Are US auto makers being treated as a scapegoat?
I KNOW they are not a perfect business model. But they ARE profitable, or were prior to this year. They have improved astronomically, despite the unions and management issues.
But the overwhelming attitude seems to be to let them hang out to dry.
Do we have the right to pick and choose which businesses will survive based upon our opinion of them? Do we have proof that CitiBank is a better investment than GM? I didn't see GM buying tons of worthless paper and complaining when they couldn't sell it.
Where is this bad view of the Automakers originating and why is it SO universal right now?
Are they a scapegoat intended to take our attention form something else? And if so from WHAT?
typre50: Hmm - perhaps if you let go of the self righteous indignation long enough to read what I have written you will post an edit.
Again - the big 3 HAVE been profitable and there is not normally a "plan" needed for a secured bridge loan - I haven't seen much of Citibanks plan, have you?
I would think the only necessary "plan" would be to keep the doors open - sounds like an outstanding and well-thought plan to me.
Smoove B: I don't even think the unions are the issue at the moment - yes, they are indeed a problem, but they are not the ones that shut down the money supply in October
No one can get you a loan - qualified or not
Anyway - I see the only way to get through to some people is to say
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I they are far less culpable than the banks and financial institutions and employ far more people. I'd loan them the money at zero interest if necessary just to remain in business, along with mandates for energy efficiency- another reason we are being bled dry.
- 1 decade ago
Scapegoats! They show up begging for money in their private jets and have no plan as to how they will spend the money they want and you consider them to be scapegoats? These guys resisted making needed changes to their industry for years. They used the political system in order to get what they wanted which was to avoid such things as higher millage for the cars they produced. Oh yes, they Are Not Profitable and this isn't a new thing.
Smoove B, Check the exec salaries if you want to see abuse.
Right. They HAVE been profitable. They are not profitable NOW. Add some more tinfoil to your hat your conspiracy theory is way way out there.
If your idea of a plan is simply to "keep the doors open" I don't want you around any money whatsoever. Unless of course, you can get me a loan.
- SmooveBLv 61 decade ago
The unions are the problem, not the automakers.
In 2006, average annual compensation for Chrysler employees was $151,720, GM was $146,520 and Ford was $141,020. Most of these workers had high school diplomas and all were UAW members. By comparison, the average annual compensation for a PhD university professor was $93,000, and Toyota/Nissan/Honda employees was $96,000.
- Jack XLv 61 decade ago
First answer was most correct. Too many people are viewing it as a chance to weaken unions, regardless of financial or human costs.Source(s): Unmitigated right-wing sleaze.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
IMO, the Reps want to kill the unions. Nothing new there, of course.
I think the auto industry will get the bailout...just with strings attached.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
its probably a part of the governments plan to take over the big3 and make them government entities. sorta like they tried to do with big oil but failed because they can't find any evidence of them cheating.
today socialism tomorrow communism