quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

Is this what the auto companies deserve? Or is it harsh compared to the treatment of the financial institutions that are in trouble?

I think it's a bit of both.

I agree with you (as usual.)

But I think the reasoning is pretty simple. The banks are savable, even if only because the government will ultimately do whatever they have to do to ensure that the banking system survives. On the other hand, the auto industry, as it is presently structured, can not possibly survive without major changes in the way they do business. I think the Administration's goal is twofold - first, they want to bully the industry into making changes that may allow it to survive in some viable form; and second, as long as they're doing that anyway, use the opportunity to make an example of them. Obama's sending a message, and at the same time offering up a couple of auto execs as sacrificial lambs to a nation thirsty for the blood of CEOs. Bold move on his part; i admire the audacity, but not quite sure yet whether I admire the concept and the execution.

The banks would otherwise be dead. They are 'savable' as you suggest ONLY because WE saved them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Get a more advised grip people, we tinker around the edges with businesses ALL the time then throw some tough-love at the auto makers while making the bed and laying out a nice soft pillow for wall street.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I heard that the Union members in Detroit are absolutely livid about this. They thought they had a friend in high places, and now they're feeling just absolutely double crossed.

And this is a big deal in Michigan, you had better believe it. This won't be soon forgotten. A lot of pensions are riding on this, and millions of some of the last good paying jobs in the United States are dependent on this, and it looks to some as though all they are getting is a sneer and a middle finger, while trillions and trillions are being absolutely wasted in Washington these days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil

I'm sure most have heard about the 30 and 60 day notices given to Chrysler and GM. GM's CEO was forced to walk the plank.

Is this what the auto companies deserve? Or is it harsh compared to the treatment of the financial institutions that are in trouble?

I think it's a bit of both. Most banks seem to be in trouble because of risks they took that didn't pay. The auto companies seemed to stick to old practices and systems when taking a risk (more hybrids, green technology) could have paid off. Companies that don't keep up with the times don't deserve to be propped up - no one bailed out typewriter manufacturers who didn't switch to making computers - but it seems that the industry suffering because of the safe bet of what people were buying at the time is getting it much harder than the industry that took the high risk bet of what would work in the future.

There a couple of other problems that the auto makers face that banks dont. Unfair international trade practices, CAFE standards and the power of the UAW. 

Government officials who dont know the auto business telling lifelong auto execs how to run their business, but letting their banking cronies get away with their incompetence is unconscionable.

Wasn't it those same "lifelong auto execs" that supervised the long uninterrupted slide of the US Auto Industry..that led inexoribly to them asking for public monies in the first place.Or if you prefer we can just blame Pres.Obama and his administration for this one too.....