But you miss the point - goodbye detriot = goodbye millions of jobs in the US = goodbye US economy for an EXTENDED period of time. We aren't talking 15-20 months here, we are talking 10-15 YEARS.

If you live or work in the US a portion of your income is the result of the auto industry, someway, somehow.

I call myself (politically) a Practical Libertarian. I would love to say that the free market solves all, but that simply is not realistic or true (hence the practical part) once you inclue the human factor.

↓↑report

Corporate idiocy aside, we've insisted that GM provide ludicrous union contracts where unskilled laborers make more than the average worker with an advanced degree. We've insisted on "greening" the auto industry. We've done nothing to prevent the high price of gasoline that contributed to low sales over the summer.

By we I mean our government, and us as citizens allowing this to happen. If GM dies, blame Washington and Lansing.

↓↑report

If the Big 3 became the Small 10, they might actually turn a profit.

Chevy all by itself with Non-Union labor would still sell a lot of cars.

↓↑report

@Paul (and Sam Abuelsamid): A lot of media outlets have been referring to the 2.5 to 3 millions jobs that might be lost if GM goes under. In every single instance that I have come across, they all refer to the same study conducted by the Center for Automotive Research. It needs to be pointed out, loud and clear, that the Center for Automotive Research has very close ties to the auto industry in general, and the Big 3 in particular. And lobbyists are seldom known for accurate and unbiased information, particularly when billions and billions of dollars are at stake. To put it bluntly, these job loss numbers were vastly exaggerated out of proportion.

Washington Post: "The Center for Automotive Research said this morning that if ... GM, Ford and Chrysler ... fail, it will mean the loss of 3 million jobs across the entire auto sector in the first year of collapse. Should Detroit production drop by 50 percent ... some 2.5 million jobs would be lost, the report says."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2008/11/report_3m_jobs_lost_with_autom.html

Bloomberg: "A GM failure that stops production would cost 2.5 million jobs in the U.S. in the first year, according to the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azOHgjt14vZ8&refer=home

The Ohio State University: "Dr. Giorgio Rizzoni, Director, Center for Automotive Research... His research has been funded by, among others, General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Delphi , Visteon, Dana, ArvinMeritor, Fiat, Honda, Lamborghini..."
http://car.osu.edu/drupal/index.php?q=node/46

↓↑report

@ dude

+1

↓↑report

The Center for Automotive Research is nothing more than a front for the industry.

The real fact is that we will prolong the recession and misery if we bail them out while preserving their current relationship to the unions.

Nearly half the money requested is to shore up the money needed to keep the unsustainable level of health care demanded by unions. One tidbit, GM is the largest buyer of Viagra at nearly 17 million a year!

Face it, what the BIG 3 are is a sample of what is to come with unbridled entitlement programs. They are the model which shows us why unrestricted health care and benefits leads too. Nothing like it can be sustained.

It is unfortunate that the lesson is being lost. If such a system cannot work in the private industry how can it work at the nation level? The Big 3 proved that you cannot tax your customers into oblivion, they will do their best to avoid the tax.

↓↑report

Since when is the American Way about keeping industries around only because they provide jobs? Sounds like socialism to me.

Did anyone bemoan the loss of blacksmith jobs? How about cobblers? The world moved on. Those jobs were lost, and new ones were created elsewhere. That's the nature of free enterprise and human progress. It's a business, not a charity. If Detroit can't be profitable in the automobile industry, so be it. They need to find something they can succeed at.

Evolve or die. Reality bites.

↓↑report

Holy cow....I never imagine agreeing with Big Rocket....like ever. He is right on every point this time around.
I am a free marketer through and through. However, in this case, this is not as clear-cut as it appears. As it's been pointed out several times I think, the problem with filing for Ch. 11 is that it is impossible to find the financing for 11 right now. Without gov't involvement, all 3 may go directly into Ch. 7 liquidation, which is really the abyss. I'd support a quasi gov't funding for restructuring, not a bailout, but in fact a ch 11 reorganization without calling it ch. 11, with the shareholders being wiped out, and contracts renegotiated. I think that was essentially how it worked for Chrysler in the 80s, except they did not go deep enough with the contract structure, for fear of giving Chrysler unfair cost advantage over GM and Ford.

↓↑report

Why should we foot the bill for 3 decades of utter incompetence and Union greed? If you can't build a competitive or desirable car, they you deserve to buy the farm. And how do we know these unemployment numbers aren't being cooked?

↓↑report

@dukeisduke: I had my suspicions at first, and after a bit of Google search, found the financial ties between Peter DeLorenzo (founder of Autoextremist) and the auto industry.

Autoextremist: "After a 22-year career in automotive advertising and marketing, Peter M. De Lorenzo founded Autoextremist.com ..."
http://www.autoextremist.com/

Businessweek: "... DeLorenzo discloses in broad terms that he consults with auto makers from time to time ..."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_30/b3944112.htm

Businessweek: "Peter DeLorenzo ... Worked in the advertising business, on accounts for Nissan, Dodge, and Chevy, for two decades ... He's getting by on consulting fees; often he's hired after a particularly astute rant."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_30/b3944114.htm

So far, whenever someone comes out with a study that says America will be destroyed if we don't bailout the Big 3 with billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars with no end in sight, that someone turns out to have financially benefited from his close industry ties with the Big 3. Self-serving, isn't it.

↓↑report

Though he has been employed at various times by all of the Detroit 3 in various capacities, Peter DeLorenzo is fiercely independent. Does he often side with Detroit? I've seen him rip into GM, Ford, and Chrysler as much as he has Toyota, BMW, or any other company.

But let's forget that for just one moment: Read his article, and tell me where he's wrong. Anybody reading this, be my guest.

↓↑report

@phoenix: One glaring omission I found in Peter DeLorenzo's article on Autoextreme was, it didn't cite any sources of information. In other words, given his close financial ties with the Big 3, what was to stop him from making up numbers, and use fear tactics to bring billions of tax dollars to the organization that pays his bills? It is called conflict of interest.

He criticizes GM from time to time, and for his constructive criticisms, he was financially rewarded with consulting fees, according to the Business Week article I quoted earlier. That makes GM one of the employers he is fighting to protect with your paycheck deduction, my paycheck deduction, and everyone else's.

↓↑report

+1

↓↑report

"You know, like GM did when they first got started?"

You mean like when we still had sweat shop labor, no OSHA, and women and black people couldn't vote?

↓↑report

Kudos Fixit!

Why do I get the feeling that the right wingers are drooling at this as a chance to not bust, but kill, the unions? I see a lot of white collar angst here at regular Joes who didn't go to college , and yet, make more money than some middle management paper pusher "analyst" who's never really worked a day in his life. Who has no idea what it's like to sweat and stand all day on sore feet. Who can't comprehend that some people don't go to Vail for a week long "seminar".

"Some people" work hard at honest jobs actually producing a tangible product that you can touch. At the end of the week they take their paycheck, go down to Joe the Butcher's shop and buy some steaks, pick up the wife and kids, pack up the SUV from the Chevy dealer down by the highway and hit the lake with a quick stop down at the propane place to buy fuel to grill that steak.

I watch the analysts on Fox and they are gleeful at the thought of the great unwashed, uneducated getting their just desserts. They think it's a good idea for union folk to be without good healthcare and retirement benefits.

Guess what? People without jobs don't end up as Wal Mart greeters. They end up on Welfare and Medicaid. Which the great college boy class will pay for.

Furthermore, the union thing is not what is killing the big 3. It's the one thing every other country we compete against has that we don't? Universal Health Care. The big 3 are at a total disadvantage because our country can throw trillions at Wall st and Main st in Iraq but not billions for all Americans to have healthcare. Japan, Korea, etc supply this basic right. Of course, our defense complex (Haliburton anyone?) keeps those countries from spending billions every year by paying for their defense when ,to be honest, them going back to their warring ways would probably be the best thing for our economy (see WW2). I'm being facetious but dig my point.

I also see the repugs playing a dangerous and cynical game. They want to force millions of "untrained" and therefore "uneducated" union (i.e Democratic) workers into the streets and onto breadlines while living in tent Hoovervilles which will saddle Obama with a huge image crisis. Somehow, they think this will lead to victory two years from now in the next set of elections.

Sirs, at long last, have you NO honor?

↓↑report