I'd like to see Tesla become a big player in the auto market.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 8:45 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: should the government rescue the auto industry?
good decision, that part of the indust
More accurately, people who didn't really *need* a truck stopped buying
them.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 5:40 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: should the government rescue the auto industry?
People did not neess
s were still
in trouble.
-Original Message-
From: Maureen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 5:43 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: should the government rescue the auto industry?
The actual reason the auto industry is crashing now is that gas rose
to over 4 dollars a bar
The actual reason the auto industry is crashing now is that gas rose to over
> 4 dollars a barrel, and people stopped buying cars.
>
With the sales slowdowns, are all auto companies going bankrupt or just the
big three?
~|
Adobe
good decision, that part of the industry is in for a world of hurt for the
next couple of years...
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>
> We sold all the dealerships because the burn rate was killing us.
>
~|
A
Until a few weeks ago, I was part owner, with my family, of 41 car
dealerships of many different brands. Trust me on this one. When gas
went up people stopped buying cars, period. We had one store show a
profit in September, our Toyota store, and sales there were down
substantially from a year a
That's just the current crisis. The Big Three have been in trouble for
years, largely because of onerous labor agreements that have them paying
insane amounts of money to people who no longer work for them for pensions
and health care. They need to get out from under those costs, there is no
other
Ford got killed becasue a large part of their busness is pickup trucks.
People stopped buying pickup trucks becasue they are gas guzzlers.
People did not neessarily stop buying cars when gas went up, they stopped
buying gas guzzling cars when gas went up.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Maureen
The actual reason the auto industry is crashing now is that gas rose
to over 4 dollars a barrel, and people stopped buying cars.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. The reason the US automotive industry is in the steaming pile there
> are in right now are
>
>
-Original Message-
The underlying problem you are referring to here is actually the same
between the automotive and financial industry: huge liabilities that were
never properly factored into the balance sheet of the companies that
issued them. Just like GM and Ford never set aside the mon
gt;
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Zaphod Beeblebrox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:16 AM
>> To: cf-community
>> Subject: Re: should the government rescue the auto industry?
>>
>>
>> You mean the Toyot
; Quality ratings are meaningless if your brand reputation is in the toilet
> and your 'good product' doesn't sell.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Zaphod Beeblebrox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:16 AM
> To: cf-community
&g
** Private ** wrote:
> Moreover, the legacy cost that is killing GM and F is benefits being paid
> out to ppl who no longer work for the company. Look, these ppl earned
> those pension rights and they deserve it. But at the same time, that was
> a decision between F/GM and its workers.
>
> The
> Won wrote:
> I don't know anything about Japanese Government sponsored healthcare. Is
> it just Toyota and Honda that gets it or every citizen?
The thing I think is funny about that point is that essentially says this:
Other countries have figured out how to create a WAY better business
enviro
m: Zaphod Beeblebrox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 12:16 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: should the government rescue the auto industry?
You mean the Toyota and Honda companies that benefit from government
sponsored health care in their home countries? You mean the T
e [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:45 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: RE: should the government rescue the auto industry?
>
>
> No. The reason the US automotive industry is in the steaming pile there are
> in right now are
>
> 1) They make a
Quality ratings are meaningless if your brand reputation is in the toilet
and your 'good product' doesn't sell.
-Original Message-
From: Zaphod Beeblebrox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:16 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: should the govern
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, why do you feel they make an inferior productIn the JD
> Powers survey for mid-size cars, the Chevy Malibu and the Ford Fusion
> both scored 5's in overall quality while Honda Accord only scored a
> 3. In
; their plants are located) to meet the demand.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 10:11 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: should the government rescue the auto industry?
>
> I'll be happy to
easing to exist. Have you seen the new Dodge
Challenger? If that is their best work, then they're screwed.
-Original Message-
From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:45 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: RE: should the government rescue the auto industry?
o: cf-community
Subject: Re: should the government rescue the auto industry?
I'll be happy to be wrong.
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Dana wrote:
> I am not sure you are correct about Obama. He seems to be avoiding
> entanglement with the financial services bailout; wisely in my
&g
I'll be happy to be wrong.
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Dana wrote:
> I am not sure you are correct about Obama. He seems to be avoiding
> entanglement with the financial services bailout; wisely in my
> opinion. I think his vote for the plan was a mistake and the plan is a
> disaster.
>
> As
the plan is always to retrofit, every time they ask for a bailout, and
to my understanding they always fail to do so. How many second chances
should they get? I say take the short-term pain and deal with the
actual problem -- those companies do not know how to build something
people want to buy.
O
I am not sure you are correct about Obama. He seems to be avoiding
entanglement with the financial services bailout; wisely in my
opinion. I think his vote for the plan was a mistake and the plan is a
disaster.
As for the auto industry, my answer is hell no.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Robert
"A bridge loan is not a bailout."
In name. It still allows the same people who ran the business into
the ground to stay in power. It bails them out.
The loans should be tied, if they happen, should be tied to job
evaluations for high level administration. That will never happen.
~
> RoMunn wrote:
> As to the bailout idea, even if the money is a loan, I don't see how they
> are going to pay it back under current conditions. I would rather see them
> go through BK and come back as leaner, more competitive companies.
>
Cerberus grabbed Chrysler, but the rest of the PEGs won't
That's basically the way I see it. Wipe out the shareholders and re-work the
union agreements, then re-capitalize through the markets. Oh, and use BK to
wipe out layers of middle management and streamline operations. I agree, it
isn't going to be easy, but the alternative is to leave these companie
> Cam wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> GM, Ford, and Chrysler are all on life support right now. Should we save
>> them or let them go through bankruptcy?
>
> Bankruptcy - just like the airlines.
>
As a guy who went though bankruptcy in the airline
Bush isn't going to bail them out? Bush has already given them $25
billion. They are asking for $25 billion more. And it is actually a
loan, not asset purchase as in the case of the finance industry.
Now should they get $25 billion more? I'm not sure. I think that would
depend on a plan to turn th
A bridge loan is not a bailout.
The actual bailout of Chrysler worked out quite well.
Airline bankruptcies have done little to stabilize the industry and
turn around the financial problems.
You really don't want to see the economic disaster that would result
from a total meltdown of the automoti
>
>
> 1) How many jobs would bankruptcy cost, would we wind up paying for it
> through unemployment vs. through a bailout
>
Don't know. However, a bailout would eventually lead to another bailout and
so on. There would be no incentive to achieve 2).
2) Would bankruptcy force Detroit to create a
So now that gas is down, do they built a k-car or two and then right
back to the SUV's
Doesn't Ford make all it's money in Europe?
Can they move headquarters to Europe, shut down, then buy there own
factories as a foriegn company? Shitty way to wipe out unions but it's
going to happen anyway. At l
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GM, Ford, and Chrysler are all on life support right now. Should we save
> them or let them go through bankruptcy?
Bankruptcy - just like the airlines.
> The way I see it, these companies need to go through BK so they can ge
Question:
1) How many jobs would bankruptcy cost, would we wind up paying for it
through unemployment vs. through a bailout
2) Would bankruptcy force Detroit to create a product that is
competitive with Asian manufacturers in terms of quality and innovation
Robert Munn wrote:
> GM, Ford, and Ch
I agree. No bailouts.
Of course, that probably won't happen.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f
Archive:
35 matches
Mail list logo
