I'm betting on the thread! ;D
And after we solve all the ills of the auto industry, we should move on to affordable housing and global warming.
Last edited:
Death of the American Automobile Industry
- Thread starter Angus
- Start date
-
Love Gotmead and want to see it grow? Then consider supporting the site and becoming a Patron! If you're logged in, click on your username to the right of the menu to see how as little as $30/year can get you access to the patron areas and the patron Facebook group and to support Gotmead!
-
We now have a Patron-exclusive Facebook group! Patrons my join at The Gotmead Patron Group. You MUST answer the questions, providing your Patron membership, when you request to join so I can verify your Patron membership. If the questions aren't answered, the request will be turned down.
I'm betting on the thread! ;D
And after we solve all the ills of the auto industry, we should move on to affordable housing and global warming.
Unfortunately, that is the way the system works: Strikes are the only real leverage the unions have to get the company executives to the bargaining table.
Actually, there is evidence to the contrary: Predatory lending was at play for many (but certainly not all) of the people now in the direst straits. One typical ploy was to convince someone to accept an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) in hopes that they could sell or refinance before the rate adjusted. Unfortunately, as the housing market soured and the financial markets seized up, they were stuck in homes they could not sell and no longer afford.
I have trouble accepting this claim. When I bought my condo, they offered me a lower rate if I took an ARM. My, says I, lower rates are always nice. I then says, "What's an ARM?" My banker tells me it stands for Adjustable Rate Mortgage. "Right, what does that mean?" He explains. I ask another dozen questions. He answers. I ask for a copy of the ARM contract. He sends it to me. I look over it very carefully. Finally, I agree to it.
Most of the people in dire straights did not do this. "Predatory Lending" is a buzz word that absolves the person in trouble of any responsibility from having failed to engage in due dilligence.
I recently refianced my home. The contract signing took three hours because I insisted on reading the entire 100 page contract, and having every little piece of it explained to me.
Additionally, when I first went for a mortgage, they offered me 3x my salary. Most people max this limit out. I, on the other hand, took the time to lay out a very precise budget for exactly how much I spend. I then increased all those numbers by 10% to account for future price increases in the absence of future pay increases. I figured out I could actually only afford 2.4x my salary.
For these reasons, among many, my mortgage rates aren't skyrocketing. I did my due dilligence, I was careful, thought my financial situation out in exquisite detail. Other people did not. I have little sympathy for these people.
Sorry to keep highjacking the thread with a side discussion on home lending practices, but ...
It is not a buzz word, but a recognition that there are many factors--including a certain level of confidence gaming--at play. Did you do your due diligence? It sounds like absolutely yes and all the more credit to you. Others may not know the right questions to ask or take at face value what they are told by someone they consider knowledgeable or trustworthy. Perhaps you would just call them gullible and maybe they are, but does that absolve a con man of any wrong doing because the mark should have known better? The law (in most cases) says otherwise.
It is not a buzz word, but a recognition that there are many factors--including a certain level of confidence gaming--at play. Did you do your due diligence? It sounds like absolutely yes and all the more credit to you. Others may not know the right questions to ask or take at face value what they are told by someone they consider knowledgeable or trustworthy. Perhaps you would just call them gullible and maybe they are, but does that absolve a con man of any wrong doing because the mark should have known better? The law (in most cases) says otherwise.
Actually, Fraud law is pretty specific. You have to demonstrate that the "con man" was actually lying, knew he was lying, and was doing so with the express purpose of defrauding someone.
The fact that few of these so called "predatory lenders" have actually been arrested and charged with a crime indicates that none of this is true. They offered people a deal, those people took the deal, and got bit in the ass. They should have known better.
Then they shouldn't have tried to buy a house. One of the reasons I don't play the Stock Market is I recognize that I don't really understand it well enough to even begin to research a company to determine it's future worth.
Their mistake. Again, /they/ failed to read the contract, to do their due dilligence.
More to the point, I have yet to see any evidence that most of these lenders actually lied. I'm sure there were a few who did, but the vast majority of people had plenty of opportunity to read the contract. They didn't, and that's their fault. They allowed themselves to be led astray by fancy marketing and slick talk.
The job of a business is to convince you that you /need/ their product. You have got to have a Big Mac, you have to have a BMW, you have to have $150 jeans. How many other businesses do you want to blame for these people's problems? Best Buy shouldn't have sold them a big screen tv! Harlem Furniture shoudn't have sold them leather couches! Ford shouldn't have sold them a $50k SUV! It's not the buyers fault! How were they to know they couldn't afford these things?! Why did no one save them from themselves?! Oh the Humanity!
Query: I recently purchased a large sum of raw honey from Company X. A week later, I find out that Company Y has the exact same brand of honey for $1 less a pound. Whose fault is it that I over paid? The answer is my fault. Company X in no way forced me to make the purchase. They offered me a price, I chose to accept it. I, through my own laziness, didn't think to look for a cheaper price elsewhere. The lost money is the price I pay for a lesson learned.
Query: Is the Megamillions Lottery a scam? Yes, they tell you the odds are 1:175,711,536 , but it's in tiny print several clicks away from their main website. How many people actually understand what that means? If I purchase 175,711,536 tickets, and don't win, did the Lotto Commission "con" me?
Rambling. Here's my position in a nutshell: If the lender actually lied to them, he should go to prison. If instead, as I believe is usually the case, he failed to look out for their best interests and they failed to read the contract.... well tough. I am not my brother's keeper.
And therein lies the problem and why we must agree to disagree. I do believe I am my brother's keeper.
Hey, more power to you. Frankly, it's all I can do to keep myself from trading my only cow for some magic beans..... ;D
I do believe I am my brother's keeper.
ditto
I am leaving to go to my LHBS to pick up supplies for 2 batches of Robust Porter and a couple of 3 gallon carboys…I’m listening to UB40’s Red Red Wine with the MP3 player set to loop.
Life is too short to dwell on the things I can’t control...hope I haven’t wasted too much of anyones time with my mindless babbling…I also hope nobody took offence at my posts…even with all the differing views I think we can all agree that over the next 12-18 months we will be facing some extremely difficult times.
dum spiro spero
Back to the elephant grope ... ;D
Of course, calling the Big Three "American" automakers is a misnomer as is calling Toyota, et al., "foreign" automakers as so many of their vehicles are made here in the US. GM and Ford (at least) are really huge multinationals that happen to be headquartered here. I (mis)heard something in passing on the news the other day that even though GM makes tons of fuel efficient cars for other markets (Europe in particular), they are not brought over here because GM would not get credit against their Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) score. Anyone know the truth behind this?
Of course, calling the Big Three "American" automakers is a misnomer as is calling Toyota, et al., "foreign" automakers as so many of their vehicles are made here in the US. GM and Ford (at least) are really huge multinationals that happen to be headquartered here. I (mis)heard something in passing on the news the other day that even though GM makes tons of fuel efficient cars for other markets (Europe in particular), they are not brought over here because GM would not get credit against their Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) score. Anyone know the truth behind this?
Last edited:
Anyone who supports the CEOs of OPEC and the Big 3 need shock therapy. Perhaps then they could tell me WHY, exactly, the SOBs always jack up the price of gas every Thursday thru Sunday? People get PAID, that's why! They HAVE to fill up for the weekend and coming week and they know it too so they %#@ you! 
Personally, public floggings and the ol' tarring-and-feathering comes to mind and I can't write what I would really like to do. This is just a PG forum after all.
ccasion14:
DD
Personally, public floggings and the ol' tarring-and-feathering comes to mind and I can't write what I would really like to do. This is just a PG forum after all.
ccasion14:DD
Actually, that's called supply and demand. The demand goes up, so the price goes up. It's actually a function of the market which acts to ensure a steady supply of goods. The alternative is price controls, which as history has repeatedly shown lead to long lines and product shortages.
More to the point, there isn't anything wrong with it. The fact of the matter is, there isn't a single one of us that doesn't use this function to our advantage. Example: In general, the more experience you have in a particular skill, the fewer contemporaries you have compared to your industry as a whole. IE, there are more novice engineers then master engineers (blacksmiths, accountants, artists, etc). The supply is lower, and so the price is higher. This is why you get paid more the more experienced you get in your job. The person who regularly turns down merit pay raises is the person who gets to criticize gas companies for raising prices when demand goes up.
More to the point, there isn't anything wrong with it. The fact of the matter is, there isn't a single one of us that doesn't use this function to our advantage. Example: In general, the more experience you have in a particular skill, the fewer contemporaries you have compared to your industry as a whole. IE, there are more novice engineers then master engineers (blacksmiths, accountants, artists, etc). The supply is lower, and so the price is higher. This is why you get paid more the more experienced you get in your job. The person who regularly turns down merit pay raises is the person who gets to criticize gas companies for raising prices when demand goes up.
Well, there we go. The senate has rejected the $15 billion loan. The Republicans voted it down and are being blamed. Funny thing though. I thought the Democrats have a 58 seat majority in the Senate. Am I wrong? I guess 41 seats has more votes than 58.
Why was it voted down,we must now ask ourselves. The CEOs all agreed to make changes, and are working for $1 salaries (yes, I know they already have millions stashed away so it is not going to hurt them personally, but it is a gesture). Who is therefore to blame? The UAW union refused to make any concessions until the next union vote, which I think is in 2010 or 2011. They were not even given specific concessions that they disagreed with. They were just asked to work with management to try to stave off bankruptcy. And they were completely unwilling to give a single inch.
Who is at fault in this loan rejection, the UAW or management? I think the UAW. And if they are the ones at fault in this obviously desperate situation, perhaps this shows who is really the problem in the collapse of the auto industry. This is why unions are a cancer and will lead to nothing but the end of any industry they are involved in, in my oppinion.
Angus
Why was it voted down,we must now ask ourselves. The CEOs all agreed to make changes, and are working for $1 salaries (yes, I know they already have millions stashed away so it is not going to hurt them personally, but it is a gesture). Who is therefore to blame? The UAW union refused to make any concessions until the next union vote, which I think is in 2010 or 2011. They were not even given specific concessions that they disagreed with. They were just asked to work with management to try to stave off bankruptcy. And they were completely unwilling to give a single inch.
Who is at fault in this loan rejection, the UAW or management? I think the UAW. And if they are the ones at fault in this obviously desperate situation, perhaps this shows who is really the problem in the collapse of the auto industry. This is why unions are a cancer and will lead to nothing but the end of any industry they are involved in, in my oppinion.
Angus
Under the right circumstances, Trade Unions, in my opinion, are at the very least not more harmful then they are useful. The UAW is a Collective Bargaining Union, where as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is as a Trade Union.
If I own a construction company, and I get more contracts then I have workers, I just pick up the phone and call the Union Hall. They send me a guy who they to some extent guarantee has X capabilities and Y competencies. If I decide he isn't worth shit, I call the hall up and they're pull him back and send me someone new.
From my vantage point as a Construction Engineer in the Illinois Public Works sector, they seem to do a pretty good job. I've rarely run across a worker, laborer, electrician, finisher, pipe fitter, etc who didn't pull his own weight. The two times I have, I saw the foreman give the guy a warning, then send him back to the hall with no complaint from the Union. Granted, he may get passed around from contractor to contractor like a bad cold, but in the big scheme he's not coddled enough to encourage other folks from doing the same.
In this case I agree that the bail out was sunk by the UAW. However, the situation as a whole has plenty of blame to spread around. Even if the UAW had offered concessions the whole thing would stink. When the Government begins taking actual ownership of manufacturing facilities, it's pretty much all down hill from there.
- Brett
I stilll blame both sides on this one. The CEO's may be working for $1 this next year, but I guarantee there'll be bennies or bonuses involved in that $1 paycheck as well.
As far as the union goes, yep, they're grabbing for as much as they can at the expense of the rest of the american workforce. They're emulating the actions of managements lead all these years.
I actually got an email from a buddy today he had forwarded to me from Michael Moore of all people. Now I loathe Michael Moore for so many reasons I won't even get into it here, but these points were pretty valid to me.
"They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil."
"They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming."
"They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws."
"They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century."
No excuses for the UAW's actions here, but shouldn't we have made some of those demands on the car companies before giving them anything rather than just hitting on the workers? Everyone got us into this situation, shouldn't everyone should get us out of it rather than just sitting around pointing fingers?
As far as the union goes, yep, they're grabbing for as much as they can at the expense of the rest of the american workforce. They're emulating the actions of managements lead all these years.
I actually got an email from a buddy today he had forwarded to me from Michael Moore of all people. Now I loathe Michael Moore for so many reasons I won't even get into it here, but these points were pretty valid to me.
"They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil."
"They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming."
"They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws."
"They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century."
No excuses for the UAW's actions here, but shouldn't we have made some of those demands on the car companies before giving them anything rather than just hitting on the workers? Everyone got us into this situation, shouldn't everyone should get us out of it rather than just sitting around pointing fingers?
Actually, no, we really can't. Central planning doesn't work. The absolute best solution long term is to let the companies go out of business. It's a hard pill to swallow, but it's really the only way.
Telling them to build X or Y is fraught with disaster for two principle reasons: One, It depends on magical technology they don't currently possess. Two, we can't be certain people actually want to buy these magical devices.
One of things most anti-oil people just don't understand is that oil is a really, really, really good deal energy wise. The energy input to output is huge compared with pretty much everything else. Anyone who thinks they'll see actual independence from oil within their life time is either foolish or a dreamer. Based on current rates of increase, it's a 75-100 year window for wind, solar, etc to start being competitive with oil. Nuclear is our best bet at the moment, but that's going to require a massive paradigm shift in the way folks think. Without some massive leap in technology (think on par with the transistor), it's just not happening anytime sooner.
And no, we can't become independent of foreign oil in any fashion that matters to the common person. Oil is traded at the global level, so the price is independent of how far away from you it was drilled. It may have military advantages to have a primarily domestic oil supply, but no real every day benefits.
Telling them to build X or Y is fraught with disaster for two principle reasons: One, It depends on magical technology they don't currently possess. Two, we can't be certain people actually want to buy these magical devices.
One of things most anti-oil people just don't understand is that oil is a really, really, really good deal energy wise. The energy input to output is huge compared with pretty much everything else. Anyone who thinks they'll see actual independence from oil within their life time is either foolish or a dreamer. Based on current rates of increase, it's a 75-100 year window for wind, solar, etc to start being competitive with oil. Nuclear is our best bet at the moment, but that's going to require a massive paradigm shift in the way folks think. Without some massive leap in technology (think on par with the transistor), it's just not happening anytime sooner.
And no, we can't become independent of foreign oil in any fashion that matters to the common person. Oil is traded at the global level, so the price is independent of how far away from you it was drilled. It may have military advantages to have a primarily domestic oil supply, but no real every day benefits.
We will become independant of foreign oil in the next twenty years...but not the Oil companies!
I worked for years in Fuel technology research under contract with the DOE, during which time we developed technologies such as Advanced Coal Liquefaction, Coal Gasification, conducted Solar and Wind research, as well as other technologies.
Solar and Wind technologies will never be viable alternatives if all we ever do is TALK about them…for years people have been saying we are years away from utilizing these sources of energy…the problem is that as long as we talk about it, we will always be years away.
The United States could convert existing oil refineries to produce fuel from coal (which we have in massive amounts) in less than a year, nuclear power technology is such that small self contained power generators could be installed to power large cities, fuel cell technology is advanced to the point that it could become the next “oil”, not only providing fuel for automobiles, but also for small home size generators providing additional power to reduce consumption from power plants.
Many people that follow technology trends believe that Fuel Cell technology will suffer because of a lacking infrastructure…my prediction is that when the Oil companies (BP, Exxon, Chevron) make sure that they have the contracts or rights to distribute the fuel we’ll see fuel cell pumping stations nationwide followed by a new line of fuel cell powered US automobiles flooding the market.
BTW, can you guess who provided most of our funding?
No, we won't. There is absolutely no evidence to support this position. Even if we switched all of our cars to some kind of oil free thing, we still needs massive amounts of oil to support manufacturing plastics (which is really what we use most of the oil for).
Edit: Whoops. I'm making up statistics again. Gotta stop doing that. ;D
Still, I don't see managing to convert the entire US vehicle fleet from oil based in 20 years given that we haven't come up with any guaranteed answers as to what the alternative is.
No one is "just talking". Plenty of companies are doing research in this field. They still take time. Baring a tech leap, we're just not going to see anything in the near future. Betting on that is a bad plan.
At what cost? Give me the cost estimate to do this. I can't imagine it's cheap.
Well, maybe. That's still up in the air. It looks like that's the case, but we're still a few years away from this being proven technology. The first prototypoes have only just been built, so I think it's jumping the gun to say this is a done deal.
More to the point, convincing people to put a nuke plant in their backyard is going to be a nightmare. Even if we get the tech down pat, NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard)will pop out of the woodwork.
Absolutely. And it'll take decades to get that infrastructure in place to the point that we can claim to be "off the oil standard".
And of course, even when we do, how much will this cost? People have this idea that fuel cells will be cheap because they essentially run on water. But what happens when everyone starts using water as a fuel? You've got large sections of this country that can barely provide enough water for /drinking/, much less for running cars.
Ultimately, unless you can get the cost down well below $0.10 a mile or less, it's not really worth the investment in infrstructure. If the cost if more then $0.10/mile, most people would be better off just going with a proven technology like Hybrids, that only require infrastructure changes at places like factories rather then an almost block-by-block change that fuek cells will require.
Last edited:
