U.S. automaker bailout package dies in Senate
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
There are many little quirks in government rules and regulations that prevent consumers from making an educated choice in what products they buy. If you are a label reader you might find it difficult to determine where a particular product came from - Many products now say "Imported by" and they give a Canadian or American address of the importer - not the country of origin. If you go in to a dollar store - chances are the only address on the product is the name of the retailer and a postal code - This is legal. Clothing can have a producer number on it providing that producer is based in Canada and the tag can not say made in Canada if it is not but it does not have to have the country of origin.
Many high end clothes sport a tag that says designed in North America or Italy etc. but are actually made in China or other low wage countries.
Patent laws are not respected in China because our laws have no teeth in them - we do not have enough inspectors - the process to launch a complaint is longer than the product life and the chances of getting caught or being successful in protecting your patents are slim. If you as an importer are caught you only have to relabel the product - This can be as simple as placing a sign above the product correcting the label. Many grocery stores use the Foodland Ontario signs to advertise specials - I have seen them used to advertise oranges. Many fresh fruit/vegetable distributors repackage fruit and veggies from other countries in to their own packaging giving an idea that they are from North America.
Food producers are not keen on Country of Origin Labels (COOL) They think it is ok for their own country - not the ones they export too.
Many high end clothes sport a tag that says designed in North America or Italy etc. but are actually made in China or other low wage countries.
Patent laws are not respected in China because our laws have no teeth in them - we do not have enough inspectors - the process to launch a complaint is longer than the product life and the chances of getting caught or being successful in protecting your patents are slim. If you as an importer are caught you only have to relabel the product - This can be as simple as placing a sign above the product correcting the label. Many grocery stores use the Foodland Ontario signs to advertise specials - I have seen them used to advertise oranges. Many fresh fruit/vegetable distributors repackage fruit and veggies from other countries in to their own packaging giving an idea that they are from North America.
Food producers are not keen on Country of Origin Labels (COOL) They think it is ok for their own country - not the ones they export too.
In spite of the fact that Prax says the Cons haven't done anything for the country, they have actually started cracking down on what is considered a Canadian product. Saw that on a W5 or a 5th Estate show. (Pays to ignore the idiotic and biased mainstream news because they only scratch the surface of what goes on and are editorial about that even).
If you want the gov't to do something about something, get W5 or 5th Estate interested in it. lolAs of yet, though, not many people seem to be able to get the CIC off its massive, inert ass to go after anyone illegal other than the easiest to catch. Their excuse? "Low funding" for one, "lack of personel" for another.
Sorry, I don't see the problems of the country boiling down to whomever happens to be mismanaging it. People in general have accepted that profit is vastly more important than people. We even give extremely huge severance packages to people that head a company long enough to screw it up before they are turfed out. The ones that should be bailing anyone out are the ones responsible for making the mess in the first place. And if someone is pointed at for doing something wrong, they usually manage to shift the blame around till everyone loses interest.
Why were the large oil companies allowed to engineer prices by claiming "lower demand" and then cutting back on refining and laying workers off just before tourist season?
Society is gravely ill and no-one is healing it (or shooting it in the head and starting over). Governments aren't doing their jobs. Why? Because we allow it. We cannot get together and demand anything be done and 10 people out of 100 isn't enough of a group to do it. 30+ people out of 100 doesn't seem to be enough to do it and I bet even 50% isn't enough. Mass can win over money, but it doesn't seem to want to. So we stay dormant and bitching about it.
(sorry for the rant; I was driven to it)
If you want the gov't to do something about something, get W5 or 5th Estate interested in it. lolAs of yet, though, not many people seem to be able to get the CIC off its massive, inert ass to go after anyone illegal other than the easiest to catch. Their excuse? "Low funding" for one, "lack of personel" for another.
Sorry, I don't see the problems of the country boiling down to whomever happens to be mismanaging it. People in general have accepted that profit is vastly more important than people. We even give extremely huge severance packages to people that head a company long enough to screw it up before they are turfed out. The ones that should be bailing anyone out are the ones responsible for making the mess in the first place. And if someone is pointed at for doing something wrong, they usually manage to shift the blame around till everyone loses interest.
Why were the large oil companies allowed to engineer prices by claiming "lower demand" and then cutting back on refining and laying workers off just before tourist season?
Society is gravely ill and no-one is healing it (or shooting it in the head and starting over). Governments aren't doing their jobs. Why? Because we allow it. We cannot get together and demand anything be done and 10 people out of 100 isn't enough of a group to do it. 30+ people out of 100 doesn't seem to be enough to do it and I bet even 50% isn't enough. Mass can win over money, but it doesn't seem to want to. So we stay dormant and bitching about it.
(sorry for the rant; I was driven to it)
Here's an interesting Email I received today tittled: "Great letter by a U.S. Ford dealer!!"
> >Incredible editorial from one of our Dealers in the Pittsburgh Region.
> >Attached is a well written "Letter to the Editor" from Elkins Fordland
> >.
> >Editor:
> >As I watch the coverage of the fate of the U.S. auto industry, one
> >alarming and frustrating fact hits me right between the eyes. The fate of
> >our nation's economic survival is in the hands of some congressmen who are
> >completely out of touch and act without knowledge of an industry that
> >affects almost every person in our nation. The same lack of knowledge is
> >shared with many journalists whom are irresponsible when influencing the
> >opinion of millions of viewers.
> >Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama has doomed the industry, calling it a
> >dinosaur. No Mr. Shelby, you are the dinosaur, with ideas stuck in the
> >'70s, '80s and '90s. You and the uninformed journalist and senators that
> >hold onto myths that are not relevant in today's world.
> >
> >
> >When you say that the Big Three build vehicles nobody wants to buy, you
> >must have overlooked that GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles
> >in the U.S. and Ford outsold Honda by 850,000 and Nissan by 1.2 million in
> >the U.S. GM was the world's No. 1 automaker beating Toyota by 3,000 units.
> >When you claim inferior quality comes from the Big Three, did you realize
> >that Chevy makes the Malibu and Ford makes the Fusion that were both rated
> >over the Camry and Accord by J.D. Power independent survey on initial
> >quality? Did you bother to read the Consumer Report that rated Ford on par
> >with good Japanese automakers.
> >
> >
> >Did you realize Big Three's gas guzzlers include the 33 mpg Malibu that
> >beats the Accord. And for '09 Ford introduces the Hybrid Fusion whose 39
> >mpg is the best midsize, beating the Camry Hybrid. Ford's Focus beats the
> >Corolla and Chevy's Cobalt beats the Civic.
> >
> >
> >When you ask how many times are we going to bail them out you must be
> >referring to 1980. The only Big Three bailout was Chrysler, who paid back
> >$1 billion, plus interest. GM and Ford have never received government aid.
> >
> >
> >When you criticize the Big Three for building so many pickups, surely
> >you've noticed the attempts Toyota and Nissan have made spending billions
> >to try to get a piece of that pie. Perhaps it bothers you that for 31
> >straight years Ford's F-Series has been the best selling vehicle. Ford and
> >GM have dominated this market and when you see the new '09 F-150 you'll
> >agree this won't change soon.
> >
> >
> >Did you realize that both GM and Ford offer more hybrid models than Nissan
> >or Honda. Between 2005 and 2007, Ford alone has invested more than $22
> >billion in research and development of technologies such as Eco Boost,
> >flex fuel, clean diesel, hybrids, plug in hybrids and hydrogen cars.
> >It's 2008 and the quality of the vehicles coming out of Detroit are once
> >again the best in the world.
> >
> >
> >Perhaps Sen. Shelby isn't really that blind. Maybe he realizes the quality
> >shift to American. Maybe it's the fact that his state of Alabama has given
> >so much to land factories from Honda, Hyundai and Mercedes Benz that he is
> >more concerned about their continued growth than he is about the people of
> >our country. Sen. Shelby's disdain for "government subsidies" is very
> >hypocritical. In the early '90s he was the driving force behind a $253
> >million incentive package to Mercedes. Plus, Alabama agreed to purchase
> >2,500 vehicles from Mercedes. While the bridge loan the Big Three is
> >requesting will be paid back, Alabama 's $180,000-plus per job was pure
> >incentive. Sen. Shelby, not only are you out of touch, you are a
> >self-serving hypocrite, who is prepared to ruin our nation because of lack
> >of knowledge and lack of due diligence in making your opinions and decisions.
> >
> >
> >After 9/11, the Detroit Three and Harley Davidson gave $40 million-plus
> >emergency vehicles to the recovery efforts. What was given to the 9/11
> >relief effort by the Asian and European Auto Manufactures? $0 Nada. Zip!
> >
> >
> >We live in a world of free trade, world economy and we have not been able
> >to produce products as cost efficiently. While the governments of other
> >auto producing nations subsidize their automakers, our government may be
> >ready to force its demise. While our automakers have paid union wages,
> >benefits and legacy debt, our Asian competitors employ cheap labor. We are
> >at an extreme disadvantage in production cost. Although many UAW
> >concessions begin in 2010, many lawmakers think it's not enough.
> >
> >
> >Some point the blame to corporate management. I would like to speak of
> >Ford Motor Co. The company has streamlined by reducing our workforce by
> >51,000 since 2005, closing 17 plants and cutting expenses. Product and
> >future product is excellent and the company is focused on one Ford. This
> >is a company poised for success. Ford product quality and corporate
> >management have improved light years since the nightmare of Jacques
> >Nasser. Thank you Alan Mulally and the best auto company management team
> >in the business.
> >
> >
> >The financial collapse caused by the secondary mortgage fiasco and the
> >greed of Wall Street has led to a $700 billion bailout of the industry
> >that created the problem. AIG spent nearly $1 million on three company
> >excursions to lavish resorts and hunting destinations. Paulson is saying
> >no to $250 billion foreclosure relief and the whole thing is a mess. So
> >when the Big Three ask for 4 percent of that of the $700 billion, $25
> >billion to save the country's largest industry, there is obviously
> >oppositions. But does it make sense to reward the culprits of the problem
> >with $700 billion unconditionally, and ignore the victims?
> >
> >
> >As a Ford dealer, I feel our portion of the $25 billion will never be
> >touched and is not necessary. Ford currently has $29 billion of liquidity.
> >However, the effect of a bankruptcy by GM will hurt the suppliers we all
> >do business with. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy by any manufacture would cost
> >retirees their health care and retirements. Chances are GM would recover
> >from Chapter 11 with a better business plan with much less expense. So who
> >foots the bill if GM or all three go Chapter 11? All that extra health
> >care, unemployment, loss of tax base and some forgiven debt goes back to
> >the taxpayer, us. With no chance of repayment, this would be much worse
> >than a loan with the intent of repayment.
> >
> >
> >So while it is debatable whether a loan or Chapter 11 is better for the
> >Big Three, a $25 billion loan is definitely better for the taxpayers and
> >the economy of our country.
> >
> >
> >So I'll end where I began on the quality of the products of Detroit .
> >Before you, Mr. or Ms. Journalist continue to misinform the American
> >public and turn them against one of the great industries that helped build
> >this nation, I must ask you one question. Before you, Mr. or Madam
> >Congressman vote to end health care and retirement benefits for 1 million
> >retirees, eliminate 2.5 million of our nation's jobs, lose the technology
> >that will lead us in the future and create an economic disaster including
> >hundreds of billions of tax dollars lost, I ask this question not in the
> >rhetorical sense. I ask it in the sincere, literal way.
> >
> >
> >Can you tell me, have you driven a Ford lately?
> >Jim Jackson
> >Elkins
> >Incredible editorial from one of our Dealers in the Pittsburgh Region.
> >Attached is a well written "Letter to the Editor" from Elkins Fordland
> >.
> >Editor:
> >As I watch the coverage of the fate of the U.S. auto industry, one
> >alarming and frustrating fact hits me right between the eyes. The fate of
> >our nation's economic survival is in the hands of some congressmen who are
> >completely out of touch and act without knowledge of an industry that
> >affects almost every person in our nation. The same lack of knowledge is
> >shared with many journalists whom are irresponsible when influencing the
> >opinion of millions of viewers.
> >Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama has doomed the industry, calling it a
> >dinosaur. No Mr. Shelby, you are the dinosaur, with ideas stuck in the
> >'70s, '80s and '90s. You and the uninformed journalist and senators that
> >hold onto myths that are not relevant in today's world.
> >
> >
> >When you say that the Big Three build vehicles nobody wants to buy, you
> >must have overlooked that GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles
> >in the U.S. and Ford outsold Honda by 850,000 and Nissan by 1.2 million in
> >the U.S. GM was the world's No. 1 automaker beating Toyota by 3,000 units.
> >When you claim inferior quality comes from the Big Three, did you realize
> >that Chevy makes the Malibu and Ford makes the Fusion that were both rated
> >over the Camry and Accord by J.D. Power independent survey on initial
> >quality? Did you bother to read the Consumer Report that rated Ford on par
> >with good Japanese automakers.
> >
> >
> >Did you realize Big Three's gas guzzlers include the 33 mpg Malibu that
> >beats the Accord. And for '09 Ford introduces the Hybrid Fusion whose 39
> >mpg is the best midsize, beating the Camry Hybrid. Ford's Focus beats the
> >Corolla and Chevy's Cobalt beats the Civic.
> >
> >
> >When you ask how many times are we going to bail them out you must be
> >referring to 1980. The only Big Three bailout was Chrysler, who paid back
> >$1 billion, plus interest. GM and Ford have never received government aid.
> >
> >
> >When you criticize the Big Three for building so many pickups, surely
> >you've noticed the attempts Toyota and Nissan have made spending billions
> >to try to get a piece of that pie. Perhaps it bothers you that for 31
> >straight years Ford's F-Series has been the best selling vehicle. Ford and
> >GM have dominated this market and when you see the new '09 F-150 you'll
> >agree this won't change soon.
> >
> >
> >Did you realize that both GM and Ford offer more hybrid models than Nissan
> >or Honda. Between 2005 and 2007, Ford alone has invested more than $22
> >billion in research and development of technologies such as Eco Boost,
> >flex fuel, clean diesel, hybrids, plug in hybrids and hydrogen cars.
> >It's 2008 and the quality of the vehicles coming out of Detroit are once
> >again the best in the world.
> >
> >
> >Perhaps Sen. Shelby isn't really that blind. Maybe he realizes the quality
> >shift to American. Maybe it's the fact that his state of Alabama has given
> >so much to land factories from Honda, Hyundai and Mercedes Benz that he is
> >more concerned about their continued growth than he is about the people of
> >our country. Sen. Shelby's disdain for "government subsidies" is very
> >hypocritical. In the early '90s he was the driving force behind a $253
> >million incentive package to Mercedes. Plus, Alabama agreed to purchase
> >2,500 vehicles from Mercedes. While the bridge loan the Big Three is
> >requesting will be paid back, Alabama 's $180,000-plus per job was pure
> >incentive. Sen. Shelby, not only are you out of touch, you are a
> >self-serving hypocrite, who is prepared to ruin our nation because of lack
> >of knowledge and lack of due diligence in making your opinions and decisions.
> >
> >
> >After 9/11, the Detroit Three and Harley Davidson gave $40 million-plus
> >emergency vehicles to the recovery efforts. What was given to the 9/11
> >relief effort by the Asian and European Auto Manufactures? $0 Nada. Zip!
> >
> >
> >We live in a world of free trade, world economy and we have not been able
> >to produce products as cost efficiently. While the governments of other
> >auto producing nations subsidize their automakers, our government may be
> >ready to force its demise. While our automakers have paid union wages,
> >benefits and legacy debt, our Asian competitors employ cheap labor. We are
> >at an extreme disadvantage in production cost. Although many UAW
> >concessions begin in 2010, many lawmakers think it's not enough.
> >
> >
> >Some point the blame to corporate management. I would like to speak of
> >Ford Motor Co. The company has streamlined by reducing our workforce by
> >51,000 since 2005, closing 17 plants and cutting expenses. Product and
> >future product is excellent and the company is focused on one Ford. This
> >is a company poised for success. Ford product quality and corporate
> >management have improved light years since the nightmare of Jacques
> >Nasser. Thank you Alan Mulally and the best auto company management team
> >in the business.
> >
> >
> >The financial collapse caused by the secondary mortgage fiasco and the
> >greed of Wall Street has led to a $700 billion bailout of the industry
> >that created the problem. AIG spent nearly $1 million on three company
> >excursions to lavish resorts and hunting destinations. Paulson is saying
> >no to $250 billion foreclosure relief and the whole thing is a mess. So
> >when the Big Three ask for 4 percent of that of the $700 billion, $25
> >billion to save the country's largest industry, there is obviously
> >oppositions. But does it make sense to reward the culprits of the problem
> >with $700 billion unconditionally, and ignore the victims?
> >
> >
> >As a Ford dealer, I feel our portion of the $25 billion will never be
> >touched and is not necessary. Ford currently has $29 billion of liquidity.
> >However, the effect of a bankruptcy by GM will hurt the suppliers we all
> >do business with. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy by any manufacture would cost
> >retirees their health care and retirements. Chances are GM would recover
> >from Chapter 11 with a better business plan with much less expense. So who
> >foots the bill if GM or all three go Chapter 11? All that extra health
> >care, unemployment, loss of tax base and some forgiven debt goes back to
> >the taxpayer, us. With no chance of repayment, this would be much worse
> >than a loan with the intent of repayment.
> >
> >
> >So while it is debatable whether a loan or Chapter 11 is better for the
> >Big Three, a $25 billion loan is definitely better for the taxpayers and
> >the economy of our country.
> >
> >
> >So I'll end where I began on the quality of the products of Detroit .
> >Before you, Mr. or Ms. Journalist continue to misinform the American
> >public and turn them against one of the great industries that helped build
> >this nation, I must ask you one question. Before you, Mr. or Madam
> >Congressman vote to end health care and retirement benefits for 1 million
> >retirees, eliminate 2.5 million of our nation's jobs, lose the technology
> >that will lead us in the future and create an economic disaster including
> >hundreds of billions of tax dollars lost, I ask this question not in the
> >rhetorical sense. I ask it in the sincere, literal way.
> >
> >
> >Can you tell me, have you driven a Ford lately?
> >Jim Jackson
> >Elkins
I'd like to invite anyone who has confidence in the Canadian car industry to buy stocks in it and leave the rest of us alone. Look at it this way. If you're so confident of the rebound, you'll benefit from the rebound if and when it comes, and we who would never have invested in it won't get a cent. But I personally am not interested in investing in that industry. Thanks but no thanks. Happy investing folks, and I do hope you gain from your investment.
Cheers.
Cheers.
And another thing. If you love those cars so much, then go out tomorrow and do your patriotic duty to buy a car, but leave me out of it.
Toyota, Honda, etc do not want the "big 3" to go under
We support measures to help the industry," said Toyota Motor (TM) spokeswoman Mira Sleilati. "We just want a strong, competitive healthy industry."
This may seem surprising at first, especially when you consider that much of the opposition to the auto bailout was from senators from Southern states home to auto plants operated by Asian auto companies, such as Alabama and South Carolina. But the Asian automakers insist they never lobbied against such help for the Big Three.
And this makes sense once you take a closer look at the dynamics of the auto industry and how intertwined the fates of all the companies are.
Here's why Toyota, Honda Motor (HMC) and other Asian auto manufacturers clearly believe they are all better off with GM and Chrysler surviving than if they go out of business.
Collateral damage
The overseas automakers, who between them produce more than 3 million vehicles a year at U.S. plants, all worry their production would be hurt if one of the U.S. automakers went under. That's because a Big Three failure would likely lead to widespread bankruptcies in the auto parts supplier industry.
Erich Merkle, lead auto analyst with the consulting firm Crowe Horwath LLP, said there is much overlap between the automakers' suppliers. Since most parts in an automobile have only a single supplier producing them, the disruptions in production will be severe and prolonged.
"It could take months for a Toyota to work through that and resume normal production," he said.
Merkle said the current network of auto suppliers, manufacturers and dealerships have worked well for the overseas automakers, who have posted steady gains in their U.S. market share during the past few years.
Besides sharing suppliers, many dealers sell both U.S. and overseas brands. So the failure of a U.S. automaker could hurt the overseas manufacturers' dealer network and their sales as well, Merkle said.
"There would be a severe disturbance in the force," he quipped.
We support measures to help the industry," said Toyota Motor (TM) spokeswoman Mira Sleilati. "We just want a strong, competitive healthy industry."
This may seem surprising at first, especially when you consider that much of the opposition to the auto bailout was from senators from Southern states home to auto plants operated by Asian auto companies, such as Alabama and South Carolina. But the Asian automakers insist they never lobbied against such help for the Big Three.
And this makes sense once you take a closer look at the dynamics of the auto industry and how intertwined the fates of all the companies are.
Here's why Toyota, Honda Motor (HMC) and other Asian auto manufacturers clearly believe they are all better off with GM and Chrysler surviving than if they go out of business.
Collateral damage
The overseas automakers, who between them produce more than 3 million vehicles a year at U.S. plants, all worry their production would be hurt if one of the U.S. automakers went under. That's because a Big Three failure would likely lead to widespread bankruptcies in the auto parts supplier industry.
Erich Merkle, lead auto analyst with the consulting firm Crowe Horwath LLP, said there is much overlap between the automakers' suppliers. Since most parts in an automobile have only a single supplier producing them, the disruptions in production will be severe and prolonged.
"It could take months for a Toyota to work through that and resume normal production," he said.
Merkle said the current network of auto suppliers, manufacturers and dealerships have worked well for the overseas automakers, who have posted steady gains in their U.S. market share during the past few years.
Besides sharing suppliers, many dealers sell both U.S. and overseas brands. So the failure of a U.S. automaker could hurt the overseas manufacturers' dealer network and their sales as well, Merkle said.
"There would be a severe disturbance in the force," he quipped.