What makes a "True Conservative"

presluc said:

You don't have to give me anything it's true
What used to be Bilcor is now a parking lot
What used to be Mark 1 is now a fast food
Telefex a retail store going out of business
Wagner they may be a Wagner in Chino California today but in 1980 Wagners contracts went to Mexico.

You have ask for my info I have tried to provide it, all you have to do is provide your info to me.

How many nonunion factory shops were outsourced between 2000 and 2008?
Perhaps your answer is none or I don't know or there is no way to obtain that info?
It will be what I expect but at least it will be more than you have given.eace

Click to expand...

presluc said:

Chrysler used "foreign cheap labor" to compete,
Who owns the majority of stocks in Chrysler today?

GMC used "cheap foreign labor" to compete.
How much money did they need from bailouts from the government to keep from losing their company in 2008?

Do these two companies have anything in common?eace

Click to expand...

Grant said:

At one time GM and Chrysler competed quite well. What happened?

In fact so did Packard, American Motors, Studebaker, and a long list of other companies in various sectors. All you need do is record the companies of the 40's and 50's and see how many of them disappeared. Why is that?

Click to expand...

Grant said:

At one time GM and Chrysler competed quite well. What happened?

Click to expand...

AdamT said:

A lot of things happened. Management was shortsightedly stupid and instead of agreeing to pay raises, which would have affected next year's profits, they kicked the can down the road, agreeing to all sorts of long-term benefits that would affect the next management team's numbers.

Click to expand...

So is it your contention that they should have agreed to further pay raises and ignored the profit motive? Who was demanding those long term benefits?

They also stupidly failed to recognize the importance of small, fuel efficient cars, which allowed the Japanese imports to eat their lunch. And they generally designed crappy cars at no one wanted to buy. And the union made all sorts of unreasonable demands.

Click to expand...

They cut the quality of the vehicles in order to meet the financial demands of the unions. As a result of labor costs, and the inflexibility of the unions, they could no longer compete with foreign manufacturers. Right to work states can.

Claiming that it was *just* the union's fault is ludicrous.

Click to expand...

Perhaps management should have shut down the industry for a year or so to give the unions and their members an insight into what would happen if they don't compete. Now those jobs are gone forever.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

So is it your contention that they should have agreed to further pay raises and ignored the profit motive? Who was demanding those long term benefits?

Click to expand...

False dichotomy. Giving pay raises and giving long-term benefits both affect profits. The difference is that pay raises have an immediate affect, and are easier to adust in response to market conditions. But you know, if you're in management and your bonus depends on how the numbers look RIGHT NOW, you're going to be inclined to push those expenses down the road. So what if it brings the company down in 25 years? By then you'll be a multi-millionaire and you can escape with your golden parachute.

They cut the quality of the vehicles in order to meet the financial demands of the unions. As a result of labor costs, and the inflexibility of the unions, they could no longer compete with foreign manufacturers. Right to work states can.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. The Big Three was highly profitable back in the 70s and 80s when imports started kicking their asses. It was crappy design more than crappy materials. Are you old enough to remember the Mustang II? It failed because Ford didn't understand the market -- not because they skimped on the materials. You could hardly dent the body panels on that car with a Louisville Slugger, while you could literally dent the hood of an Accord with the pressure of your hand.

Perhaps management should have shut down the industry for a year or so to give the unions and their members an insight into what would happen if they don't compete. Now those jobs are gone forever.

Click to expand...

Thanks to the bailouts those jobs didn't go anywhere.

Click to expand...

AdamT said:

Grant said:

.




Thanks to the bailouts those jobs didn't go anywhere.

Click to expand...

Do you really believe that the cars sold by GM and Chrysler would not have been built by someone? Demand this year for autos is expected to be about 14.5 million, so would these cars and trucks been built without creating jobs at whomever picked up these assets?

Click to expand...

washunut said:

AdamT said:

Do you really believe that the cars sold by GM and Chrysler would not have been built by someone? Demand this year for autos is expected to be about 14.5 million, so would these cars and trucks been built without creating jobs at whomever picked up these assets?

Click to expand...

Sure, they would have been built by someone. But "someone" would have employed fewer US workers and sent more profits out of the country.

Click to expand...

AdamT said:

washunut said:

Sure, they would have been built by someone. But "someone" would have employed fewer US workers and sent more profits out of the country.

Click to expand...

In all probability the "someone" would have been some vulture investor that picked up the assets on the cheap and the SAME workers would be building those cars.

Click to expand...

washunut said:

AdamT said:

In all probability the "someone" would have been some vulture investor that picked up the assets on the cheap and the SAME workers would be building those cars.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there were how many bidders for those assets? Zero.

Click to expand...

AdamT said:

washunut said:

Yeah, there were how many bidders for those assets? Zero.

Click to expand...

Did it go through the normal backruptcy process where the company could have been reorganized and then come out a viable company while still operating, no. So to say that there were no bidders that is true for the company as it existed. If we had allowed business law to flow, there would have been investors. Everything has a price depending. To say that the factories, dealerships, brand names etc had zero value is beyond silly, it is an administration talking point.

Perhaps at a good enough deal a company like Bain capital would have gotten interested, now that would be ironic.

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

Ahh I see, what you are saying is that you can claim anything you want, and the naysayer has to prove your wrong before you will provide anything.
Link something about Bilcore, the name of the Mark 1 injection molding plant (which is a lot of plants), and Wagner.

My sources? I googled them to find some background on the vaeracity of your claims. If you were just going to use anecdotal evidence for all this, just say its anecdotal. Dont then claim I need to provide sources before you provide...any.

Dude, YOU are making the claim. How about you quit being lazy about proving or disproving YOUR claims? Go dig up some info on your claims, dont toss the burden of proof on the guy saying I dont believe you. Its up to you to make a case before you get to demand openers from rebuttal.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

At one time GM and Chrysler competed quite well. What happened?

In fact so did Packard, American Motors, Studebaker, and a long list of other companies in various sectors. All you need do is record the companies of the 40's and 50's and see how many of them disappeared. Why is that?

Click to expand...

IndepCentristMA said:

Studebaker... sweeeeet...

It's no surprise that companies fail, relocate, merge, get bought out, file for bankruptcy, or find a way to succeed on their own by restructuring to maintain competitiveness by building on their strengths and adapting to fit to modern times... I don't think anyone can disagree the best of the options is for them to succeed on their own.

However, in a free market enterprises don't get bought out by the government or have the government force them to merge with (and get bought out by) a foreign company. Nor does the president use that company's campaign slogan in his State of the Union speech. Those companies also dont get bought out by the workers union (which is only around still because of government money, as well).

At a time, when one company restructured on their own, using innovative approaches, and succeeded its absurd that the government would be backing and trumpeting the cause of another company in that same field, that needed billions from the government, wasted them, then needed more, and were bought out by the government.

Necessity is the mother of invention, but consequence is the father of adaptation.

When company's that fail arent given consequences, but are rewarded by the government, then we don't move forward as a society at the pace which life is meant to in order to survive in nature.

If this president wanted America to recover, he would be trumpeting the cause of the successful company, that didn't take billions in taxpayer money, but found innovative ways to find its own capital, adapted on its own, and recovered to thrive... Then, other companies would follow that example.

Instead, American companies have become like the ducks that won't fly south to avoid the cold winter, and now are dying in number, because they've become too dependent on the people who fed them at the pond.

Click to expand...

washunut said:

Did it go through the normal backruptcy process where the company could have been reorganized and then come out a viable company while still operating, no. So to say that there were no bidders that is true for the company as it existed. If we had allowed business law to flow, there would have been investors. Everything has a price depending. To say that the factories, dealerships, brand names etc had zero value is beyond silly, it is an administration talking point.

Perhaps at a good enough deal a company like Bain capital would have gotten interested, now that would be ironic.

Click to expand...

Gimmesometruth said:

Um, how does a company continue to operate without funds? That is the point. For the company to be "bought out" would have required it to be totally broken down since there was no one large enough to fund the company as a whole. If it was broken down small enough to be purchased by investors in small enough chunks, the company would not function any longer, it would have been piecemeal.

If you can show any investor that was ready to come in and purchase the company in any form, present it.

Click to expand...

washunut said:

it seems you are ( from my point of view) asking for an unreasonable standard of proof. The company was not put through the normal process, where it would have streamlined the business and costs and then it would have emerged. This does not necessarily mean breaking the company apart. Ford had to take many steps to avoid going out of business with essentially all of the same problems of management and unions that GM did and has survived nicely.

Click to expand...

Gimmesometruth said:

No, not true, Ford did not have anywhere near the exposure GMAC had.

My asking you to show ANY investor ready to take on GM in any state is not "unreasonable" since it has already been shown many times over that there was no investor/s ready, willing and able to take on GM's situation. You keep saying there was some form that GM could have taken and there then would be investors willing....but you have nothing but your imagination to back this up. I am asking you to show who was willing to take on this burden on and what would GM look like. In other words, back up your claim.

Click to expand...

washunut said:

Just not sure if you do not know/understand the bankruptcy laws in the US or you think this is a cute "debate" tactic. We will never know if an investor would have come forward in a process that was not allowed to proceed. Sort of like people guessing what unemployment would have been without the stimulus package.

Let's try and remember what happens in a bankruptcy. The first thing is that the company on many cases does not stop doing business, but does so under the umbrella of a bankruptcy court. The stockholders get wiped out but there is another whole big group of investors in the company's bonds that have a say in the restructure. Also contracts are allowed to re redone. This is something the administration siding with the UAW did not want to happen.

So saying that no one was going to step up and buy the mess that GM put itself into is materially different that saying that no one would have picked up a restructured company.

Click to expand...

GMAC is a great example. It is no longer part of GM, it could have been broken off by the previous owners. They mistakenly said that it was integral to their operations. That piece alone will probably cost taxpayers, of which I am one about $15 billion.

Click to expand...

washunut said:

Did it go through the normal backruptcy process where the company could have been reorganized and then come out a viable company while still operating, no. So to say that there were no bidders that is true for the company as it existed. If we had allowed business law to flow, there would have been investors. Everything has a price depending. To say that the factories, dealerships, brand names etc had zero value is beyond silly, it is an administration talking point.

Perhaps at a good enough deal a company like Bain capital would have gotten interested, now that would be ironic.

Click to expand...

washunut said:

Just not sure if you do not know/understand the bankruptcy laws in the US or you think this is a cute "debate" tactic. We will never know if an investor would have come forward in a process that was not allowed to proceed. Sort of like people guessing what unemployment would have been without the stimulus package.

Let's try and remember what happens in a bankruptcy. The first thing is that the company on many cases does not stop doing business, but does so under the umbrella of a bankruptcy court. The stockholders get wiped out but there is another whole big group of investors in the company's bonds that have a say in the restructure. Also contracts are allowed to re redone. This is something the administration siding with the UAW did not want to happen.

So saying that no one was going to step up and buy the mess that GM put itself into is materially different that saying that no one would have picked up a restructured company.

Click to expand...

All of those things eventually happened, as Mr. Romney said. Chrysler went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April 2009. General Motors’ filing followed in June. But Mr. Romney’s detractors say his defense falls apart at “eventually.”

To go through the bankruptcy process, both companies needed billions of dollars in financing, money that auto executives and government officials who were involved with Mr. Obama’s auto task force say was not available at a time when the credit markets had dried up. The only entity that could provide the $80 billion needed, they say, was the federal government. No private companies would come to the industry’s aid, and the only path through bankruptcy would have been Chapter 7 liquidation, not the more orderly Chapter 11 reorganization, these people said.

In fact, the task force asked Bain Capital, the private equity company that Mr. Romney helped found, if it was interested in investing in General Motors’ European operations, according to one person with direct knowledge of the discussions.

Bain declined, this person said, speaking anonymously to discuss private negotiations.

Click to expand...

washunut said:

AdamT said:

Did it go through the normal backruptcy process where the company could have been reorganized and then come out a viable company while still operating, no. So to say that there were no bidders that is true for the company as it existed. If we had allowed business law to flow, there would have been investors. Everything has a price depending. To say that the factories, dealerships, brand names etc had zero value is beyond silly, it is an administration talking point.

Click to expand...

Not familiar with the bankruptcy process, eh? Good for you! :lol:

There is no way on earth GM and Chrysler could have been reorganized without the bailouts. It would have cost a private company at least $100 billion to get just GM through Chapter 11 and theres a better chance that it would have been taken over by aliens.

It was the bailouts or Chapter 7 liquidation, at which point private companies COULD have purchased their assets, but again, there were NO BUYERS. HOw do we know that? We know that because both companies had been trying like mad to sell off their assets before the bailouts and there were no takers. I mean, who in the hell is going to buy a bunch old car factories at the depth of the Great Recession when none of the car companies could sell the cars they were already making? Did you know that Chrysler offered to sell itself to the government for ONE DOLLAR?

Click to expand...

Gimmesometruth said:

------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/u...lout-trails-romney.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hpw

Click to expand...

AdamT said:

Before the bailouts Chrysler tried to sell itself to anyone who could rub two cents together. GM even made overtures to Ford about a merger. And BTW, Chrysler was already owned by a venture capital firm when they went under.

Click to expand...

The idea that private equity can solve a crisis situation on the scale of that faced by General Motors and Chrysler in 2008 is absurd. Besides, the example of Chrysler serves as a cautionary tale for fans of Mitt's "solution".
In April 2007 Daimler Benz sold its stake in DaimlerChrysler to the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management. Thus began one of the worst chapters in the history of car manufacturing in the US and the near death of an iconic American brand. Cerberus didn't have a clue about how to make cars - something the plant workers could immediately sense:

DON JOHNSON, a former Chrysler employee, says he worked on initial production of the Jeep Liberty at a plant in Toledo, Ohio, in summer 2007, when Cerberus won the right to buy Chrysler from Daimler of Germany.
To the surprise of some, Mr. Feinberg managed to woo the support of the United Automobile Workers for the deal. But Mr. Johnson says he was always skeptical about the carmaker’s new owners. “Cerberus did not have a clue about the automotive industry,” he says. “I don’t think anything could have been worse.”

Click to expand...

Cerberus brought in Robert Nardelli - someone with zero auto experience - to run the company. Nardelli had made a name for himself for nearly destroying Home Depot. In fact, it is doubtful Cerberus had any intention of reviving the Chrysler brand: the prize for them was Chrysler Financial, which they could use as a vehicle for making profits in the capital markets.
Cerberus lost big time with its Chrysler investment, but thanks to US taxpayers it was able to salvage 19 cents on every dollar it invested in the company. Nardelli let after the bailout and it's taken 3 years to undo the damage he caused. I shudder to think what would have happened to Chrysler, GM and thousands of suppliers to Detroit if Mitt had been in charge in 2009.

Click to expand...