Motors:
Owner(s): United States Treasury (61%) Government of Canada/Ontario (11.7%) United Auto Workers (17.5%)

Lesson: industry can ultimately escape enviros by failing into the arms of government and its labor/union constituents.

Today only federal level politicians can still trump enviros in the US; everyone else has to move to China.

They already are

[tkrotchko]

"If we let them, they would lower wages to nothing"

That ship has sailed. All those jobs will be moved to China anyway. Paying a few billion to prop up GM is a drop in the bucket compared with the massive economic & political forces at work to ensure this happens.

After that, I suspect the unions will look for direct government subsidies without all the legal niceties of running the subsidies through the legal fiction of a car company called GM.

Add it to Superfund

[bryan1945]

Or whatever it's called.The US people are now completely crispy fried when it comes to our debt. At this point I just laugh and cry a little every time I hear about a new 'program' or 'bill' or 'solution' that comes out of the administration's or Congress's mouth.

Re:Add it to Superfund

[Anonymous Coward]

If only we hadn't been at war for the last 8 years...

No, I'm not talking about Iraq. I'm talking about Afghanistan. The war we aren't even close to finishing yet. That one we stuck on the backburner for Iraq.

The greater our debt, the more in debt we have to go to bring back the economy. Terrible, but what can you do except destroy everyone who lent us money.

Re:Add it to Superfund

[jez9999]

Don't worry, you won't actually need to *repay* the debt. China is just buying the US on the installment plan.

Perhaps, but another reason

[tkrotchko]

U.S. Presidents are routinely called by their full name, or at least their first & last plus initials

  George W Bush (an initial, but still)
  Dwight D Eisenhower (another initial)
  George Herbert Walker Bush
  William Jefferson Clinton
  Richard Milhouse Nixon

It's neither common nor uncommon to call presidents by their full name. I think you're just being sensitive, really.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[Nimey]

Horseshit. Why do the birthers, etc. always refer to him as Barack Hussein, but average people do not? The answer is perfectly obvious.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[sumdumass]

What is obvious? Does the name offend you? Does it make you uncomfortable? If so, then why?

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[night_flyer]

II didnt hear him complain when they were calling our former president "Dubya"... Bama's a big boy, he doesnt need you to stick up for him...

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why do the birthers, etc. always refer to him as Barack Hussein, but average people do not? "

I'm not sure what a birther is (something to do with where a person is born?), but I suspect that his mother and father referred to him by his full name. Probably his friends too. I think we should just learn not to take offense so easily. How can the truth offend? The truth is liberating and makes us feel better. It's a sort of catharsis.

"The answer is perfectly obvious"

It's one of two things:

    a) You seem uncomfortable with his middle name
    b) You're just plain crazy

I'm guessing the answer is "B", but that's just a guess.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[Daniel Dvorkin]

George W. Bush was called that to distinguish him from his father, a la John Quincy Adams.

I've rarely heard Eisenhower called Dwight D. Eisenhower or Dwight David Eisenhower. Same for Clinton and Nixon. Generally you only hear Presidents' full names given on ceremonial occasions (e.g., "I, Firstname Middlename Lastname, do solemnly swear ..." or "I present to you the nth President of the United States of America, ...")

George Herbert Walker Bush was only called that, IIRC, during the 1992 campaign when Clinton was trying to make a point about him being out-of-touch with ordinary Americans by using his full, aristocratic-sounding name. It was childish when anti-Bush people did it then, and it's childish when anti-Obama people do it now.

I'll say it again: how many times last year did you hear "John Sidney McCain III?" compared to "Barack Hussein Obama?" And why do you think that was?

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[Daniel Dvorkin]

What is obvious? Does the name offend you? Does it make you uncomfortable? If so, then why?

What's obvious is what I said in my original post. The name "Barack Hussein Obama" doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. Its constant use does makes me uncomfortable, because of the wacko xenophobia it reveals in so many of my fellow Americans.

Does "John Sidney McCain III" offend you, or make you uncomfortable? If so, then why? And if not, then why didn't we hear it being thrown around doing the 2008 campaign as often as "Barack Hussein Obama?"

Right-wingers seem constitutionally unable to answer these simple questions.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[sumdumass]

Wow.. Just wow.

It appears that you do have a problem with the name "Barack Hussein Obama". The elections are over and regardless of how many wack-jobs pointed out his middle name was the same a Saddom's last name or that he wasn't a natural born citizen or whatever- they lost so it just doesn't matter any more.

As for John Sidney McCain III, no that doesn't offend me, I'm not going apeshit on the interweb attempting to get people to stop using it either. However, you are. As for right wingers needing to explain why his full name wasn't used more, you have to be really mental to expect an answer for something that just happened. There was no conspiracy to hide his name, there was nothing stoping the left, right, or whoever from using it. He was introduced at the convention using his full name. You act like there is some governing board somewhere that says used this person's full name or not.

I can understand your anger at seeing "Barack Hussein Obama" now. however, your disgust is completely misguided and you just need to chill out or take a pill or something.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[ktappe]

U.S. Presidents are routinely called by their full name

B.S. You used the term "Ronald Wilson Reagan" how many times? That's right, nearly zero. So stop lying.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[Anonymous Coward]

It's being used (attempted) as an insult, like your own childish post.

Do you also call black people "niggers" and then say "what! but he is a nigger! Is he ashamed of his race?"

Never mind, you probably do.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[Foobar of Borg]

Wow.. Just wow.

It appears that you do have a problem with the name "Barack Hussein Obama". The elections are over and regardless of how many wack-jobs pointed out his middle name was the same a Saddom's last name or that he wasn't a natural born citizen or whatever- they lost so it just doesn't matter any more.

Wow... Just wow.

Apparently you are either (1) incredibly thickheaded and with no reading comprehension skills whatsoever or (2) being intentionally obtuse. Both GP and I have no problem at all with his name. GP made it about as blatantly clear as possible that he has no problem with his name. The problem is this childish right-wing idiocy "Oh look! He has a funny foreign-sounding name! *chortle* *chortle* And it's Hussein! That must mean he is just like Saddam Hussein! And a muslim! And a fascist! And a dictator! And a Communist! Ahhh! Run for your lives!"

Seriously, why do you brain-dead morons keep making such a big deal about his name? Are you all still in grade school or something?

Oh, and he is a natural born citizen. He was born in Hawaii, which, despite how much you right-wingers hate the entire state (you know, too many of *those* people there), is actually a part of the US and was when Obama was born there.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[tkrotchko]

"B.S. You used the term "Ronald Wilson Reagan" how many times? "

Probably many more times that I used Barrack Hussein Obama. But then, Reagan was in office almost 16 times as long as Obama at this point. I also said "John F Kennedy" a lot. Do you remember Hubert H Humphrey? Great politician out of Minnesota. Harry S Truman. Now that I think of it, almost all president used their middle initial frequently. Dwight David Eisenhower. Yes, yes, it is common to use the middle name of a president. It usually considered a sign of endearment.

I've never known anyone to get upset with using the middle name of the president. This has got to be another first in American history.

Back to the main point of this article, Obama hasn't done either GM or the country any favors by nationalizing GM. He hasn't even saved the rank and file union jobs as they're going to shut down all those plants anyway. Those jobs will go to China and Brazil. I only hope the guy is smart enough to stay away from dictating product design or mix.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[sumdumass]

Apparently you are either (1) incredibly thickheaded and with no reading comprehension skills whatsoever or (2) being intentionally obtuse. Both GP and I have no problem at all with his name. GP made it about as blatantly clear as possible that he has no problem with his name. The problem is this childish right-wing idiocy "Oh look! He has a funny foreign-sounding name! *chortle* *chortle* And it's Hussein! That must mean he is just like Saddam Hussein! And a muslim! And a fascist! And a dictator! And a Communist! Ahhh! Run for your lives!"

So far it only been you and the GP who seem concerned about his foreign sounding name. At least you are the only one to bring it up. Your actions speak louder then words and no, reading comprehension is not at play here.

eriously, why do you brain-dead morons keep making such a big deal about his name? Are you all still in grade school or something?

From what I can tell, it's you that are making the big deal about his name. I mean most presidents are refered to with their full name from time to time. It's sort of like with serial killers, you use the middle name to keep mistaken identity down. It's a perfectly legit thing to do and you seem to be the one with the problem of it.

Oh, and he is a natural born citizen. He was born in Hawaii, which, despite how much you right-wingers hate the entire state (you know, too many of *those* people there), is actually a part of the US and was when Obama was born there.

And you were there I suppose. I know, you saw the birth certificate that no one else has seen. Anyways, I didn't make the comment that he wasn't. Why do you seem to be so scared about this too?

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[Nimey]

The difference being that "Dubya", as has already been pointed out, was to distinguish between him and his father, much as John Quincy Adams is always referred to with his middle name so we know we're talking about him and not his father.

Also there wasn't the "lol cryptomuslim, lol Saddam Hussein" aspect, /and/ the "Dubya" moniker was accepted by Republicans.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[Nimey]

Jesus must be really proud of you. Don't you know lying is a sin?

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[sumdumass]

And what make you think I care about what Jesus thinks?

You know, if half the shit in your mind was real, you would still be a clueless paranoid loser who was still not right. Perhaps you should stick with Fiction writing.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[VGPowerlord]

II didnt hear him complain when they were calling our former president "Dubya"... Bama's a big boy, he doesnt need you to stick up for him...

The only reason he was referred as Dubya (or W) was because referring to "president George Bush" (or "former president George Bush") was/is ambiguous.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[GodfatherofSoul]

During the election, to prove the point that the whole Barack Hussein thing was a part of the Republican's "he's a foreigner and maybe muslim don't elect thim" motif, I always asked Republicans what John McCain's middle name was. Not one of the "Barack Hussein is a muslim" crowd ever knew.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[MrPhilby]

No, it concerns me too to see someone stooping so low as to emphasise Hussein as an obvious attempt to somehow imply he is related to Saddam. Haven't you worked it out yet? You're committing suicide.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[sumdumass]

No one emphasized Hussein in this thread or made the connections to Saddam except for you. That's the problem, it isn't the people saying Barrack Hussein Obama that is making the connections, it's you and people like you pointing it out in your Barbra Streisand style attempts to censor it.

Re:Perhaps, but another reason

[LanMan04]

In 2004 his official campaign symbol was a "W", was it not?

Polluted Sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I thought at reading the headline "GM Gets To Dump Its Polluted Sites" that their web servers are compromised beyond repair ...

Don't forget the grease for Obama's machine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell else do you think he's being so helpful to GM and Chrysler?

You don't really think a politician who publicly opens a Stasi-inspired snitch line (flag@whitehouse.gov) so you can inform about anyone opposed to a massive government power grab over the US health care industry (gee, just like the power grabs in finance and automotive industries....) doesn't expect to get SOMETHING out of saving the executives of those companies billions of dollars worth of bacon?

Spelling mistakes and poor grammar

[golodh]

Hmmm ... if by "she" you mean the author of the opening post you would be wrong. She didn't *write* an interesting article, she *quoted* one and then linked to it. That's something different.

Generally speaking I don't recall seeing many journalistic pieces that are both well-researched and ungrammatical or improperly spelled. In my personal opinion, if someone uses sloppy spelling and ungrammatical speech they are likely to do sloppy research and use slipshod reasoning as well. Students, journalists, bloggers, and the "man in the street". I'm making allowances for Slashdot's terrible editing environment and fact that people will quickly type a response and continue reading, so I'm not bothered by simple spelling mistakes (besides I make them myself all the time). There are limits however. Failing to distinguish between "their", "they're" and "there", and between "loose" and "to lose" is different from making simple spelling mistakes. It indicates a poor command of language. Nothing to worry about if a Frenchman, a Chinese, or an Arab makes such mistakes, but worrisome if a Brit, an American, or an Australian makes them.

So I don't see much justification for the "It's more important what they have to say than whether they can spell" line of argument, but I do tend to see some justification for the "If their writing is sloppy, unclear, and contains lots of errors, they're probably stupid" school of thought. I'm fully aware that's probably an Elitist point of view, but there you go.

Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[Anonymous Coward]

During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data by CNN.

Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.

At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.

African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.

Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[Anonymous Coward]

During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data by CNN.

Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.

At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.

African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is very acceptable by today's moral standard.

Why are you so ashamed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you so ashamed of our president and his middle name?

Seriously, you have issues.

Re:Why are you so ashamed?

[Foobar of Borg]

Why are you so ashamed of our president and his middle name?

We are not ashamed. Hussein is actually a beautiful name. In fact, it basically means "beautiful" IIRC. The problem is nutjobs on the right who use it to claim that he is secretly a Muslim who plans on bringing jihad to America. Kind of like when Faux News did that whole long spiel about Obama going to school at a madrassa in Indonesia. Except of course that Indonesian schools are largely secular, and Obama's was very secular. Right wingers have been specifically emphasizing "Hussein" to try to tie him in with Saddam Hussein in a childish "oh, look, he has a funny name! Haw! Haw!" kind of bullshit. I mean, just read the Conservapedia article about him. It's chock full of the nutty stuff that has been said about him by you right-wing loons. The most egregious example is Man Coulter constantly referring to him as B. Hussein Obama. Yes, in a technical sense it is still correct. But, as with everything, context is important.

Seriously, you have issues.

Yes, we have issues. We are sick to death of fear-mongering, race-baiting shitbags like you.

Corporatism: the coruption of capitalism

[MrKaos]

This is a classic example of externalities being dumped onto the community. No matter what happens the taxpayer will bare the burden of cleaning the toxicity of GM's effluent be it a federal or state government. What's worse is I doubt there are any obligations on the "new GM" to improve their practices to avoid the exact same scenario in the future.

Clearly our (international) systems of corporate governance is so outdated that requires significant review and improvement to bring it into the 21st century.

This is not capitalism any more it's corporatism, if it was capitalism you wouldn't hear phrases "Too big to fail" you would be hearing "You should have managed your business better". What I don't understand is why individual welfare that mitigates social problems such as preventing people from falling into crime is discouraged and corporate welfare that encourages white collar crime is applauded(???).

For there to be future sustainable business models they must go beyond environmental sustainability, which is the entry point. We are going to have to see business models emerge that are fiscally sustainable, socially sustainable and have agencies with enough teeth to re-write or revoke corporate charters if business does not behave like a good corporate citizen. I don't just mean the veneer of 'corporate responsibility' but measurable responsibility as in 'how much waste was re-processed' and liability that reaches right back into those who made and funded the type of decisions that leave communities hundreds of millions of dollars of externalities to contend with. In essence that is converting taxpayer money into shareholder dividends by forcing those externalities onto the taxpayer.

If we don't we are going to find ourselves in a real depression when the real costs of these externalities are realised, capitalism a spent economic force and corporatism too big to sustain.

Re:Corporatism: the coruption of capitalism

[GodfatherofSoul]

This is what 30 years of Reaganomics rantings have brought us to. People are so anti-government and pro-business now that we've largely swept away the important restraints on the market born from the first Great Depression and the boom and bust cycle our economy endured for our whole history. What scares me is that even after a return to pre-Great Depression boom and bust cycles, people are still crying for more of the free market that's opening the door for the corporate elite to shaft the industry. Obama even has them running his economic policies now.

People think that it's good for us to drop trade tariffs and force Americans working in safe conditions with benefits to compete against foreign indentured servants with no such protections. People also think it's a good thing that all of our industry has moved overseas under the control of foreign governments so that we can buy cheaper stuff that we increasingly can't afford. People are so brainwashed you've got old people on medicare screaming at their representatives in health care forums to stop socialized medicine! I hate to say it, but I think this is the last dance for us. Of course it wasn't a bomb that did it, we did it to ourselves.

Re:Corporatism: the coruption of capitalism

[MrKaos]

Of course it wasn't a bomb that did it, we did it to ourselves.

We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us. - Walt Kelley

Incorrect

[aepervius]

A lot of excellent researcher aren't best with English grammar and spelling, because it is not their primary language to begin with, and you can only go so far with tool automatic grammar and spelling correction, and bad spelled but existing word aren't always detected (like the infamous your for you're). That said really sloppy spelling (missing vowel ; word which don't exists and would be signalled by a spell checker) is not excusable.

Kick the damn Asians out...

[tjstork]

GM and Chrysler should have been left to die. Period. They're businesses sucked and so did they're products.

It would be fine to say that they sucked compared to foreign competitors but the free trade deals the USA has stupidly put together were a one way street. The fact of the matter is that GM and Chrysler and Ford have been hip deep into the government's pocket for the last fifty years and have taken every stupid idea the government has put forth on the chin. It's not a surprise that GM went belly up. What's a surprise is that more companies did not go belly up. Of course, when we look at the US manufacturing sector, just about every company did.

Nope. Let's see, we pile on legislation to make our products more expensive, sign stupid trade deals with insincere trading partners for the sole purpose of expanding military power into the Pacific so that we can defend these assholes from each other, and what do they do? They screw us by jacking up our currency.

My plan is simple. Kick the Koreans out. Kick the Japanese out. Kick the Chinese out. Withdraw US troops from South Korea and Japan, and let the asian countries do what they will. The only country in the Pacific that the USA should defend or accept imports from is Australia and the rest can go to hell.

Well, no.

[tjstork]

And yes, Toyota or any other car company can be put in the exact same situation if their unions get the kind of control they had over GM.

Well no, because in other countries the taxpayers pick up the cost of health care and old age retirement. Every taxpayer pays for it. In the USA, only big corporations with unions pay for health care.

Re:Well, no.

[sumdumass]

So Toyota only has plants in other countries?

And your wrong about other counties as well as needing unions. That is unless you consider leaving the old to die and encouraging euthanasia to be legitimate treatments.

Re:Well, no.

[hairyfeet]

You want to know why we are seeing the slow death of the US car companies? It is actually very simple: Free trade is a lie. does anybody remember when we had TVs and stereos made in the USA? I do, and I remember what killed them. Free trade is a lie. It is a lie and a fantasy because you can NOT call allowing countries like China, which allow the corps to poison the land and their own people, to place their products on the same shelf as those that don't fill the air and ground and water with toxins "free trade". It is like placing you HS football team against the Denver broncos and them having the refs fixed for the Bronco to boot.

That is why I am predicting that we are heading for a Soviet Union style collapse. It is because our government has become so corrupted by special interests that they know work against their own countrymen under the guise of "free trade" which simply doesn't exist. your company can't compete with a Chinese one, simply because we don't allow you to poison us. You can't compete with an Indian that gets a master's degree for less than 20 grand, yet thanks to H1-B you are expected to live on the same wages as he. this system is simply unsustainable and WILL collapse. There is simply no other outcome. You can't export all the jobs and continue to import all the goods and expect the economy to continue to function. There WILL be a total collapse, the only question is when.

But what you see now happening to the auto companies is the same as what happened to the manufacturing sector before them. They had to compete with those that had unfair advantages and of course they lost. can't very well win a rigged game, now can we?

Re:Well, no.

[tjstork]

Free trade is a lie.

I agree with you, 100%.

If unions are so terrible...

[tjstork]

Horseshit. The unions were much more complicit in the downfall of GM and Chrysler

If unions are so terrible, then why is it that the heavily unionized blue states continue to subsidize the non-union red states? If you wanted to actually look at facts, you would find that the state of Michigan has been paying out far more in federal taxes than it receives in benefits, and that's all so states like Alabama can turn around and build Japanese car plants. Bottom line is, the real traitors aren't the guys in the union, but the assholes that buy Japanese cars and throw other people's tax money on the table to accelerate the foreign occupation of the USA. I don't get how red states that are so against immigration have no problem watching every domestic industry go belly up. I guess the south must just want to be a bunch of useless white only morons.

Re:If unions are so terrible...

[demonlapin]

Red states are subsidized by military bases, federal land ownership (huge in the West), and welfare payments.

And why on earth would the South worry about the decline of heavy industry? It's not as though many of them were located there (exception: textiles in the upstate Carolinas). It makes no more sense than Wisconsin fretting about the boll weevil.

Irony, thy name is slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

"why do you brain-dead morons keep making such a big deal about his name? "

The irony of this statement is rich and deep, like the soil in an Iowa cornfield.

Attorney: nonsense

[hawk]

I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need that, pay for it.

>The purchaser would have assumed all of GM's liabilities.

No, it wouldn't. That's just plain *wrong* and has no basis in the real world.

You're not as far off with:

>Of course, the sale price would have been set to reflect the costs of these liabilities.

Without the government intervention, GM would have been liquidated, probably in Chapter 11, but possibly in 7. The assets would have been purchased for the best price that could have been obtained, and the creditors (including environmental cleanup) paid pro rata. Some claims (priority claims) would be paid before others.

When a third party bought an asset, whether it be an engine patent or a manufacturing plant, it would take it *without* being liable for GM's liabilities. Whether the assets were sold individually or as a lot would depend upon which way the better total price could be obtained.

Let's face it, with assets of $1T and liabilities of $2T (made up figures), noone would buy it, not even for $1 (goodwill & future sales based upon the past are included in assets here). You just couldn't sell it, and the creditors would receive nothing. They're better off with the assets being sold for what could be obtained.

The real screwy part here is that the pension plans come out smelling like roses. They'd have received nothing in a liquidation, but with this plan they're getting pretty much everything they're owed, unlike the rest of the creditors, who get pennies on the dollar. The secured creditors, those whose loans were backed by assets, are getting quarters on the dollar, whereas the shareholders--the ones who owned GM--have been completely wiped out (as they should be).

hawk, esq.

Dude, you're not getting it

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if you "accept" people using his middle name:

IT'S A LEGAL FACT.

Sheesh. You're like the guys claiming that Microsoft isn't a monopoly. THEY ARE LEGALLY A MONOPOLY.

Bush may not have been a good president, but he had a thick skin. People like you are accomplishing the impossible: You're making me feel nostalgic for Bush. You're amazing.

American democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, corruption.

Re:Both GM and Chrysler were handled poorly

[mi]

It's not so much about keeping GM alive, as keeping people in a job.

Sorry, this oft-heard argument is, actually, quite retarded. "Keeping people employed" is not the goal. "Keeping people doing something useful" is what we ought to aim for... There is a fine distinction here, which is not well-known to people, because it only appears, when the government begins to meddle with capitalism — we are blessed with such situations being fairly rare. Private businesses are unlikely to keep employing useless workers, which is why we tend to think, "employed" and "productive" are equivalent — they aren't...

In this case, even the most famous example of the government paying one person to fill up holes dug by another person paid to dig them would've been less useless (and less damaging to all, including environment), than keeping GM alive.

A government owned car compagny?

[Anonymous Coward]

.....Volkswagen?