Thread: The Auto Bailout

Originally Posted by sicboater

On an unrelated note, I was listening to the duties and powers that will come with this "Car Czar" position that is currently trying to be filled on the hill. From what I can tell, it is going to be about the worst job in America, right underneath Assistant Crack Whore.

Anything to link to where we can check this out? I really can't imagine why. If the position pays anywhere near 100k per year, they can move me to Washington and I'll take that terrible job. Hell, I'll take it for a lot less than that.

Originally Posted by Philadelph

Anything to link to where we can check this out? I really can't imagine why. If the position pays anywhere near 100k per year, they can move me to Washington and I'll take that terrible job. Hell, I'll take it for a lot less than that.

Check this out:
Czar would hold sway over bailed-out car companies - Yahoo! News

and this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/bu...%20czar&st=cse

This position is going to have to mediate between Car Companies, Unions, Creditors, Share Holders, and Suppliers.

The problem as I see it is this individual will have to simultaneously bring the UAW to its knees and create equity among all those creditors. As far as the "Czar's" ability to push the car companies into bankruptcy, I envision a political nightmare if said Czar even tries.

You can have the job Alex. No amount of money would put me in that seat.

-Rob

Originally Posted by sicboater

You can have the job Alex. No amount of money would put me in that seat.

Not even for...






One million dollars?

I'd do it for a couple hundred grand. It'd be a headache, but I think I could deal with that headache for a couple years. No one said it would be a life appointment.

My first act as car czar would be for GM to explain to me just what the hell they were thinking when they built certain models of vehicles...and test a Camaro

Vote for me! vote for me! I'd charge a few hundred grand, the high life for a year and then resign with "sorry, I tried and failed". ...but I'd buy you ALL fine razors, shaptons and the very best silver tipped brushes!

The idea of bailing out the auto companies is somewhat repugnant. Like the financial bailout it may be a case of what is best for the economy as a whole. If action of this sort will prevent the great depression circa 2009 then it is better then the alternative. I heard the same hue and cry during the savings and loan fiasco and the Chrysler bailout years ago. The government eventually made a profit on those loans and maybe they will on these.

IMO the auto companies made the cars that people wanted to buy. I see a lot of old American cars still putting along after twenty years. I can't say the same for the foreign stuff. I know after seven years of trouble free service I am happy with my Ford. (knocking on wood)

I read an article in the NY Times here critical of the US auto companies yesterday. While I don't agree with the conclusions as I stated above but his statistics are interesting and put into perspective the cost of labor in the price of automobiles between the big three and other manufacturers.

The funny thing I see is a North/South thing taking place, I've yet to see any Southern representative say they are for it. I guess they figure they are immune to the consequences.

Here's the truth the US basically manufactures very little anymore, they sold out all of the traditional manufacturing over the last 40 years. The only large manufacturing industries left automotive, defense and an aerospace industry that is a shadow of what it was in it's hay day.

So hey let it fail, then you can buy everything from overseas manufactures. Just for the record I wouldn't expect the transplants to stay in the US if it looses the domestic production, they too will go to cheaper labour markets.

The thing that really took the cakes for me was listening to some big ignorant senator during the hearings say " he had a problem using tax payers money to pay salaries and benefits to workers that have better salaries and benefits than most". He doesn't have a problem taking taxpayers money to fund his salaries and benefits that are better than most.

Got to love this race to the bottom.

Originally Posted by Hutch

The thing that really took the cakes for me was listening to some big ignorant senator during the hearings say " he had a problem using tax payers money to pay salaries and benefits to workers that have better salaries and benefits than most". He doesn't have a problem taking taxpayers money to fund his salaries and benefits that are better than most.

Another case of someone waxing idealistic in an effort to strengthen the support of their constituents. Hardly a new tactic!