TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › AUTO CEO'S vs. BANKERS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AUTO CEO'S vs. BANKERS

post #1 of 9
3/31/09 at 3:00pm
Thread Starter 
I've been wondering about the logic of this myself:


Detroit Dissonance
Tough Love for Carmakers, Pillows for Wall St.
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, March 31, 2009; Page A17

Through a series of logical decisions, the Obama administration has maneuvered itself into an illogical and uncomfortable place. The president is telling Detroit to shape up or die while at the same time politely asking Wall Street, whose recklessness and greed caused this economic crisis, if it would be so kind as to accept another heaping helping of taxpayer funds............

Both the credit crunch and the reluctance of consumers to spend what money they have left are the direct result of Wall Street's atrocious misbehavior. Yet the administration's plan for rescuing the banking sector involves generous inducements, big subsidies and the opportunity for wealthy investors to become much wealthier while assuming very little risk...........

It is worth pointing out, however, that the $17.4 billion the federal government has lent GM and Chrysler since the bottom fell out of the automotive market last fall is dwarfed by the more than $1 trillion we've poured into the financial sector.............

Our tough-love message to the banks: Would you mind, possibly, lending some of that money we gave you? If it's not too much trouble, that is. And would you like another pillow?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...src=newsletter
Reply
post #2 of 9
3/31/09 at 3:12pm
The bankers have our entire planet seized in a precarious position....Detroit had Yankee arrogance and refused to "come down" to the levels of foreign automakers. Each has their own set of problems. Guess the "rehab" has to start somewhere.
What is interesting is that a couple of years ago, Toyota looked at 4 places to build their new truck plant - in Toronto, in Michigan & a couple of other states. Wages & benefits were less in the USA than in Canada; yet Toyota saved $10-$12 per truck by building in Toronto And the reason --- providing HEALTHCARE in the U.S. So how does Canada do it - better wages, benefits & healthcare for the workers, more profit for the company
Reply
post #3 of 9
3/31/09 at 5:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsknowme View Post
The bankers have our entire planet seized in a precarious position....Detroit had Yankee arrogance and refused to "come down" to the levels of foreign automakers. Each has their own set of problems. Guess the "rehab" has to start somewhere.
What is interesting is that a couple of years ago, Toyota looked at 4 places to build their new truck plant - in Toronto, in Michigan & a couple of other states. Wages & benefits were less in the USA than in Canada; yet Toyota saved $10-$12 per truck by building in Toronto And the reason --- providing HEALTHCARE in the U.S. So how does Canada do it - better wages, benefits & healthcare for the workers, more profit for the company
It could be partially because we have a health care system that takes care of most things like doctor visits, hospital stays, medical tests, etc. and the employer usually only has to cover dental, eye care, and extras that are generally not covered by the health care system and even then most company plans do not pay 100% coverage for all those things. Most dental plans only pay 50% of major work and 80% of general things like check-ups and cleanings and they only cover 2 visits per year, some only cover one visit per year, glasses - one pair every three years (that's my hubby's plan). I have no coverage for optical.
Reply
post #4 of 9
3/31/09 at 7:58pm
I am trying not to read or listen to any of it anymore. It is to depressing or makes me to angry. We got the government we deserve, God help us.
Reply
post #5 of 9
3/31/09 at 8:35pm
I'm so glad he pointed out what I've been thinking all week. Over $1 TRILLION and they still need another trillion or more, but we have to bail them out. $17 billion, while in any other period in the history of the world would be a lot, just isn't that much in comparison. Yet Obama feels he can (and did) fire GM's CEO, threaten them with bankruptcy, and tell them that they have to make "painful concessions". Where was this tough talk with the banks? Where was this tough talk before Congress passed 50 TIMES that amount on TARP, another 50 TIMES that amount on a "stimulus", and before Obama asked for 70 TIMES that amount for TARF. It's already been stated that the failure of the auto companies would directly affect thousands of Americans by directly causing their jobs to disappear. But apparently, that's OK - now is the time to get tough on the smallest sector that has gotten bailouts yet.
Reply
post #6 of 9
3/31/09 at 9:58pm
I don't know this Eugene Robinson or who he works for, but it seems to me that his characterization of the Obama administration toward the banks just doesn't ring true. Yes, they've gotten a whole lot more money, but then they're a whole lot bigger piece of the American Pie. It seems to me that the Obama administration's been pretty tough on the financials as well (and deservedly so)

But let's say he's right: who should get punished more severely: the automakers who've only been guilty of incompetence, or the financials who've been guilty of blind greed? Let's put some American perspective and values on this decision: which is more American? Greed or incompetence? If the answer isn't obvious, dear reader, you must be living in Tibet or Mongolia.
Reply
post #7 of 9
4/1/09 at 12:51am
The hard reality is that the economic system, not only in this country but globally, is dependant on the survival of the big banks and financial companies. Though it would cause a lot of pain and it would deepen the recession the economic system will continue without GM or Chrysler. I think it is unfair to berate them for continuing to build SUVs though. The American public drove the demand for them and they provided a profit margin that the small cars couldn't provide.
Reply
post #8 of 9
4/1/09 at 11:38am
There's definitely a disconnect, but the fact of the matter is that the U.S. auto industry is comprised of about 160 companies with a (former) total of approximately $250 billion in annual revenue.

Obviously the banking industry is structured very differently and is far more fragmented, but the FDIC currently insures 8,274 banks/thrifts/S&Ls with $13 trillion in assets and $9 trillion in deposits (as of 12/31/08).

Of course, these numbers don't take into account the ancillary industries related to autos, or the labor intensity of each industry, but it is a starting place for relative scale.

Laurie
Reply
post #9 of 9
4/2/09 at 3:01pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
I don't know this Eugene Robinson or who he works for,
Eugene Robinson writes for the NYTimes and does op-ed pieces. He is also a frequent contributing political analyst for MSNBC on cable. He comes acorss [to me at least] as one of the 'good guys' and always appears to comment in a fair and balanced fashion, on whatever side of the aisle he's reporting on. I like him alot.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › AUTO CEO'S vs. BANKERS