' Lessons From the Auto Rescue, 10 Years Later'

The reason Ford didn’t need the bailout is because they had already sold their soul and assets to prior to that. I don’t know about the grant business, could be.

Now I hear that the 1% in Kalifornia pay 40% of the taxes and the pols are scared to death they will start moving out. Is that really what we want? Already the bottom 40% in the US pay little or no taxes so why not vote for more free stuff? Yeah I know they pay other taxes like sales and gas tax but I have always held that everyone should pay a percentage of their income in order to not create a class of takers from the makers. And come on, the previous administration added more to the deficit than all other administrations combined, plus fostered the worst growth rate in recent history. Blinders off.

Yeah and I agree some companies need to go away but still you need to weigh the consequences. After all it was a loan and largely paid back. Maybe non of us ever is foolish and gets into a situation where we need a loan to get bailed out, but then maybe some of us do. Would it have been better for us not to have gotten the loan? Look at how corrupt and incompetent the power situation in Puerto Rico (whoops) was and yet we are still compelled to help rebuild it because of the dire consequences. There’s just some stuff that needs to be done and there will always be people that won’t agree, no matter what.


Agree completely with this. I distrust the media to such an extent now that I rarely watch the news. Would be awesome if we could just get facts without the personal opinions and spin (from both sides). You know, probably like how newspapers started out many moons ago. :thinking:


What I can’t figure out is how the Feds, the UAW and the banks were able to sit down at the table and all come away with a portion of the money and the GM shareholders who owned all the plants and land came away with not a penny. And the salaried employees at GM that typically owned GM stock in their retirement accounts lost not only their stock money but also their retiree health insurance while the UAW members kept theirs, even though is was with reduced benefits.

By the way, I have never owned one share of their stock and have never liked their cars.

In mind of your comments in another thread about how the liberal members here need to shut up about anything but cars, are you done not talking about cars yet, or are you under the impression that special rules exist for people with MAGA hats?

1 Like

Just consider what Detroit’s .01% considered to separate themselves from the hoi-poloi.

The exclusivity of that proposed city state is very telling of the level of entitlement of those who proposed and promoted such a plan.

Ford happened to sell essentially everything they owned just before the bank freeze. They did this because their finances were in terrible shape. When they could no longer get credit at any bank anywhere in the world, just like everyone else, they were sitting on a pile of cash that they could loan to their customers and pay the bills for new parts, power, and people to keep the assembly lines running. I see no reason to celebrate their dumb luck. It’s kinda like admiring the shrewd investment the last Powerball winner made when they bought the ticket. I’m happy they made the right move, but I don’t think they are any smarter than anyone else.

Whether you were for or against the bailout of any of the organizations that received loans from Uncle Sugar might relate to how you prefer the market to work. A hands off stance by the government would likely have been the most efficient way to handle it, but it also would have ruined millions of lives. States that depend on auto manufacturing, like Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, would have been ruined. It was bad enough with the bailout. Just imagine if all GM, Chrysler, and their supplier’s workers lost their jobs, and through no fault of their own. Ford Amy have gone down, too, as collateral damage.

It’s a bit like a natural disaster, and we protect people from them. The similarity is that there is a huge calamity that people have no idea is coming and blindsides them, then they have to deal with the aftermath. Except in the case of many natural disasters, the people know it’s coming eventually, but hope they will be spared or get bailed out. I’m still in favor of protecting both disaster survivors rather than see chaos and anarchy destroy a lot more than was destroyed in the disaster.


I knew someone would have the Ford info.

I see the points in your post, but I feel like losing jobs is different from a natural disaster. Natural disaster - you lose your home, car, etc. You immediately have no place to lay your head. You lose your job, you go get another job. No jobs in your area? You move to where jobs are. You lost your job in Michigan at the domestic auto manufacturer? Maybe move to Alabama or here in MS and work for Honda, Nissan, Toyota. Or work in a different manufacturing setting. Plus we already have unemployment assistance in place. I wasn’t and am not bent out of shape over the bailouts and don’t want to seem heartless. I just don’t particularly think it’s an area where government should intervene. I don’t see the government “fixing” GM if they’ve got enough issues that they can’t stay in business.


The problem is that we push rampant unregulated capitalism until it becomes inconvenient for the biggest benefactors of rampant unregulated capitalism. The end result is that large “too big to fail” corporations run roughshod over everyone else, and then when they screw up, they get bailed out by taxes generated by the very people they trampled.

I’m not inherently opposed to the idea of the government bailing out a struggling car company, but I am opposed to the idea of the government being ready and eager to throw wads of cash at corporations, but suddenly when smaller concerns or individuals need help, oh well gee the wallet’s empty! I’m also opposed to the attitude that corporations should be allowed to do virtually anything they want in the name of making money - the attitude that government regulation is destroying American productivity and that’s why we have to eliminate fuel efficiency requirements, safety regulations, etc – but any time a large lowly-regulated corporation steps in it, we absolutely need to forget all about that free market baloney and give them as much money as they need, right now!

The housing crisis was the classic example of this mentality. Instead of bailing the banks out directly, we could have bailed the borrowers out, and the borrowers would then have given that bailout money to the banks. This would have allowed the banks to stay afloat while allowing people to keep their houses.

But no - we bailed the banks out directly, and they immediately and gleefully foreclosed on the borrowers. As usual, the little guy got screwed while the fatcats got fatter, and all sorts of BS was spread around talking about how it was all the borrower’s fault because they were too stupid to realize they couldn’t afford the loan they got and therefore they deserved to lose everything. All the while conveniently not noting that the banks, whose entire job it is to be financially savvy, must have been doubly stupid to fake data in order to “legally” give loans to people who could not afford them, and therefore the banks, too, deserved to lose everything.

And the same thing happened with the car bailouts. When GM got bailed out, and the one condition for giving them the money that Obama set was that they had to replace their leadership – you know, the leadership that had driven them to destruction – immediately idiots started running around howling about the “gubmint” taking over independent corporations and that’s communism!

Then, ever since GM needed the bailout, we’ve been hearing about how it’s all the damn union’s fault! The union forced GM into a contract that drove it to bankruptcy! We should punish the workers by busting the unions while throwing fistfuls of cash at the corporation!

You don’t often hear the other side, which is that GM could afford the union contract when they signed it, and maybe - just maybe - if GM hadn’t then decided to build the cheapest piles of crap they possibly could, while selling them at prices that should have been reserved for good cars, then GM’s customers wouldn’t have gotten fed up and abandoned them.

But no, let’s blame the working stiffs instead of the executives who decided to cut corners, and continue our charge toward full free-market capitalism forever! (or at least until another corporation needs money). It’s absolutely insane.


I’m afraid I agree. All things are not black and white and when conditions develop that will have a large impact on a large portion of the population, government (which is simply a collection of all of us) has a responsibility to respond to mitigate the damage. We do the same for disasters, disease outbreaks, (whether due to personal choices or not) and any number of issues. You can be in favor of free markets and still be in favor of responding to massive citizen needs. But you have to do it in the most effective way.

On to housing, you couldn’t provide grants to thousands of under water homeowners that had no ability to sustain the mortgage in the first place, with a grant or not. But remember folks that had their mortgages forgiven, were also given a tax break so they didn’t also need to pay tax on the amount forgiven. For some this was no small issue. But like said, some will be agin’ whatever is done based on dislike of unions, corporations, and so on, but still government cannot just sit idly by and do nothing.

Heh heh. I don’t have a hat. Don’t wear them. My mother claimed that wearing hats caused baldness and works for me. But like said I usually am not the one who first brings it up, but then feel compelled to respond just a little. To get back to cars a little though, the hats are pretty popular in 3000 of the 3300 counties in the US, and the 300 counties seem to be the densely populated ones that don’t like cars but like trains and buses. One might ask why that is? Then again we probably don’t need to ask.


Government involvement in general is a scary thing to me. Not always bad, but usually screwed up :grin:.

Not trying to bash OSHA, but they’re one government entity that was needed, and still is needed, but sometimes they seem to get out of hand and want to throw out fines for leaving a lid off a trash can or some such nonsense.

Things like that make my desire for government intervention to be the least amount possible. And I do think some of that government regulation should be pulled back / modified. I don’t want anyone to get hurt at my job. These folks I work alongside, eat lunch with, and care about. So an OSHA visit should be a good thing if I’m trying to watch out for my workers. Instead it’s a dreaded occurrence, and you know they’re going to find something wrong even if they have to resort to an msds sheet not being readily available for a can of spray paint (with hazard info on the label). So that, in my opinion, is government BS that does hinder…everything!

Shadow, I don’t see “capatalism” as the blame for all of it either. Capitalism is what made the profits to pay the workers, no? I do agree the little guy generally gets stiffed. That’s true in…everything.


We will never agree on everything. But I think we can all get along. We need an off topic section. And anyone who I’ve offended needs to come drink beer and listen to “The Big Come Up” by The Black Keys with me. Yes, most of the songs were probably originally written by poor black blues artists who are now dead, and being performed by white guys with a garage guitar style. But, damn, that sounds nice. Everyone should get credit and everyone should take the blame. Yeah, I’ve had a couple. Good night.

1 Like

It’s not. That wasn’t what I was trying to say. Capitalism is fine. So is communism. There are several economic systems that work great on paper. But then they get messed up when flawed humans get involved and start getting greedy. I’m a capitalist, but I am not a regulation-free-capitalist. Regulated capitalism can yield great things. Unregulated capitalism yields Dickens novels.


I agree. I think. We are all flawed and greedy to some extent. I don’t think we should pretend we know the perfect answer. Else we wouldn’t be human, eh?

I fear communism (regulated or not) worse. Great in theory (let’s all pitch in and let’s all get a divvy). But doesn’t work out for crap in practice. In theory, it sounds the best, though.

1 Like

Well I agree with the rest but read a little about Eastern Europe after the war to see how good communism is for the people. Like 100,000 folks slaughtered or more. I like the Apostle Paul and walked in his foot steps but it is not human nature to work your tail off so that someone else gets the benefit for contributing nothing. It just doesn’t promote productivity, self-reliance, pride in work, and eventually the whole system breaks down, people starve and the lights go out. Sure we all contribute to those that are less fortunate but that’s not the same.

:beers: CSA :v:

1 Like

Chesney is one of the few newer country artists I like! Haha.

1 Like

This is where it’s important to read all the words. Like the sentence immediately following that which qualified that those and other systems are fine on paper and become not-fine when real people get involved.

The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Owners’_Loan_Corporation saved about a million homes in the mid-'30s, closed making a small profit in 1954. We could have done the same in the late-'00s.

This man might have become president in 1936