Saturday, November 15, 2008
Bail out Detroit?
No.
1. It would be illegal under the WTO laws we agreed to.
2. Detroit should have made better cars.
3. Detroit's workers priced themselves out of all reason.
4. Yes, I supported the financial industry bailout package and I do not support bailing out the Big 3. The libtards will accuse me of hypocrisy. They are already accusing Megan McArdle of hypocrisy. But they're morons. The reason? Counterparty risk. Goldman Sachs and dozens of other financial institutions relied on AIG to make good on any number of transactions. Had AIG collapsed entirely, they threatened to destroy entire industries.
Toyota, Honda and Hyundai have no similar reliance on Ford or GM. If GM should fail, the rice burners stand to GAIN market share. (Someone could make the counterargument that the rice burners rely on the same parts manufacturers as the Big 3, and a collapse of the Big 3 would threaten the supply chains across the entire industry, though. I'd be willing to listen to that case.
5. Detroit's PR people are arguing all they need is a "bridge loan." But I don't see the path to profitability - ever. If it's a "bridge loan," it's a "bridge to nowwhere."
6. This is largely a battle over pension funding. But I have my own battle over pension funding to fight, since my pension is entirely self-funded at this point (with the exception of an expected National Guard pension beginning at age 60, should I stay in till I have 20 years of service. At any rate, I have historically contributed the max to 401k and SIMPLE plans I've had access to, and have contributed the max to my Roth IRAs in most years as well. A significant chunk of the next dollar, hundred dollars, thousand dollars, and ten thousand dollars that I earn will go to funding my own retirement. I have foregone vacation days, worked extra, gigged extra, and gone without a TV or cable bill for more than a decade in order make that happen. If I, as a taxpayer, am going to be paying for the Detroit bailout, then the money to do so will effectively be transferred from my retirement funding to a total strangers...' and I can't figure out why they're more worthy of my hard-earned tax dollars I've scrimped and saved over the years than I am.
7. The Big 3 have been on notice to improve their offerings for some time.
8. The labor unions made their bed, tying up company productivity with stupid union practice over stupid union practice, and by restricting the free market for labor. It's time the unions discovered that pressing for the last dollar in a negotiation has a downside.
9. If we have 25 billion available, why not use it to buy equity stakes in the Big 3 and then transfer ownership directly to the unions? Would they be happy with that deal? Why or why not?
10. If it's a bridge loan they need, why is no private lender willing to make the loan? Answer: Because repayment is not secure.
11. Those plants and workers don't just vanish into thin air. They could be sold to the rice burners, or to new enterprises. If not, then the lack of salvage value is an argument AGAINST a bailout, not FOR it!
Splash, out
Jason
1. It would be illegal under the WTO laws we agreed to.
2. Detroit should have made better cars.
3. Detroit's workers priced themselves out of all reason.
4. Yes, I supported the financial industry bailout package and I do not support bailing out the Big 3. The libtards will accuse me of hypocrisy. They are already accusing Megan McArdle of hypocrisy. But they're morons. The reason? Counterparty risk. Goldman Sachs and dozens of other financial institutions relied on AIG to make good on any number of transactions. Had AIG collapsed entirely, they threatened to destroy entire industries.
Toyota, Honda and Hyundai have no similar reliance on Ford or GM. If GM should fail, the rice burners stand to GAIN market share. (Someone could make the counterargument that the rice burners rely on the same parts manufacturers as the Big 3, and a collapse of the Big 3 would threaten the supply chains across the entire industry, though. I'd be willing to listen to that case.
5. Detroit's PR people are arguing all they need is a "bridge loan." But I don't see the path to profitability - ever. If it's a "bridge loan," it's a "bridge to nowwhere."
6. This is largely a battle over pension funding. But I have my own battle over pension funding to fight, since my pension is entirely self-funded at this point (with the exception of an expected National Guard pension beginning at age 60, should I stay in till I have 20 years of service. At any rate, I have historically contributed the max to 401k and SIMPLE plans I've had access to, and have contributed the max to my Roth IRAs in most years as well. A significant chunk of the next dollar, hundred dollars, thousand dollars, and ten thousand dollars that I earn will go to funding my own retirement. I have foregone vacation days, worked extra, gigged extra, and gone without a TV or cable bill for more than a decade in order make that happen. If I, as a taxpayer, am going to be paying for the Detroit bailout, then the money to do so will effectively be transferred from my retirement funding to a total strangers...' and I can't figure out why they're more worthy of my hard-earned tax dollars I've scrimped and saved over the years than I am.
7. The Big 3 have been on notice to improve their offerings for some time.
8. The labor unions made their bed, tying up company productivity with stupid union practice over stupid union practice, and by restricting the free market for labor. It's time the unions discovered that pressing for the last dollar in a negotiation has a downside.
9. If we have 25 billion available, why not use it to buy equity stakes in the Big 3 and then transfer ownership directly to the unions? Would they be happy with that deal? Why or why not?
10. If it's a bridge loan they need, why is no private lender willing to make the loan? Answer: Because repayment is not secure.
11. Those plants and workers don't just vanish into thin air. They could be sold to the rice burners, or to new enterprises. If not, then the lack of salvage value is an argument AGAINST a bailout, not FOR it!
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: cars, Economics, McArdle
Comments:
How do you propose to fix the tax burden that 3 million suddenly unemployed people will have on America? Is this worse than your irrational fear of "welfare?" I don't think you've completely thought this through, but then you use outdated AM radio expressions like "libtard." Also, why do you hate America? Do you really want our auto industry liquidated by the Chinese? TRAITOR.
Rice burners rule! It's survival of the fittest out there. Looks like vtec will finally pwn v8!!!!
http://justtofun.blogspot.com/2008/05/have-riceboys-and-ricegirls-been.html
Post a Comment
http://justtofun.blogspot.com/2008/05/have-riceboys-and-ricegirls-been.html
# posted by 
: 6:45 PM
: 6:45 PM
