Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
How many knew that our GM bailout money has been going to bailout foreign operations?; SEC report reveals the dirty details
Topic Started: Oct 16 2012, 08:31 AM (1,047 Views)
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Oct 16 2012, 10:35 PM
Pat
Oct 16 2012, 10:30 PM
Colo, did you follow the initial stock offering when GM emerged from the planned bankruptcy? How do you like the stock price now?

The world economy wa sin shambles when we bailed out GM, so the pending losses in the international market were known in the financial community, but the dummies who never look beyond the hype bought back in. And the stock price has gone down ever since.

The question that was hushed up then is now getting news treatment now. Why are we bailing our international companies?

And to answer part of your question, the stocks we hold are so depleted in value, it would be an embarrassment for Obama to sell them. Which shows another reason why we should not bail out private companies. As an investor, you can't let emotions or as in the case of Obama, political embarrassment, affect your investment decisions. The stock should have been dumped that first week of trading, when all the suckers had driven up the initial offering. This is all so stupid it is laughable. But I still want our money back, what little that is left in stock value.
The governments investment in the car companies was not an attempt to make a profit as one would do with an individual investment. It was to save the millions of jobs that would have been lost had the companies gone out of business. Why don't you guys address the issue of saving all those jobs and the economic impact of losing all those taxes and the need to assist those who lost their jobs? Would that make your argument less palatable?
Come on Neal, you are chirping the party line. :smile: The jobs that are being touted as saved and the job growth in the sector has nothing to do with the bailout. We bailed out unions, not traditional US automaker jobs. For decades, the growth in the auto manufacturing and parts sector have occurred in the deep south, not Detroit, in fact Neal, midwest based auto sector jobs have decreased since the bailout.

Listen Neal it is because of energy prices and transportation costs, not bailouts that we have job growth in an auto industry to speak of right now. Foreign manufacturers continue to move operations here because it is cheaper to build a car where energy prices are about half of the cost back home.

Here is a article that you might find interesting.



Obama’s Funny Auto-Jobs Math
Yes, the Auto Industry Has Added Jobs, But Not the Companies We Bailed Out.
By John Berlau
June 06, 2011
Originally published in National Review Online

Print
Email
Share



‘The auto industry has added 113,000 jobs over the past two years.” So proclaimed President Obama in his speech Friday at the Chrysler-Fiat plant in Toledo, Ohio, his tone triumphal despite the horrific unemployment numbers that had been released that very morning.

Automotive jobs numbers are cited to end the argument against anyone who objects to the bailout/takeover of General Motors and Chrysler. The White House has largely abandoned the projection that bailout funds will be recovered fully after critics — including my Competitive Enterprise Institute colleagues Hans Bader and Sam Kazman — pointed out the shuffling of government loans to allow GM to claim deceptively that it had repaid taxpayers “in full.” Now the White House is projecting a $14 billion taxpayer loss, and so is putting the focus on the jobs added to the sector supposedly as a result of the bailouts

But we need to look under the hood of those employment claims. And in this case, the first place to look is a June 1 Cleveland Plain Dealer story by Robert Schoenberger that seemingly contradicts the president’s figures for auto job growth. Schoenberger reported the sobering fact that even after the Bush and Obama administrations spent $62 billion to bail out Chrysler and General Motors, “the two automakers employ 16,500 fewer people than they did in 2009.”

How can these two statistics — 113,000 new jobs and 16,500 fewer auto workers — simultaneously be true? After all, Obama didn’t say “saved or created” — although there was plenty of that elsewhere in the administration’s talking points of the bailouts’ supposed success — he said “added.” And other administration officials and documents also specifically used the term “added” or “created” with the similar statistic of 115,000 jobs when touting the bailouts.

But the fine print, in Obama’s speech quoted above and the quotes listed below, is the artful use of the term “industry” or “auto industry.”

On June 1, for example, the White House issued a report claiming, “Since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, the auto industry has created 115,000 jobs.” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner chirped the same statistic in an op-ed in the Washington Post, bragging that since GM filed for bankruptcy, “the industry has added new shifts and 115,000 jobs.”

So how could the “auto industry” have added thousands of U.S. jobs when GM and Chrysler cut jobs? It so happens that both statistics are correct if the reader or listener understands what’s being referred to. But the Obama administration is obscuring what many would consider important information about the nature of the jobs to give undue credit to the bailouts. And that is that many of the jobs added by the “auto industry” have been created by foreign-owned automakers in nonunion states far away from the plants of the bailed out companies — not by GM or Chrysler.

A White House infographic and earlier White House “brag sheets” and reports attribute the job-growth figures to the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. And indeed BLS’s industry category of “motor vehicle and parts manufacturing” does show substantial growth since the summer of 2009 — near the bottom of the recession.

Jobs in this category had been steadily falling since well before the recession, from 1.1 million in 2005 to around 950,000 by the end of 2007. BLS figures show that number of jobs reached a low point of 623,000, when the government took GM into bankruptcy, and rose to 695,000 this March, a gain of 72,000. That’s somewhat less than the administration’s figure of 113,000, and it’s not entirely clear from its charts where the start and end data points are. But I’ll cut the administration some slack on this, since even 72,000 is an impressive gain.

The problem for bailout defenders, though, in touting these gains is that the BLS is very clear this number includes U.S. jobs created by all manufacturers — foreign and domestic — and that foreign automakers with plants in the South have been picking up the slack in hiring. “Automotive employment is shifting away from its traditional base in the Midwest to the southeastern States,” says the BLS in its 2010–11 Career Guide to Industries. “A large number of these assembly plants are owned by foreign automobile makers, known as ‘domestic internationals.’”

It is of course very good news, as well as a tribute to the quality of America’s labor force, that foreign auto and auto-parts makers want to hire here. But it is very difficult to attribute this new hiring by foreign automakers to the U.S. government’s bailout and takeover of our domestic dinosaurs.

A plausible argument could be made that Ford, which was able to refuse bailout money because of prudent steps it had taken to get its finances in order before the crisis, was helped by the bailout assistance to Detroit suppliers. The White House report tries to make this case, though it’s also plausible that Ford could have benefitted by capturing the market share of its competitors were they not bailed out.

No such assertion can be made, and the Obama administration hasn’t really even tried to make one, for foreign automakers that buy and sell all over the world and primarily locate their U.S. facilities in Southern right-to-work states. Their fates have little connection to the Detroit supply chain, and they often bring along their own suppliers when they locate in the U.S.

So now that we’ve established that few of the jobs created in the auto industry can be credited to the bailouts, we are left with the question of how many jobs were “saved” by them. For the Obama administration and bailout defenders, this number is infinite. But this assumes that nothing would be recovered from bankruptcy, which is ridiculous. As Jim Manzi pointed out in the Corner, “in the event of a bankruptcy, you don’t burn down the factories, erase all the source code on all the hard disks, [and] make it illegal to use the brand name Chevrolet.”

It’s also worth noting that the bailout/takeovers themselves caused thousands of job losses, both directly and indirectly. Take the jobs that were shed in the hyper-quick dealership closings. Some dealers would have and should have been closed in normal bankruptcies, but the Obama administration whiz kids who designed the auto restructurings forced 25 percent of GM and Chrysler dealers to close in less than four months.

The National Auto Dealers Association estimated that 110,000 jobs would be axed. The automakers challenged these figures as too high, but the respected special inspector general for TARP, Neil Barofsky, agreed that “tens of thousands of dealership jobs were immediately put in jeopardy” by the “rapid pace” of dealer closings. In his report, Barofsky also faulted the administration for not preparing a formal “cost savings estimate” before closing the dealers. Jobs were put at risk, Barofsky wrote, without “any explicit cost savings to the manufacturers in mind.”

This sudden mass loss of dealership jobs directly caused by the Obama administration’s bankruptcy plans is particularly striking given Geithner’s rationale for saving Chrysler expressed in his Washington Post column. There, Geithner explained that the firm was rescued because “the president knew that if Chrysler collapsed, tens of thousands of jobs would have been shed in the near term — a body blow to an economy already on the ropes.”

But there was apparently no such concern about the body blow to auto dealers and their employees, who lacked the clout with this administration of the United Auto Workers (UAW). Barofsky’s report found that “job losses at terminated dealerships were apparently not a substantial factor in the Auto Team’s consideration of the dealership termination issue.”

And then there are the jobs not created and businesses not opened because of the likely increase in the cost of capital from the shabby treatment of GM bondholders and Chrysler’s secured lenders. The Obama administration designed a restructuring that disregarded two centuries of bankruptcy precedent to give disproportionate ownership stakes to the UAW and, in Chrysler’s case, Fiat.

Fiat, the giant Italian auto and financial firm, received nearly one-third of Chrysler without having to put up one dime in cash. In the meantime, many of the secured lenders and bondholders demonized by Obama and his minions as “fat cats” were actually middle-class retirees served by pension funds. Indiana treasurer Richard Mourdock, who is now challenging incumbent senator Richard Lugar in the state’s GOP Senate primary, filed a lawsuit against the takeover on behalf of state pension funds serving teachers and police officers. The suit was ultimately unsuccessful.

This abrogation of contracts, prominent scholars say, could discourage lenders from financing businesses due to fear of future politicized bankruptcies. As Todd Zywicki, professor of law at George Mason University, eloquently put it in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: “By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation.”

So the real question of the auto bailout/takeovers should be how many future jobs did we sacrifice though the disregard of the rule of law? The 9.1 percent unemployment rate may be giving us some clue.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Oct 16 2012, 10:47 PM
Mountainrivers
Oct 16 2012, 10:35 PM
Pat
Oct 16 2012, 10:30 PM
Colo, did you follow the initial stock offering when GM emerged from the planned bankruptcy? How do you like the stock price now?

The world economy wa sin shambles when we bailed out GM, so the pending losses in the international market were known in the financial community, but the dummies who never look beyond the hype bought back in. And the stock price has gone down ever since.

The question that was hushed up then is now getting news treatment now. Why are we bailing our international companies?

And to answer part of your question, the stocks we hold are so depleted in value, it would be an embarrassment for Obama to sell them. Which shows another reason why we should not bail out private companies. As an investor, you can't let emotions or as in the case of Obama, political embarrassment, affect your investment decisions. The stock should have been dumped that first week of trading, when all the suckers had driven up the initial offering. This is all so stupid it is laughable. But I still want our money back, what little that is left in stock value.
The governments investment in the car companies was not an attempt to make a profit as one would do with an individual investment. It was to save the millions of jobs that would have been lost had the companies gone out of business. Why don't you guys address the issue of saving all those jobs and the economic impact of losing all those taxes and the need to assist those who lost their jobs? Would that make your argument less palatable?
Come on Neal, you are chirping the party line. :smile: The jobs that are being touted as saved and the job growth in the sector has nothing to do with the bailout. We bailed out unions, not traditional US automaker jobs. For decades, the growth in the auto manufacturing and parts sector have occurred in the deep south, not Detroit, in fact Neal, midwest based auto sector jobs have decreased since the bailout.

Listen Neal it is because of energy prices and transportation costs, not bailouts that we have job growth in an auto industry to speak of right now. Foreign manufacturers continue to move operations here because it is cheaper to build a car where energy prices are about half of the cost back home.

Here is a article that you might find interesting.



Obama’s Funny Auto-Jobs Math
Yes, the Auto Industry Has Added Jobs, But Not the Companies We Bailed Out.
By John Berlau
June 06, 2011
Originally published in National Review Online

Print
Email
Share



‘The auto industry has added 113,000 jobs over the past two years.” So proclaimed President Obama in his speech Friday at the Chrysler-Fiat plant in Toledo, Ohio, his tone triumphal despite the horrific unemployment numbers that had been released that very morning.

Automotive jobs numbers are cited to end the argument against anyone who objects to the bailout/takeover of General Motors and Chrysler. The White House has largely abandoned the projection that bailout funds will be recovered fully after critics — including my Competitive Enterprise Institute colleagues Hans Bader and Sam Kazman — pointed out the shuffling of government loans to allow GM to claim deceptively that it had repaid taxpayers “in full.” Now the White House is projecting a $14 billion taxpayer loss, and so is putting the focus on the jobs added to the sector supposedly as a result of the bailouts

But we need to look under the hood of those employment claims. And in this case, the first place to look is a June 1 Cleveland Plain Dealer story by Robert Schoenberger that seemingly contradicts the president’s figures for auto job growth. Schoenberger reported the sobering fact that even after the Bush and Obama administrations spent $62 billion to bail out Chrysler and General Motors, “the two automakers employ 16,500 fewer people than they did in 2009.”

How can these two statistics — 113,000 new jobs and 16,500 fewer auto workers — simultaneously be true? After all, Obama didn’t say “saved or created” — although there was plenty of that elsewhere in the administration’s talking points of the bailouts’ supposed success — he said “added.” And other administration officials and documents also specifically used the term “added” or “created” with the similar statistic of 115,000 jobs when touting the bailouts.

But the fine print, in Obama’s speech quoted above and the quotes listed below, is the artful use of the term “industry” or “auto industry.”

On June 1, for example, the White House issued a report claiming, “Since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, the auto industry has created 115,000 jobs.” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner chirped the same statistic in an op-ed in the Washington Post, bragging that since GM filed for bankruptcy, “the industry has added new shifts and 115,000 jobs.”

So how could the “auto industry” have added thousands of U.S. jobs when GM and Chrysler cut jobs? It so happens that both statistics are correct if the reader or listener understands what’s being referred to. But the Obama administration is obscuring what many would consider important information about the nature of the jobs to give undue credit to the bailouts. And that is that many of the jobs added by the “auto industry” have been created by foreign-owned automakers in nonunion states far away from the plants of the bailed out companies — not by GM or Chrysler.

A White House infographic and earlier White House “brag sheets” and reports attribute the job-growth figures to the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. And indeed BLS’s industry category of “motor vehicle and parts manufacturing” does show substantial growth since the summer of 2009 — near the bottom of the recession.

Jobs in this category had been steadily falling since well before the recession, from 1.1 million in 2005 to around 950,000 by the end of 2007. BLS figures show that number of jobs reached a low point of 623,000, when the government took GM into bankruptcy, and rose to 695,000 this March, a gain of 72,000. That’s somewhat less than the administration’s figure of 113,000, and it’s not entirely clear from its charts where the start and end data points are. But I’ll cut the administration some slack on this, since even 72,000 is an impressive gain.

The problem for bailout defenders, though, in touting these gains is that the BLS is very clear this number includes U.S. jobs created by all manufacturers — foreign and domestic — and that foreign automakers with plants in the South have been picking up the slack in hiring. “Automotive employment is shifting away from its traditional base in the Midwest to the southeastern States,” says the BLS in its 2010–11 Career Guide to Industries. “A large number of these assembly plants are owned by foreign automobile makers, known as ‘domestic internationals.’”

It is of course very good news, as well as a tribute to the quality of America’s labor force, that foreign auto and auto-parts makers want to hire here. But it is very difficult to attribute this new hiring by foreign automakers to the U.S. government’s bailout and takeover of our domestic dinosaurs.

A plausible argument could be made that Ford, which was able to refuse bailout money because of prudent steps it had taken to get its finances in order before the crisis, was helped by the bailout assistance to Detroit suppliers. The White House report tries to make this case, though it’s also plausible that Ford could have benefitted by capturing the market share of its competitors were they not bailed out.

No such assertion can be made, and the Obama administration hasn’t really even tried to make one, for foreign automakers that buy and sell all over the world and primarily locate their U.S. facilities in Southern right-to-work states. Their fates have little connection to the Detroit supply chain, and they often bring along their own suppliers when they locate in the U.S.

So now that we’ve established that few of the jobs created in the auto industry can be credited to the bailouts, we are left with the question of how many jobs were “saved” by them. For the Obama administration and bailout defenders, this number is infinite. But this assumes that nothing would be recovered from bankruptcy, which is ridiculous. As Jim Manzi pointed out in the Corner, “in the event of a bankruptcy, you don’t burn down the factories, erase all the source code on all the hard disks, [and] make it illegal to use the brand name Chevrolet.”

It’s also worth noting that the bailout/takeovers themselves caused thousands of job losses, both directly and indirectly. Take the jobs that were shed in the hyper-quick dealership closings. Some dealers would have and should have been closed in normal bankruptcies, but the Obama administration whiz kids who designed the auto restructurings forced 25 percent of GM and Chrysler dealers to close in less than four months.

The National Auto Dealers Association estimated that 110,000 jobs would be axed. The automakers challenged these figures as too high, but the respected special inspector general for TARP, Neil Barofsky, agreed that “tens of thousands of dealership jobs were immediately put in jeopardy” by the “rapid pace” of dealer closings. In his report, Barofsky also faulted the administration for not preparing a formal “cost savings estimate” before closing the dealers. Jobs were put at risk, Barofsky wrote, without “any explicit cost savings to the manufacturers in mind.”

This sudden mass loss of dealership jobs directly caused by the Obama administration’s bankruptcy plans is particularly striking given Geithner’s rationale for saving Chrysler expressed in his Washington Post column. There, Geithner explained that the firm was rescued because “the president knew that if Chrysler collapsed, tens of thousands of jobs would have been shed in the near term — a body blow to an economy already on the ropes.”

But there was apparently no such concern about the body blow to auto dealers and their employees, who lacked the clout with this administration of the United Auto Workers (UAW). Barofsky’s report found that “job losses at terminated dealerships were apparently not a substantial factor in the Auto Team’s consideration of the dealership termination issue.”

And then there are the jobs not created and businesses not opened because of the likely increase in the cost of capital from the shabby treatment of GM bondholders and Chrysler’s secured lenders. The Obama administration designed a restructuring that disregarded two centuries of bankruptcy precedent to give disproportionate ownership stakes to the UAW and, in Chrysler’s case, Fiat.

Fiat, the giant Italian auto and financial firm, received nearly one-third of Chrysler without having to put up one dime in cash. In the meantime, many of the secured lenders and bondholders demonized by Obama and his minions as “fat cats” were actually middle-class retirees served by pension funds. Indiana treasurer Richard Mourdock, who is now challenging incumbent senator Richard Lugar in the state’s GOP Senate primary, filed a lawsuit against the takeover on behalf of state pension funds serving teachers and police officers. The suit was ultimately unsuccessful.

This abrogation of contracts, prominent scholars say, could discourage lenders from financing businesses due to fear of future politicized bankruptcies. As Todd Zywicki, professor of law at George Mason University, eloquently put it in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: “By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation.”

So the real question of the auto bailout/takeovers should be how many future jobs did we sacrifice though the disregard of the rule of law? The 9.1 percent unemployment rate may be giving us some clue.




That might all be true, Pat, but my point wasn't that we had created new jobs, but that we had saved the old jobs and those workers are paying taxes instead of sucking off the government. And, if we did create new jobs, what difference does it make how that happened? Your article is also out of date since the current unemployment rate is 7.8%, not the 9.1% mentioned in your post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
OK, you are right, we saved a bunch of legacy union jobs. On the other hand, had GM and Chrysler gone under, other manufacturers would have filled the void, maybe some lines would have been picked up in the bankruptcy, Dodge truck for example. The jobs would be held by employees in other companies.

This was a Detroit/midwest bailout at the expense of competition. What do you in Nebraska and me in Lille care who makes the sparkplug in America?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Oct 16 2012, 11:06 PM
OK, you are right, we saved a bunch of legacy union jobs. On the other hand, had GM and Chrysler gone under, other manufacturers would have filled the void, maybe some lines would have been picked up in the bankruptcy, Dodge truck for example. The jobs would be held by employees in other companies.

This was a Detroit/midwest bailout at the expense of competition. What do you in Nebraska and me in Lille care who makes the sparkplug in America?
Not exactly Pat

Had GM and Chrysler went under, it would have been a huge loss of jobs if you include all the suppliers. And, no doubt as part of the bankruptcy they would have dumped their pension plans onto the Pension Guarantee Corp. (aka; the taxpayers). Just like bailing out the banks, it was a bad deal for the taxpayers, but the lesser of two evils.

That said, I disagree with the final agreement, which screwed the bondholders and gave a huge chunk of the company to the UAW for minimal concessions. They should have lowered their costs (ie; wages and benefits) in line with the non union transplants. But, that is politics.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
One thing that has struck me as odd is that no one on either side looked at our auto industry as being necessary for our national defense. God forbid that we get into a war with a major country like China but if we did who, besides the auto industry, is big enough to make the vehicles we need. Look at what they did in WWII.

In the 60's the govt bailed out the railroads and used national defense as one of the reasons. The only way to move heavy armor weapons around the country is via the RR. They are too big for our freeway systems.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Oct 16 2012, 11:06 PM
OK, you are right, we saved a bunch of legacy union jobs. On the other hand, had GM and Chrysler gone under, other manufacturers would have filled the void, maybe some lines would have been picked up in the bankruptcy, Dodge truck for example. The jobs would be held by employees in other companies.

This was a Detroit/midwest bailout at the expense of competition. What do you in Nebraska and me in Lille care who makes the sparkplug in America?
Here's one reason we should care who makes spark plugs in the US.

" IRS data show that foreign-owned corporations doing business here typically pay far less in U.S. income taxes than do purely American firms with comparable sales and assets."source

You are making a leap when you claim that other companies would pick up the slack and manufacture in the US. They might, but I would bet that they are operating at or near capacity. How long do you think it might take to gear up to produce an additional 10 million vehicles? I suspect that if the foreign companies did fill the void, most of that production, at least early on, would come from their home country plants.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Oct 16 2012, 11:13 PM
Pat
Oct 16 2012, 11:06 PM
OK, you are right, we saved a bunch of legacy union jobs. On the other hand, had GM and Chrysler gone under, other manufacturers would have filled the void, maybe some lines would have been picked up in the bankruptcy, Dodge truck for example. The jobs would be held by employees in other companies.

This was a Detroit/midwest bailout at the expense of competition. What do you in Nebraska and me in Lille care who makes the sparkplug in America?
Not exactly Pat

Had GM and Chrysler went under, it would have been a huge loss of jobs if you include all the suppliers. And, no doubt as part of the bankruptcy they would have dumped their pension plans onto the Pension Guarantee Corp. (aka; the taxpayers). Just like bailing out the banks, it was a bad deal for the taxpayers, but the lesser of two evils.

That said, I disagree with the final agreement, which screwed the bondholders and gave a huge chunk of the company to the UAW for minimal concessions. They should have lowered their costs (ie; wages and benefits) in line with the non union transplants. But, that is politics.
The pension guarantee program would have desalt with the bankrupt pension fund like all others. Pensions would have been reduced under the formula.

The parts jobs would not have been lost Tom. The competition that replaced the bankrupt company would still be buying th eparts for their product. The product that filled the market hole created by the GM and Chrsyler demise.

When Hudson, AMC, Studebaker, Cord and other auto companies went under, there was no bailout. Do you miss those companies? Is this about nostalgia or common sense. For Obama it's about politics and unions, but for the rest of us, we would not be out a source of cars if someone goes out of business.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Oct 16 2012, 11:25 PM
The pension guarantee program would have desalt with the bankrupt pension fund like all others. Pensions would have been reduced under the formula.

The parts jobs would not have been lost Tom. The competition that replaced the bankrupt company would still be buying th eparts for their product. The product that filled the market hole created by the GM and Chrsyler demise.

When Hudson, AMC, Studebaker, Cord and other auto companies went under, there was no bailout. Do you miss those companies? Is this about nostalgia or common sense. For Obama it's about politics and unions, but for the rest of us, we would not be out a source of cars if someone goes out of business.
The Pension Guarantee Corp. was not funded well enough to deal with that big of a collapse. To meet the minimum payouts via their formula which is guaranteed by law, they would have had to had a massive taxpayer bailout of the fund. Add that to all the unemployment, food stamps demands and it would have been a huge cost. Oh, and don't forget all those unemployed folks losing their homes adding to the foreclosure crisis. Hudson, AMC, Studebakers etc. did not have a large enough footprint to create a crisis of they went under. Remember though that Government loans saved Chrysler previously. I think it was under Lee Iaccoca.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Oct 16 2012, 11:25 PM
tomdrobin
Oct 16 2012, 11:13 PM
Pat
Oct 16 2012, 11:06 PM
OK, you are right, we saved a bunch of legacy union jobs. On the other hand, had GM and Chrysler gone under, other manufacturers would have filled the void, maybe some lines would have been picked up in the bankruptcy, Dodge truck for example. The jobs would be held by employees in other companies.

This was a Detroit/midwest bailout at the expense of competition. What do you in Nebraska and me in Lille care who makes the sparkplug in America?
Not exactly Pat

Had GM and Chrysler went under, it would have been a huge loss of jobs if you include all the suppliers. And, no doubt as part of the bankruptcy they would have dumped their pension plans onto the Pension Guarantee Corp. (aka; the taxpayers). Just like bailing out the banks, it was a bad deal for the taxpayers, but the lesser of two evils.

That said, I disagree with the final agreement, which screwed the bondholders and gave a huge chunk of the company to the UAW for minimal concessions. They should have lowered their costs (ie; wages and benefits) in line with the non union transplants. But, that is politics.
The pension guarantee program would have desalt with the bankrupt pension fund like all others. Pensions would have been reduced under the formula.

The parts jobs would not have been lost Tom. The competition that replaced the bankrupt company would still be buying th eparts for their product. The product that filled the market hole created by the GM and Chrsyler demise.

When Hudson, AMC, Studebaker, Cord and other auto companies went under, there was no bailout. Do you miss those companies? Is this about nostalgia or common sense. For Obama it's about politics and unions, but for the rest of us, we would not be out a source of cars if someone goes out of business.
Hudson, AMC, Studebaker and Cord were very small companies which had little effect on the economy as a whole. GM and Chrysler do. The answer I gave you about replacement cars also is true about replacement parts. Plants at or near capacity. Parts for GM and Chrysler are largely different than parts for Toyotas or Hondas. And, you make biased assumptions when you claim Obama is about politics and unions. How do you know that. Why can't you accept that he is concerned with the economy as a whole?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Oct 16 2012, 11:32 PM
Pat
Oct 16 2012, 11:25 PM
The pension guarantee program would have desalt with the bankrupt pension fund like all others. Pensions would have been reduced under the formula.

The parts jobs would not have been lost Tom. The competition that replaced the bankrupt company would still be buying th eparts for their product. The product that filled the market hole created by the GM and Chrsyler demise.

When Hudson, AMC, Studebaker, Cord and other auto companies went under, there was no bailout. Do you miss those companies? Is this about nostalgia or common sense. For Obama it's about politics and unions, but for the rest of us, we would not be out a source of cars if someone goes out of business.
The Pension Guarantee Corp. was not funded well enough to deal with that big of a collapse. To meet the minimum payouts via their formula which is guaranteed by law, they would have had to had a massive taxpayer bailout of the fund. Add that to all the unemployment, food stamps demands and it would have been a huge cost. Oh, and don't forget all those unemployed folks losing their homes adding to the foreclosure crisis. Hudson, AMC, Studebakers etc. did not have a large enough footprint to create a crisis of they went under. Remember though that Government loans saved Chrysler previously. I think it was under Lee Iaccoca.
Or Tom, take the logical approach, wish the former employees of GM and Chrysler good luck. Private companies and their plans go under all the time. The people pick themselves up and deal with it somehow. We don't owe union workers a pension.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis