I see that you too are wasting time.
That's how I felt about the economy as a whole. I'm wholly disappointed that Congress passed the $700 billion bailout. It's entertaining that they assumed that would "fix it" or "save us" and to this very minute stocks are still dropping at rates in the three digits daily, with a few exceptions.To the automakers, yes, a bailout is the socialist solution, and, as a capitalist democrat, I cannot endorse it. The government should give up fixing people and let them fall to the ground, dust themselves off, and stand up again (and yes, I know that the ordering seems a little strange.) It's important to realize the repercussions of no action at all. The auto industry is responsible for employing a huge workforce. There will be huge layoffs whether companies just cut back or if they go under altogether. Also, lots of people have their retirements wrapped up in auto stocks, or, in the case of employees, are facing some pension problems.In any case, go Ford.
I was also against the bailout. And I agree with your analysis of the implications of the failure of the auto industry. However, I agree with Romney that any bailout must be accompanied by systemic changes to the way the auto industry functions. That was my problem with the Wall Street bailout. Why should we be rewarding the people that drove us into the ground and allow them to continue on the same course that got us into this mess in the first place. I say hug 'em, hug 'em all.
Such strong language. All I've got to say is thank you. Thank you America for making stocks super cheap so when I have money to buy them in a year I can buy lots and I'll be rich by the time I retire.As Warren Buffet says: Be fearful when people are greedy, and greedy when people are fearful.
As I'm sure you read, this is the new article on the car situation: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/business/04auto.html?_r=1&hpMy favorite part is:"Democratic Congressional leaders have said that they want to help the automakers and that they were heartened by the gesture of contrition that the executives made by driving to Washington — rather than flying on corporate jets, as they did two weeks ago — and by the more comprehensive plans submitted by the companies."I'm heartened as well.
I would be if I had a heart.
My problem with government not bailing out the automakers is that it was a lot of regulations and restrictions that caused the biggest problem for the automakers. In a financial statement analysis class years ago in college we picked apart GM's statement to see really what they say. It turns out that one single item, more so than any other, strangles them year after year. Their pension obligations, while well hidden, are very real and massive, in the billions annually. Now if the automakers weren't regulated to employ union workers and such think of the savings. With that said I am generally against bailouts and am appalled at the $700 billion bailout, but in this case it was really the government's rules and regulations that have in no small part driven the US automakers to where they are today...Coby
No one is required by law to employ a union - unless the workers of that company choose to unionize. Furthermore, once they do unionize, the employer can choose to accept, reject or counteroffer the union's demands. The problem with the automakers is that they have "legacy costs" or rising costs based on an aging workforce. The Federal government is facing the same problem. I disagree with an unconditional bailout because it isn't just legacy costs that are hurting auto makers; they are also being hurt by poor planning, bad business practices and greed. Foreign automakers that produce cars in the U.S. are doing just fine, despite U.S. regulations. No, American automakers should be subject to the same rules as everyone else: adapt or die.
I also think it's funny that one of my shortest posts has generated the most comments. Maybe I should just shut my big fat mouth.
Post a Comment