[jogiba]

Op-Ed Contributor - Let Detroit Go Bankrupt - NYTimes.com

He is dead meat in 2012.
Chrysler Pays Back Rescue Loan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/business/25chrysler.html

[gokenin]

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
Op-Ed Contributor - Let Detroit Go Bankrupt - NYTimes.com


Chrysler paid back on Tuesday $7.6 billion in loans from the American and Canadian governments, paving the way for its Italian partner, Fiat, to increase its control over the Detroit carmaker.

The repayment of loans and interest owed to the United States Treasury and Export Development Canada is a significant milestone in Chrysler’s methodical comeback from bankruptcy in 2009.

Now the company’s revival will enter a new phase that depends heavily on its alliance with Fiat, which on Tuesday increased its stake in Chrysler to 46 percent, from 30 percent.

Fiat will most likely increase its ownership to 51 percent by the end of the year. Terms of Chrysler’s federal bailout allow the Italian company to gain an additional 5 percent interest when a prototype of a new fuel-efficient compact car is ready for production in the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/business/25chrysler.html?_r=1

So let me get this straight you say that his 2008 opinion that states that the auto industry is important to the US economy and that a structured bankruptcy that would have continued to keep the control of these companies was a bad thing? Should you look at the second article part of the conditions of the governments loans was that control of Chrysler be transfered to an Italian company makes much more sense to me. I may be thick but what exactly makes him "dead meat" as a candidate?

[shooz]

His father would NEVER have done that.

[Ratmagiclady]

I'm not seeing Southern states turning down billions in Federal aid just lately, am I? Funny, the conservative talk about it ain't changed much, though.

[GeneV]

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
Op-Ed Contributor - Let Detroit Go Bankrupt - NYTimes.com


Chrysler paid back on Tuesday $7.6 billion in loans from the American and Canadian governments, paving the way for its Italian partner, Fiat, to increase its control over the Detroit carmaker.

The repayment of loans and interest owed to the United States Treasury and Export Development Canada is a significant milestone in Chrysler’s methodical comeback from bankruptcy in 2009.

Now the company’s revival will enter a new phase that depends heavily on its alliance with Fiat, which on Tuesday increased its stake in Chrysler to 46 percent, from 30 percent.

Fiat will most likely increase its ownership to 51 percent by the end of the year. Terms of Chrysler’s federal bailout allow the Italian company to gain an additional 5 percent interest when a prototype of a new fuel-efficient compact car is ready for production in the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/business/25chrysler.html?_r=1

So let me get this straight you say that his 2008 opinion that states that the auto industry is important to the US economy and that a structured bankruptcy that would have continued to keep the control of these companies was a bad thing? Should you look at the second article part of the conditions of the governments loans was that control of Chrysler be transfered to an Italian company makes much more sense to me. I may be thick but what exactly makes him "dead meat" as a candidate?

There are some good ideas there. Still, as is hinted, the single biggest downside to making a car or anything else in America is our benefits cost.

As a small employer, I feel this even more acutely. I have never understood why the Chamber of Commerce doesn't get behind some kind of National Healthcare plan, because it would take an expense off the books of U.S. employers that is not on the books of anyone who manufactures elsewhere. The same is true to some degree with retirement plans. Ideology or loyalties to certain industries are getting in the way of profitability.

[jeffkrol]

I have never understood why the Chamber of Commerce doesn't get behind some kind of National Healthcare plan, because it would take an expense off the books of U.S. employers that is not on the books of anyone who manufactures elsewhere. The same is true to some degree with retirement plans. Ideology or loyalties to certain industries are getting in the way of profitability.

Odd isn't it.. I suppose in a sense it would hinder another "revenue stream" for them.

I was once told "insurance companies own the world" and if you look at their massive portfolios it is hard not to believe it............

[GeneV]

Odd isn't it.. I suppose in a sense it would hinder another "revenue stream" for them.

I was once told "insurance companies own the world" and if you look at their massive portfolios it is hard not to believe it............

If there is any truth to the movie Too Big to Fail, it was the imminent failure of AIG, rather than the banks, that put our government and the government of other countries in panic mode.

[Nesster]

As a small employer, I feel this even more acutely. I have never understood why the Chamber of Commerce doesn't get behind some kind of National Healthcare plan, because it would take an expense off the books of U.S. employers that is not on the books of anyone who manufactures elsewhere.

Well there's your answer - when has the CoC actually supported the interests of the small employers, especially in recent times?

[GeneV]

Well there's your answer - when has the CoC actually supported the interests of the small employers, especially in recent times?

I think we share this interest with GM or any other business, but what do I know?

[Nesster]

I think we share this interest with GM or any other business, but what do I know?

Well, let's see. The bean counters and stock analysts that tend to set corporate strategy these days are always on the lookout for cost ratios and such.

While universal health benefits would improve cost ratios, that's too risky and external a strategy, and one that would take time to become effective.

On the other hand, near- and off-shoring is immediate and can be demonstrated on the bottom line this quarter rather than in 3 years. It is in the interest of management to show incremental improvements year over year, in order to earn bigger bonuses. The salient between the US and Canada and Mexico for example is tailor made for this sort of little-by-little arbitrage of cost structure difference.

It is far easier to export jobs for multi nationals than it is for small businesses. And, don't you think that benefits costs etc. are an effective barrier to competition, thus helping the established behemoths.

[GeneV]

Well, let's see. The bean counters and stock analysts that tend to set corporate strategy these days are always on the lookout for cost ratios and such.

While universal health benefits would improve cost ratios, that's too risky and external a strategy, and one that would take time to become effective.

On the other hand, near- and off-shoring is immediate and can be demonstrated on the bottom line this quarter rather than in 3 years. It is in the interest of management to show incremental improvements year over year, in order to earn bigger bonuses. The salient between the US and Canada and Mexico for example is tailor made for this sort of little-by-little arbitrage of cost structure difference.

It is far easier to export jobs for multi nationals than it is for small businesses. And, don't you think that benefits costs etc. are an effective barrier to competition, thus helping the established behemoths.

True, they have that option that I don't--yet. I suppose I will be able at some point to send paralegal work to India and act like a multinational.

[jogiba]

General Motors said Wednesday that it will build the next-generation Chevrolet Impala at its Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant, adding 2,500 jobs.

The Detroit-Hamtramck factory also makes the Chevrolet Volt. GM said last week that it plans to ramp up Volt production to 60,000 next year, from an earlier plan to produce 30,000.

"We're doing this because we're confident in consumer demand for the great vehicles we're going to be building here," GM North America President Mark Reuss told workers at the plant.

Wednesday's announcement is part of a GM plan, spelled out two weeks ago, to invest $2 billion in 17 plants in eight states. Among the plants getting additional investment: Bowling Green, Ky., home of the Chevrolet Corvette; and powertrain plants in Toledo, Ohio, as well as Flint and Bay City, Mich. About 4,000 jobs are being created or retained at those plants, GM has said.

"Given the competitive nature of the auto industry in the United States, the bar for success is placed very high," Joe Ashton, UAW vice president of the GM department, said in a statement. "The members of UAW Local 22 soar over the bar every day by demonstrating their flexibility, hard work, and their intense focus on the customer."

GM moving Chevrolet Impala to Detroit plant - AutoWeek

[Just1MoreDave]

There are some good ideas there. Still, as is hinted, the single biggest downside to making a car or anything else in America is our benefits cost..

Well, it is an easy number to come up with for a company like GM. Look up the relevant UAW contracts, look up production numbers, divide, and it's an impressive stat. Other factors like management decisions might be huge but harder to quantify. People have been saying for decades that it was pointless to have Buicks and Oldsmobiles that were the same thing, but try to put a cost on that, and it's an extended debate about customer loyalty, etc.

[Wheatfield]

As a small employer, I feel this even more acutely. I have never understood why the Chamber of Commerce doesn't get behind some kind of National Healthcare plan, because it would take an expense off the books of U.S. employers that is not on the books of anyone who manufactures elsewhere. The same is true to some degree with retirement plans. Ideology or loyalties to certain industries are getting in the way of profitability.

Your Chambers of Commerce would prefer that other countries scrap their national healthcare and retirement plans so as to "level the playing field".
This was one of the FUDs that was brought up during our debate about whether we would sign on to the NAFTA thing, and there have been a few trial balloons sent up in that direction over the past couple of decades.
However, any government in Canada that tried to disassemble the Canada Health Act would find itself removed from power, probably without benefit of an election, and would never elect another MP, ever.

[GeneV]

Your Chambers of Commerce would prefer that other countries scrap their national healthcare and retirement plans so as to "level the playing field".
This was one of the FUDs that was brought up during our debate about whether we would sign on to the NAFTA thing, and there have been a few trial balloons sent up in that direction over the past couple of decades.
However, any government in Canada that tried to disassemble the Canada Health Act would find itself removed from power, probably without benefit of an election, and would never elect another MP, ever.

If you do a quick Google of Canadian healthcare and chamber of commerce, you will not find much positive there--from the Canadian chambers. I went through page after page without finding anything about our chamber trying to influence Canada. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I'm curious where that statement comes from.