| Author | Message | ||
     Rocketsprink |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/meltdown_autos | ||
| Spiderman |
so you wanted the auto companies to fail? | ||
| Froggy |
This is socialist how? | ||
| Slaughter |
Tony - the thing is the automakers already HAVE FAILED. We have to deal with the corpse and the problem is that Congress in its infinite wisdom has appointed itself to be Jesus Christ to the automakers Lazarus. Those of us who question any of this are atheists. | ||
| Rocketsprink |
"The government will have the option of becoming a stockholder in the companies, much as it has with major banks, in effect partially nationalizing the industry." No they should not fail. But the Republican mantra of smaller government seems to be going right out the window. Give them a loan to be paid back. Why become a stock holder? Talk about big brother. | ||
| Rainman |
We're going Euro. It's all part of the One World Government. Ask LaRouche. Get your techno-pop records today! | ||
| Spike |
| ||
| Spiderman |
Tony - the thing is the automakers already HAVE FAILED. They have, bad choice of words, I should have said go under. | ||
| Nxtr |
I don't want to see them fail; on the other hand I don’t think the taxpayer monies should be used. If the government wants to bail them out, then it should be just like a business and a bank if you want a large amount of cash you will need a cosigner. Make the CEO's cosign for the loan which puts their personal net worth on the line, I bet there would be a lot more attention paid to how the corporations were run... JMO V/R, Nick | ||
| New12r |
So who is buying new cars anyway?? All the bailouts are BS. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
They should fail, as any company that builds a product that people dont want, wont pay for, cant get financing for. Auto brands have failed and disappeared before, what makes the Big 3 think that they are so beyond it. (doesnt Germany already have a major stock in Chrysler? Why arent they bailing out their American division of Diamler?) | ||
| New12r |
Gemany realized that cryslers suck and dropped them over a year ago. | ||
| Nxtr |
Diamler saw this mess coming (you know they invented the sham wow) and dumped chrysler of on an investment firm here in the US named Cerberus Capital Management. (they didnt invest in the Sham Wow)... V/R, Nick | ||
| Buellgrrrl |
You guys seem to have forgotten that HD/Buell was saved by a government bailout tariff two decades ago. | ||
| Nxtr |
Harley-Davidsonly. Anti-free trade conservative knuckle-draggers always roll out the example of Harley-Davidson whenever they champion tariffs. "Without tariffs, Harley-Davidson would be gone," claims Buy American campaigner Roger Simmermaker. "There would no longer be an American motorcycle industry." Simmermaker is exactly wrong. Tariffs didn't save Harley-Davidson. Harley-Davidson only regained strength when it overhauled its management style, built some cool new rides that didn't leak oil and break down all the time, and realized the power of the Harley-Davidson brand. Harley-Davidson needed government help because by the early 1980s the once-dominant bike builder was making and selling junk. Tariffs were their reward for incompetence. In any case, Harley-Davidson realized themselves the folly of tariffs once they got their act together. In 1987, with a year of tariff protection still to run, the motorcycle manufacturer petitioned the International Trade Commission for early termination of its five-year tariff deal. Nowadays Harley actively campaigns against international tariffs, so it can sell more bikes overseas. A better explanation from the New York Times Business circa 1987; HARLEY ASKS END TO TARIFF AID By BARNABY J. FEDER Published: March 18, 1987 LEAD: Harley Davidson Inc., the sole surviving motorcycle manufacturer in the United States, roared into the international trade spotlight yesterday with a surprise request that the Government withdraw tariff protections granted four years ago to save it from Japanese competitors. Harley Davidson Inc., the sole surviving motorcycle manufacturer in the United States, roared into the international trade spotlight yesterday with a surprise request that the Government withdraw tariff protections granted four years ago to save it from Japanese competitors. ''We're profitable again. We're recapitalized. We're diversified. We don't need any more help,'' said Vaughn L. Beals, the Milwaukee-based company's chairman and chief executive, explaining the request to the United States International Trade Commission to terminate tariffs on large Japanese motorcycles. Trade experts said the move could influence trade debates in Congress. ''It will strengthen those who argue that temporary protectionism can lead to successful adjustment,'' said I. M. Destler, who follows trade issues at the Institute for International Economics in Washington. However, Mr. Destler added, skeptics would argue that saving a single threatened company that occupies one niche of a market, as Harley does with its high-powered cycles known as ''hogs,'' is not the same as protecting an entire industry. Moreover, Harley enjoyed the advantage of an especially loyal following among motorcycle aficionados who often regard the lower-cost Japanese models as imitations, however advanced they are technically. ''It's not surprising that Harley weathered the storm,'' said Paul Dean, editor of Cycle World, a magazine based in Newport Beach, Calif. Harley's cycles cost from $4,000 to more than $10,000 and are up to 50 percent more expensive than competitive Japanese models. ''The people who ride them are fanatical,'' he added. The special tariffs were imposed for a five-year period by President Reagan in April 1983 as Harley skidded toward bankruptcy. Aimed at giving Harley time to carry out planned changes in manufacturing practices and product improvements, the tariffs followed a sliding scale that added 45 percent to the cost of the Japanese imports with engines larger than 700 cubic centimeters in 1983 with a decline to 10 percent in the year ending April 1, 1988. In addition to modernizing, Harley also used the breathing room to reduce its debts with a public offering of shares last summer and to diversify by acquiring the Holiday Rambler Company, a maker of recreational vehicles. It was not clear yesterday how quickly the trade commission would act to remove the tariffs. The Japanese manufacturers had no immediate comment on Harley's announcement, but experts doubted that the change would lead to lower prices. Japanese importers, who had passed on only part of the tariff to consumers, have seen profit margins shrivel as the yen strengthened against the dollar and they are expected to use relief from the tariffs to partially offset the impact of the currency swing. Whatever the strategic implications, Harley's move was widely regarded as a masterful stroke of public relations. It called attention to changes Harley has made in its manufacturing operations that are widely admired in engineering circles and to Harley's confidence that it had overcome quality problems that had made it vulnerable to the Japanese onslaught in the early 1980's. Harley said that its market share of the heavyweight part of the market in which it competes rose from a record low of 12.5 percent in 1983 to 19.4 percent last year. Mr. Beals said that Harley's motorcycle business was profitable last year for the first time since the company's managers bought it from AMF Inc. in 1981 for $80 million. ''We're taking this action now because we believe we're sending a strong message out to the international industrial community: U.S. workers, given a respite from predatory import practices, can become competitive in world markets,'' Mr. Beals said. Refusal by Japanese Harley, which was founded in 1903, at one time had more than 150 American competitors. It sought Government protection in 1982 when Japanese importers refused to cut production in the face of a declining market. The Japanese overproduction led to a price war at a time when Harley could not afford it. ''We were very, very fragile in 1982,'' said Richard Teerlink, Harley's chief financial officer and head of its motorcycle operations. With the protection of tariffs, Harley introduced practices such as just-in-time manufacturing, in which parts are made only when needed, and statistical process control of operations, which catches production errors before they have become embedded in products. The company raised the percentage of motorcycles leaving its production lines without defects from about 50 percent to more than 98 percent and became a mecca for engineers from other industries. At the same time, Harley redesigned many of the parts in its cycles without changing its basic design. The changes rid the products of such defects as bone-jarring vibration. Other Considerations Noted While Harley officials described their action yesterday as nothing more than a sensible move to avoid abusing the aid they had been given, experts speculated that other considerations might also have played a role. They pointed out, for instance, that Honda and Kawasaki, which have established American assembly operations to avoid the tariffs, have been able to find shelter under the same price umbrella that protected Harley. ''Tariff protection was vital to Harley,'' said Richard J. Schonberger, a Seattle-based manufacturing consultant. ''But it was inducing Kawasaki and Honda to build big bikes in America to compete with them.'' Mr. Beals said that the growing American operations of the two Japanese giants had not been a factor. But he conceded that Harley had noted that they had been notably silent while Suzuki and Yamaha, two Japanese motorcycle manufacturers without American plants, protested vociferously in a 1985 review of the tariffs. Coincidentally, the Honda Motor Company Ltd., the world's largest cycle manufacturer, announced yesterday in Japan that it was shifting engine production for its large motorcycles to its Marysville, Ohio, plant. V/R, Nick (Message edited by nxtr on December 19, 2008) (Message edited by nxtr on December 19, 2008) | ||
| Xl1200r |
Those of us who question any of this are atheists. Or just short sighted. They should fail, as any company that builds a product that people dont want, wont pay for, cant get financing for. Better check your facts before making such sweeping statements. I'm glad this went through. I'm not happy about the stock option thing, but I guess if it means protecting some of the tax-payer money, then so be it. I'm not into nationalisation, but I don't think it'll happen to the extent that it will matter much. For anyone that's been paying attentiont for the past 5 years, the big 3's problem hasn't been selling cars, it's been making money on them. I think the concessions they talk about in the article should really level the playing field. Ford seems to be a shining star, here, denying any money right now. That alone makes me think that GM and Chrysler really believe they can save themselves. | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
So who is buying new cars anyway?? Thats one big problem they will face. You can make the best product in the world but nobody is gonna pony up in the near future. I also read a article on yahoo that said the Ford F-150 and Chevy Silverado are the best 2 best selling vehicles of 08 in the US | ||
| Xl1200r |
I also read a article on yahoo that said the Ford F-150 and Chevy Silverado are the best 2 best selling vehicles of 08 in the US That's been the case for a LONG time... | ||
| B00stzx3 |
America first, always and forever. Have some patriotism for God's sake. If your American, you should always be looking out for America and it's workers. You shouldn't blame the blue collar guys who make Fords and Chevys for their white collar managments incompetence. Ford, Chevy and GM are as American as apple pie and Bud Light. | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
I would have never thought 2 full size trucks would be the top sellers... But, I haven't been in the market for a new car for almost 5 years.... and "IF" I can keep the wifes Durango running for another 5 years.... the chatter box has been making ALOT of noise ever time something needs or gets fixed.... Its getting harder and harder to tune it out. | ||
| Stoked |
Buy American bitches!!!!!!! | ||
| Edgydrifter |
That's the kind of jingoistic thinking that got us in our current pickle. It lets the Big 3 get away with NOT being the best, because they don't have to be as long as they can drive sales by wrapping themselves in the flag. I'm not a charity, I'm a consumer. If Ford or Chevy made a car that suited my needs better than my Mazda 5 at a comparable price, I would have bought it. They don't, so I didn't. If that makes me less a patriot, fine, but it also makes our domestic auto makers unpatriotic for letting down American citizen/consumers like me. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Anti-free trade conservative knuckle-draggers" Really? Seems to me the dems and the liberals are the ones holding up the free trade agreements and vilifying the WTO. | ||
| Raceautobody |
History will judge if this bailout/loan worked or not. But it looks like Pres Bush overstepped his authority once again. The US Constitution states that only Congress have the power to approve funds. They tried but did not. The funds used for this loan is from bailout/loan bill not approved for the car companies. I personally hope this lets the US car companies make it though this recession and as a tax payer, we get repaid on this loan. Al | ||
| Nxtr |
Hootowl, I guess you have to read the whole opinionated article circa 2002; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47458,00.html V/R, Nick | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I will do my part to rescue a failed, beleaugered, outdated American auto company. I will go find a Studebaker worthy of resurrection. (The Avanti being the prime candidate) | ||
| Bill0351 |
I was listening to some guy on the radio talk about the auto industry. He said that actual wages and benefits for current employees are only 10% of overhead costs. (Didn't get his name, so I can't cite it.) I thought that was really interesting, and it made me think that if the companies can deal with legacy costs, and streamline management and production, they could start making some money again. It also points the finger away from the employees. I am 100% behind the idea of bailouts as long as they address the structural problems in the industry. It it takes threats of nationalization to accomplish that, then I can deal with it. I just hope the threat is enough and we don't have to change General Motors into Federal Motors. I just don't understand why this is so ******* hard! Americans WANT to build things and make a decent living doing it. Americans WANT to buy American products if they are competitive in quality and price. | ||
| B00stzx3 |
Your country, right or wrong. Why would hang the working class out to dry? People who break their backs everyday to support their families, and everyone just wants to say screw them. Unbelievable. Ford never let me and my family down, F-150's Focus and Windstars and we haven't had many big issues, and theyve always stood behind their work. How many American cars have you owned? The big 3 going under would DEVASTATE this country, from the blue collar line workers to Joe Yuppy in Manhattan. Everyone would be affected. And as far as that $70 an hour BS, whats wrong with paying your workers insurance? All I hear is bunch of anti-union BS from guys who make 6 figures a year never had to callous there hands up anyways. (Message edited by b00stzx3 on December 19, 2008) | ||
| New12r |
(The Avanti being the prime candidate) Ohh La La, former fasted production car! I grew up in South Bend and frequently went to the Studebaker museum, lots of great cars in there. | ||
| Glitch |
Why am I in this hand basket, and where exactly are we going again? |
