Bailout idea

[nickb]

I wasn't attempting to say in any way India was doing anything right or wrong. But India is quite diverse. You can make just about any statement about the country and it is probably true.

My only point is they are just one example of why U.S. companies are moving operations overseas. We can't compete on a cost basis. In some cases we can't compete on an educational basis. In many instances we can't compete on a work ethic basis.

[Brickboy240]

People are trying to make more out of this than it is...its quite simple.

Businesses exist solely to make a profit..nothing else.

Businesses stay in places where there exists a business environment that is friendly towards them. Businesses move away from places that restrict or impede their operations and/or make it difficult to make a profit.

The US govt. has increasingly made it more difficult for businesses to operate on US soil. Be it through restrictive laws, taxes, tariffs, or other means.

During the same times, many foreign countries made it EASIER for companies do do business in THEIR countries. Offered tax incentives, a cheaper workforce, less environmental laws or less red tap in general.

Businesses moved FROM the more restrictive places to the LESS restrictive ones.

So..when you hear Obama and his merry men, going on about windfall profits taxes, cap and trade and carbon credits and green laws...ask yourself: "will this bring more business into the USA or OUT of the USA?"

Theres more to the cheap labor issue...the REST of the business climate has to be inviting or MORE businesses wil leave our shores.

...think about it.

- Brickboy240

[nickb]

Eh......True, business wants to make money but personnel are normally the largest expense. Employees are also the single most important reason most business's succeed or fail.

Business isn't moving to India (as one example) because it's easy to do. They move because India has lots and lots of highly educated highly motivated people ready to work for a lot less than equally capable people in other part of the world.

While government can help influence a move with incentive, business won't rush into an empty desert just because the owner made it easy or cheap.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by jaydog

Kev,

The problem that I see with your proposal is that it seems to be focused on the problem of how to create more jobs in the US, not on the underlying problems that are causing these companies to be able to not compete successfully in the marketplace. It's their own failure to be able to steer their businesses in ways that allow them to compete successfully that have driven them to a state of financial breakdown that is prompting their request for a "bailout". If we give them more money, but they don't address the fundamental issues of bloat and poor operational practices - what will we have done except help them continue to fail? I'm dubious that government intervention can force them into a position of success. If they're left in the "sink or swim" position that they put themselves into the market WILL solve the problem. If they make smart moves they'll succeed, if they don't, they'll leave new opportunities for other companies to try.

It's disingenuous to label a lack of desire on anyone's part to help them continue to fail as unpatriotic. If we have to help everyone that wants to do something but doesn't know how to do it well - we're set up for failure from the beginning.

So I would take this as a "no way" to a GM or other car manufacturer bailout? Just asking .... not looking for a fight .

[HumbleGuy]

GM needs a fundamental overhaul, and that consists of getting out from under onerous contracts, largely health benefits. If bailout money is to be supplied, it shouldn't be until after bankruptcy.

I just read that their pension plans are over funded, so passing on the pension obligations to the feds wouldn't be necessary.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by nickb

And Kev.....government is not the answer unless you need something destroyed and want to spend too much money destroying it.

I wasn't trying to imply that government was the answer. My OP was just to start a discussion as to the veracity of my idea. I have certainly found that perhaps what I thought might be a good way to use bailout money perhaps is not a good way to go. That's fine with me. I started this thread to learn and I have ... so thanks to all who have chimmed in!

All I know is that this bailout .... I initially supported it with the idea that it was needed to help stave off a severe economic collapse. Now with Paulson switching gears and the apparent lack of any significant oversight ..... well I think it's the rich making the rich richer.

Guess I'll retire when I die because I don't have a lot of faith in the markets or the government to do the right things.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

People are trying to make more out of this than it is...its quite simple.

Businesses exist solely to make a profit..nothing else.

Businesses stay in places where there exists a business environment that is friendly towards them. Businesses move away from places that restrict or impede their operations and/or make it difficult to make a profit.

The US govt. has increasingly made it more difficult for businesses to operate on US soil. Be it through restrictive laws, taxes, tariffs, or other means.

During the same times, many foreign countries made it EASIER for companies do do business in THEIR countries. Offered tax incentives, a cheaper workforce, less environmental laws or less red tap in general.

Businesses moved FROM the more restrictive places to the LESS restrictive ones.

So..when you hear Obama and his merry men, going on about windfall profits taxes, cap and trade and carbon credits and green laws...ask yourself: "will this bring more business into the USA or OUT of the USA?"

Theres more to the cheap labor issue...the REST of the business climate has to be inviting or MORE businesses wil leave our shores.

...think about it.

- Brickboy240

Thank you

Originally Posted by nickb

Eh......True, business wants to make money but personnel are normally the largest expense. Employees are also the single most important reason most business's succeed or fail.

Business isn't moving to India (as one example) because it's easy to do. They move because India has lots and lots of highly educated highly motivated people ready to work for a lot less than equally capable people in other part of the world.

While government can help influence a move with incentive, business won't rush into an empty desert just because the owner made it easy or cheap.

and Thank You

The entire problem is a system that competes against the average company as it struggles to survive in a hostile environment, and the I deserve it attitutde of the average U.S. worker within todays society.

WWIII will solve many of these problems, if we can afford to survive it's execution

[jaydog]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

So I would take this as a "no way" to a GM or other car manufacturer bailout? Just asking .... not looking for a fight .

No fight at all, just reasonable discourse between people who care deeply about our country.

I really think that my answer would have to be, "No Way". It's unfortunate that the Big 3 American automakers have allowed themselves to get to this point - but it's them that did it - not the "system", the government, or the hundreds of millions of citizens of this country. The fact that other automakers are competing successfully in the US proves it out. GM et al are the ones who screwed up and who, if they fail, will hurt individuals and communities. It is, however, fair. Everyone has had the opportunity to play on the same "field". The outcomes are decided by the choices that are made. None of this is a surprise either - the collective "we" have seen the inefficiencies and inability to compete and win for years - and if they haven't had their heads buried in the sand - so have the automakers. Enough with the hand-wringing and "poor us" syndrome.

This would be Round Two for Chrysler - we bailed them out before - and now they're back at the table looking for yet another round of handouts. How many times do we need to repeat the lessons before we've learned them? How many times do we need to see specific examples before we begin to extend our learning into principles of understanding? (That's my interpretation of the value of education by the way)

I think that my position essentially boils down to one of responsibility - at the bare essential level the question has to be - is it better to expect each to be responsible for themselves, while operating within societal rules that guide "civil" behavior (which should be the role of government), or is it better for everyone to explicitly rely on the "other guy" to carry the burden of responsibility for them?

The answer to me personally, and I believe implicit in the core of the American Constitution and history, is that we each can best help ensure the success of the "whole" (but not each and every individual or organization) by taking responsibility for ourselves.

[Brickboy240]

Simply bailing out GM, Chrysler and Ford would not teach them anything. In another 10 years or so...we'd be right back where we are now...or maybe worse.

Since Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Hyundai can run car making factories in the SAME DAMN country with the same nationality of workers...don't tell me it cannot be done. It CAN be done...but not the way the Detriot big 3 are doing it.

Since the Big 3 will not abandon the UAW, yes, I say NO BAILOUT.

This bailout is a UAW bailout...not a Ford/GM/Chrysler bailout...don't kid yourselves!

- brickboy240

[ichy_trigger]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

Simply bailing out GM, Chrysler and Ford would not teach them anything. In another 10 years or so...we'd be right back where we are now...or maybe worse.

Since Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Hyundai can run car making factories in the SAME DAMN country with the same nationality of workers...don't tell me it cannot be done. It CAN be done...but not the way the Detriot big 3 are doing it.

Since the Big 3 will not abandon the UAW, yes, I say NO BAILOUT.

This bailout is a UAW bailout...not a Ford/GM/Chrysler bailout...don't kid yourselves!

- brickboy240

I could not agree more! Get the unions out, they were a HUGE contributing factor in this mess.