|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 12, 2009 10:50:04 GMT -5
Nope. I say give 'em what they want - so long as they give us what we want. Heavy strings attached to the deal. More influence in the head office for the Canadian branch. Terms structured so that if there's even the slgihtest hint that they're wasting the money we give them we can step in and take over their operations (or give them generously to the competition). I've said it quite a few times - losing the auto sector would be a heavy blow to deal with. No one wants Oshawa to become Detroit North do they? So prop it up, if necessary. But make 'em realize that there is a heavy price to pay the piper. If they don't like it, they can leave. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 12, 2009 21:56:12 GMT -5
Nope. I say give 'em what they want - so long as they give us what we want. Heavy strings attached to the deal. More influence in the head office for the Canadian branch. Terms structured so that if there's even the slgihtest hint that they're wasting the money we give them we can step in and take over their operations (or give them generously to the competition). I've said it quite a few times - losing the auto sector would be a heavy blow to deal with. No one wants Oshawa to become Detroit North do they? So prop it up, if necessary. But make 'em realize that there is a heavy price to pay the piper. If they don't like it, they can leave. Do you know what they want? Do you know what the company as a whole is worth? In 2007 it was worth abourt 6 billion and right now it's not worth 1 billion. Maybe not even half a billion. So we are suppose to let them keep half a billion in back taxes and give them 2 more billion? Do you have stock in Chrysler? Second....it's very unlikely that Chrysler will survive and any money we give them now will go down the drain along with the other money they blackmailed out of us. Good money after bad is not business, it's stupidity. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Mar 12, 2009 23:02:41 GMT -5
I think it sets a bad precedent to give into Chrysler. I might even take the money and give it to Toyota and Honda out of spite.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 13, 2009 5:52:25 GMT -5
. . . continuing to reward incompetence . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 13, 2009 7:47:51 GMT -5
. . . continuing to reward incompetence . . . I don't think that is a fair assessment. The whole auto industry crumbling didn't happen because of union or management incompetence IMO. I mean, the industry was going along just fine for year after year until this past year. So why is that? The only answer I can seemingly come up with is that the credit crunch, ie the banks (especially in the US) is to blame. People now, either can not get credit to buy a vehicle, or they are scared to buy a vehicle with all the media hyped doom and gloom. If people are not buying anything, not just vehicles, then you know the company will lose money ..... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 13, 2009 8:49:18 GMT -5
I'm not talking the whole industry. I'm talking Chrysler in particular, and the Big Three in general. Here's the reason I say incompetence:
Chrysler went through massive restructuring after their last bail-out . . . and continued to produce overpriced cars that consumers did not buy . . . while congratulating themselves for staying in business and giving themselves [executives, that is] massive salaries.
The Big Three continued to pay workers fantastic salaries and pension benefits even while losing money, while the "foreign" manufacturers managed to keep salaries and benefits lower.
It hasn't helped that management gave in to ridiculous demands during negotiations ["we'll keep the plant open no matter what"] that cannot be followed through on, nor that union workers want to hold the companies to their promises [example: the GMC truck plant in Oshawa -- people aren't buying cars, let alone trucks, but the union wants the company to continue building trucks even though the ones already built are gathering dust, "because you said you would"].
To throw money at the companies is wrong. If the government is going to go into the car business, they should say "buy a car and we'll give you a tax rebate/refund" -- give it to the companies and it will get Adscammed.
And while we are at it, my question to the government: why are you giving money to the banks? They don't need help, and all they are doing is using the money to buy up troubled banks in the States -- not the intent, methinks. Meanwhile, my mortgage, which comes due this year, will have a higher rate than I am now paying, even though rates are lower now than when I re-upped last time! Explain that to me!
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 13, 2009 9:53:32 GMT -5
Nope. I say give 'em what they want - so long as they give us what we want. Heavy strings attached to the deal. More influence in the head office for the Canadian branch. Terms structured so that if there's even the slgihtest hint that they're wasting the money we give them we can step in and take over their operations (or give them generously to the competition). I've said it quite a few times - losing the auto sector would be a heavy blow to deal with. No one wants Oshawa to become Detroit North do they? So prop it up, if necessary. But make 'em realize that there is a heavy price to pay the piper. If they don't like it, they can leave. Do you know what they want? Do you know what the company as a whole is worth? In 2007 it was worth abourt 6 billion and right now it's not worth 1 billion. Maybe not even half a billion. So we are suppose to let them keep half a billion in back taxes and give them 2 more billion? Do you have stock in Chrysler? Second....it's very unlikely that Chrysler will survive and any money we give them now will go down the drain along with the other money they blackmailed out of us. Good money after bad is not business, it's stupidity. And that's why I always preface it with phrases like "pay the piper" - set conditions with heavy handed punishments in return for mismanagement. If you go bankrupt the government retains the right to seize all of your assets in Canada for the public good. If you do not improve to "x" level your quarterly results by Q2 2010 we seize all your assets in Canada for the public good. I'm not suggesting we give them the money - I'm suggesting we loan them the money with heavy penalties for failures. In fact, we could use this as a means to strengthen the auto industry in Canada. By simply saying "we will loan you "x" number of dollars but it must all be invested in Canada" (and following up later to make sure every cent has been spent in Canada we could, in effect, be reinvesting the money in Canada. You just have to be imaginative HA - that's all. We have the power now, and we should use it like a club to get what we want. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 13, 2009 18:27:04 GMT -5
Do you know what they want? Do you know what the company as a whole is worth? In 2007 it was worth abourt 6 billion and right now it's not worth 1 billion. Maybe not even half a billion. So we are suppose to let them keep half a billion in back taxes and give them 2 more billion? Do you have stock in Chrysler? Second....it's very unlikely that Chrysler will survive and any money we give them now will go down the drain along with the other money they blackmailed out of us. Good money after bad is not business, it's stupidity. And that's why I always preface it with phrases like "pay the piper" - set conditions with heavy handed punishments in return for mismanagement. If you go bankrupt the government retains the right to seize all of your assets in Canada for the public good. If you do not improve to "x" level your quarterly results by Q2 2010 we seize all your assets in Canada for the public good. I'm not suggesting we give them the money - I'm suggesting we loan them the money with heavy penalties for failures. In fact, we could use this as a means to strengthen the auto industry in Canada. By simply saying "we will loan you "x" number of dollars but it must all be invested in Canada" (and following up later to make sure every cent has been spent in Canada we could, in effect, be reinvesting the money in Canada. You just have to be imaginative HA - that's all. We have the power now, and we should use it like a club to get what we want. NO! I get a call every few days to buy my competitor or related industries, some who are ten times larger then me and all I do is laugh. Nobody in his right mind invvests in manufacturing. Tell you what, I can get you a huge plant that cost over a 70 million to start, sold for 25 million. Then the new owners invested another 30 million and now it's for sale for 5 million. Plus the provincial government will throw in million in "retraining" plus the local municipality will throw in 10 year hiatus from municipal taxes. NO takers. NOBODY wants it. Should the government bail it out even though it's guaranteed o fail again? After all, it will support 400 jobs. Should the government buy those jobs at $350,000 just to say it did something? Chrysler is no different. It's brand is worth nothing, maybe it's even negative and it's product line is second rate. Yet you want to throw in 2+ billion AND let them off the hook for another billion? You want to buy those jobs at $350,000 each just to say people have jobs? If the only reason to do this is to keep those high paying jobs, why not build paper pyramids? At least the paper pyramids will be around longer then Chrysler. Simpy put, Chrysler is the poster child of where NOT to throw money. |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Mar 19, 2009 21:42:23 GMT -5
I'm not talking the whole industry. I'm talking Chrysler in particular, and the Big Three in general. Here's the reason I say incompetence:
Chrysler went through massive restructuring after their last bail-out . . . and continued to produce overpriced cars that consumers did not buy . . . while congratulating themselves for staying in business and giving themselves [executives, that is] massive salaries.
The Big Three continued to pay workers fantastic salaries and pension benefits even while losing money, while the "foreign" manufacturers managed to keep salaries and benefits lower.
It hasn't helped that management gave in to ridiculous demands during negotiations ["we'll keep the plant open no matter what"] that cannot be followed through on, nor that union workers want to hold the companies to their promises [example: the GMC truck plant in Oshawa -- people aren't buying cars, let alone trucks, but the union wants the company to continue building trucks even though the ones already built are gathering dust, "because you said you would"].
To throw money at the companies is wrong. If the government is going to go into the car business, they should say "buy a car and we'll give you a tax rebate/refund" -- give it to the companies and it will get Adscammed.
And while we are at it, my question to the government: why are you giving money to the banks? They don't need help, and all they are doing is using the money to buy up troubled banks in the States -- not the intent, methinks. Meanwhile, my mortgage, which comes due this year, will have a higher rate than I am now paying, even though rates are lower now than when I re-upped last time! Explain that to me!I agree. Change your philosophy away from Hemis and Hummers and think long term green. Then we'll consider helping you by becoming a partner of sorts, not a loving, caring, giving parent. As far as your mortgage rate goes, it's based on the bond market not the BOC interest rate. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 20, 2009 10:58:10 GMT -5
And that's why I always preface it with phrases like "pay the piper" - set conditions with heavy handed punishments in return for mismanagement. If you go bankrupt the government retains the right to seize all of your assets in Canada for the public good. If you do not improve to "x" level your quarterly results by Q2 2010 we seize all your assets in Canada for the public good. I'm not suggesting we give them the money - I'm suggesting we loan them the money with heavy penalties for failures. In fact, we could use this as a means to strengthen the auto industry in Canada. By simply saying "we will loan you "x" number of dollars but it must all be invested in Canada" (and following up later to make sure every cent has been spent in Canada we could, in effect, be reinvesting the money in Canada. You just have to be imaginative HA - that's all. We have the power now, and we should use it like a club to get what we want. NO! I get a call every few days to buy my competitor or related industries, some who are ten times larger then me and all I do is laugh. Nobody in his right mind invvests in manufacturing. Tell you what, I can get you a huge plant that cost over a 70 million to start, sold for 25 million. Then the new owners invested another 30 million and now it's for sale for 5 million. Plus the provincial government will throw in million in "retraining" plus the local municipality will throw in 10 year hiatus from municipal taxes. NO takers. NOBODY wants it. Should the government bail it out even though it's guaranteed o fail again? After all, it will support 400 jobs. Should the government buy those jobs at $350,000 just to say it did something? Chrysler is no different. It's brand is worth nothing, maybe it's even negative and it's product line is second rate. Yet you want to throw in 2+ billion AND let them off the hook for another billion? You want to buy those jobs at $350,000 each just to say people have jobs? If the only reason to do this is to keep those high paying jobs, why not build paper pyramids? At least the paper pyramids will be around longer then Chrysler. Simpy put, Chrysler is the poster child of where NOT to throw money. Well - I won't pretend I know anything about your business, so I'll just leave most of it be. However a knee-jerk no doesn't sound like the best response to me in any situation. There is money to be made, even in the tightest of times. One just has to have the eye and mind and resources for it. Perhaps no one is moving into manufacturing right now, but in five years? In ten? What's the cost to the Canadian taxpayer? A small bailout/investment (proportionate to the value of what's returned win or lose) and then what? The taxes Canada would have to pay on the manufacturing plants and other holdings? Maybe, but the government wouldn't be collecting those taxes otherwise. It'sa net zero cost in the end. I'm not say throw our money away. I'm saying regard the troubles of Chrysler and other automakers as an opportunity to improve our economy rather than a hand out for our money. If we play the situation right we can win, and possibly even win big. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 21, 2009 13:30:31 GMT -5
Well - I won't pretend I know anything about your business, so I'll just leave most of it be. However a knee-jerk no doesn't sound like the best response to me in any situation. There is money to be made, even in the tightest of times. One just has to have the eye and mind and resources for it. Perhaps no one is moving into manufacturing right now, but in five years? In ten? What's the cost to the Canadian taxpayer? A small bailout/investment (proportionate to the value of what's returned win or lose) and then what? The taxes Canada would have to pay on the manufacturing plants and other holdings? Maybe, but the government wouldn't be collecting those taxes otherwise. It'sa net zero cost in the end. I'm not say throw our money away. I'm saying regard the troubles of Chrysler and other automakers as an opportunity to improve our economy rather than a hand out for our money. If we play the situation right we can win, and possibly even win big. Oiiiii......if you want to push this..... "Knee jerk"? KNEE JERK? You don't pretend to know anything about MY business but then again what is your experience in any serious large business? When was the last time you went through the books of a very large company? I was on a BOD of a multibillion multinational with over a dozen manufacturing facilites. You? In a serious discussion, don't accuse anyone of a "knee jerk" reaction unless you have the credentials. First...the value of the bailout AND the giving up the unpaid tax portion is over 3 billion dollars....for a dead company that curently, at the very rosiest suckers value is not more the half a billion. Worst still, pouring BILLIONS upon BILLIONS to temporarily collect millions is, to be ultra kind, NDP level "logical". If we want to buy jobs, why not save the effort of keeping a failed company alive and just build some pyramids. If and when the demand is there, there will be other, better run, smarter companies who will step in and fullfill the jobs.....and taxations returns. Second....Chrysler, from it's brand to it's product to it's humorous pleads for financing, is FINISHED as a company. The ONLY reason it's still standing is it's ability to use it's labour pool to blackmail politicians and the public. Nothing more, nothing less. Lastly....running a REAL business is not an abstract or ideological discussion. When it reaches that point, it's no longer a business discussion but rather, a social value discussion/debate that should be neighboring Hugo Chavez discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 21, 2009 13:31:33 GMT -5
I agree. Change your philosophy away from Hemis and Hummers and think long term green. Then we'll consider helping you by becoming a partner of sorts, not a loving, caring, giving parent. As far as your mortgage rate goes, it's based on the bond market not the BOC interest rate. The vast majority of buyers don't want "green" cars. Second, governments have no place in business. NONE. ZERO. Unless of course we want to expand this sudden dreamy desire to re-enact the mid 60's Russian GOSPLAN. Remember one thing. YOU may want to tell people what YOU want them to drive but there will be a day when people will demand YOU do what THEY want. Socialism is a slippery slope of control. Worse still, the "green" excuse for social control is so broad and so malevolent that one soon we will be discussing Soilent Green solutions. Be careful what you wish for...... |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Mar 21, 2009 14:10:50 GMT -5
Charlton Heston reference.
Nice.
However, I don't really understand that analogy. Soylent Green came about due to overpopulation (truly a greater problem in the world than "green" issues), not green malevolence or even social control.
But really.. "ITS MADE OF PEOPLE!!!!" What an epic movie. One of my all-time favs.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 21, 2009 14:20:29 GMT -5
funny thing about most companies.
first to say "no government interference". first to say "leave our profits alone". first to say "leave us alone and we'll be OK".
first to say "if only we could get a little government help . . . "
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 21, 2009 16:31:58 GMT -5
Charlton Heston reference. Nice. However, I don't really understand that analogy. Soylent Green came about due to overpopulation (truly a greater problem in the world than "green" issues), not green malevolence or even social control. But really.. "ITS MADE OF PEOPLE!!!!" What an epic movie. One of my all-time favs. "Green" has turned from a concern for polution we all have and was easily regulated by the governments, into a means to tax and enact social control. The Ontario government uses "green" as a means to limit city growth. "Green" is the UN's mantra to extract taxes for wealth redistribution. Obama MASSIVE taxation for carbon credits are around the corner. Indeed, "carbon" is the foundation of ALL economes and it's vilification is a perfect pre-text for absolute social control. "Carbon credit cards" are already in the works. Population control? Easily a "green" problem that demands controls. Less people, less "demands" on our "poor planet". Why would that "green" slope stop at birth and not at "redistribution of protein"? Short of an alien attack, I can't think of any other more malevolent misuse of "green" for justifying pervasive social control. You think I'm crazy? Read.... UN "Solves" Economic Problems With 750 Billion Oil Tax... www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE52I09T20090319Carbon credit cards... news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6167671.stmPopulation control.... women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 21, 2009 16:36:28 GMT -5
funny thing about most companies. first to say "no government interference". first to say "leave our profits alone". first to say "leave us alone and we'll be OK". first to say "if only we could get a little government help . . . " And now spitting in our faces and saying that if we do NOT succumb to their blackmail, they will make us pay. Chrysler should be thankful I'm not Prime Minister. The second I heard those blackmailing words is the second I would respond with "I'm banning ALL Chrysler products from Canada". And if a reporter asked me if I was serious, I would respond with "just watch me". Enough is enough.... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 22, 2009 18:25:03 GMT -5
funny thing about most companies. first to say "no government interference". first to say "leave our profits alone". first to say "leave us alone and we'll be OK". first to say "if only we could get a little government help . . . " And now spitting in our faces and saying that if we do NOT succumb to their blackmail, they will make us pay. Chrysler should be thankful I'm not Prime Minister. The second I heard those blackmailing words is the second I would respond with "I'm banning ALL Chrysler products from Canada". And if a reporter asked me if I was serious, I would respond with "just watch me". Enough is enough.... And you would lose ... the US government could/would take Canada to the cleaners using NAFTA. Or they would give you the finger and their protectionist policies to squeeze the life out of the Canadian economy. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 22, 2009 20:41:07 GMT -5
And that, my dear Skilly, is why HA is not PM.
otoh, if I were PM and Chrysler said "give us money or we go" I'd say OK -- and then I'd post guards around each and every plant to make sure they didn't abscond with equipment [they are bound to owe money]. Then I would remind everyone in Canada that GM, Ford, Toyota, and Honda actually make cars here, and that Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, etc still operate here in good faith, and that Chrysler ran out and that support for Chrysler is supporting a company that ran the company into the ground twice and then ran away . . . and let the chips fall where they may.
I would also give some support somehow to Chrysler plant workers and dealerships [somehow -- don't know how -- that's for a brain trust].
Nothing anti-NAFTA, nothing protectionist -- if people don't by Chryslers its their own choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 22, 2009 21:37:28 GMT -5
And that, my dear Skilly, is why HA is not PM. That is why I want to be Dear Leader! This highly inneficient democracy crap where everyone has a vote is simply for the birds. Back in the good old days, when Joseph and I would sit around and share a bottle of vodka, he would remind me that the masses are simple fodder that can driven like sheep. Simple words like "hope" and "change" are enough to fool them. And if that didn't work, there were Cossacks swords at the ready. I liked Joseph. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 22, 2009 22:12:32 GMT -5
I preferred Mary myself ......  |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Mar 22, 2009 23:49:58 GMT -5
Charlton Heston reference. Nice. However, I don't really understand that analogy. Soylent Green came about due to overpopulation (truly a greater problem in the world than "green" issues), not green malevolence or even social control. But really.. "ITS MADE OF PEOPLE!!!!" What an epic movie. One of my all-time favs. "Green" has turned from a concern for polution we all have and was easily regulated by the governments, into a means to tax and enact social control. The Ontario government uses "green" as a means to limit city growth. "Green" is the UN's mantra to extract taxes for wealth redistribution. Obama MASSIVE taxation for carbon credits are around the corner. Indeed, "carbon" is the foundation of ALL economes and it's vilification is a perfect pre-text for absolute social control. "Carbon credit cards" are already in the works. Population control? Easily a "green" problem that demands controls. Less people, less "demands" on our "poor planet". Why would that "green" slope stop at birth and not at "redistribution of protein"? Short of an alien attack, I can't think of any other more malevolent misuse of "green" for justifying pervasive social control. You think I'm crazy? Read.... UN "Solves" Economic Problems With 750 Billion Oil Tax... www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE52I09T20090319Carbon credit cards... news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6167671.stmPopulation control.... women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.eceHave you actually seen Soylent Green? They recycled deceased humans for food. There were no limits on population control for "green" purposes. The movie is an interpretation of what would happen precisely without what you're suggesting above. If anything, given your general standing on these arguments you should be lobbying FOR "Soylent Green solutions" on the basis that you seem to be against any economic, environmental or social limitations whatsoever. Socialism is evil, democracy is flawed. You come off as an anarcho-capitalist and I couch the analogies you use on that basis. "Let the market take care of it." The analogy didn't make sense to me (and still doesn't), which is what caused me to be confused in the first place. Maybe you're on some higher plane of thought that I'm just not interpreting. Or maybe it was some kind of sarcastic double reverse analogy (maybe with a quadruple negative in there for good measure). I'm no linguist, I just know that movie. And I don't think you're crazy (well, not on this particular topic at least) as I'm well aware of all the stuff you mentioned. Population limitations are something that ought to be explored, though the article you cite has some back-asswards reasoning for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2009 1:09:11 GMT -5
Have you actually seen Soylent Green? They recycled deceased humans for food. There were no limits on population control for "green" purposes. The movie is an interpretation of what would happen precisely without what you're suggesting above. . Yes I have seen it and probably several times over the centuries. I'm not sure why you don't see my slippery slope. What would be the "ultimate" green act of some? No humans at all on the planet. The second closest act would be to "recycle" human flesh. Eco friendly "recycling" through cannibalism. If anything, given your general standing on these arguments you should be lobbying FOR "Soylent Green solutions" on the basis that you seem to be against any economic, environmental or social limitations whatsoever. Socialism is evil, democracy is flawed. You come off as an anarcho-capitalist and I couch the analogies you use on that basis. "Let the market take care of it.". I'm certainly anti-socialism as far as controlling the population. I see no difference between dictatorships and socialism. One needs no excuse, the other uses egalitarianism as a weapon to punish success and for social control and engineering. No problem with health care, UI, universal pensions, HUGE problem with able bodied welfare, unions, crippling tax and spending, endless whimsical restrictions to below the lowest common denominator. We are entitled to our entitlement...as long as someone else pays..... The analogy didn't make sense to me (and still doesn't), which is what caused me to be confused in the first place. Maybe you're on some higher plane of thought that I'm just not interpreting. Or maybe it was some kind of sarcastic double reverse analogy (maybe with a quadruple negative in there for good measure). . I hear voices in my head. Sometimes, when the mood strikes him, my hamster talks to me about politics, religion, the Hab's, but NEVER about road kill and racoon love. You? And I don't think you're crazy (well, not on this particular topic at least) as I'm well aware of all the stuff you mentioned. Population limitations are something that ought to be explored, though the article you cite has some back-asswards reasoning for it. Then join my fight against the self proclaimed "elite" egoist who use fear and crisis to control and manipulate the sheep. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 24, 2009 9:36:08 GMT -5
Oiiiii......if you want to push this..... "Knee jerk"? KNEE JERK? You don't pretend to know anything about MY business but then again what is your experience in any serious large business? When was the last time you went through the books of a very large company? I was on a BOD of a multibillion multinational with over a dozen manufacturing facilites. You? In a serious discussion, don't accuse anyone of a "knee jerk" reaction unless you have the credentials. Unless you were on the BoD of Chrysler, it's knee-jerk. Unless you know their books inside and out - particularily their assets - it's knee-jerk. You're reaction - right from the very start - has been 'no'. No questions. No possibility of examining the situation. ME, I'm just suggesting we (as in the Canadian government) take some time, examine the situation, and decide if we can take advantage of the crisis. Isn't that the old (completely untrue) proverb? In Chinese (or whatever foriegn language) the word for crisis and opportunity are one in the same? Consider for example, your own situation. Now - I don't know about your business. But I know you're in business. From which I can draw a few conclusions - such as (a) you have competition to deal with and (b) you're doing reasonably well despite the tight economic times (at least I hope you are). Now - et's say one of your competitors decides they want off the mery-go-round. And they start looking to sell. Perhaps they're in pretty bad shape because of the economy, but because of the nature of your business (which I don't know, but I'm just wokring from a theoretical model here) there's someone who's willing to pay to get into the business. Now you, you're doing pretty well. Limited debt. Strong sales. Brilliant. You can easily match the offer in on your competitor. Why wouldn't you do that? Assuming you wouldn't kill your own business doing it (like I said - you ca easily match the offer). Not only do you gain their capital (and possibly, depending on your business, a ton of IP rights too), but you eliminate a competitor. It's not quite like that with the Canadian government - they are not buying off the competition - but there's certainly some advantage gained from protecting the job of Canadians. Again, I'm not saying give Chrysler the money. I'm saying let's look at it in depth and decide. First...the value of the bailout AND the giving up the unpaid tax portion is over 3 billion dollars....for a dead company that curently, at the very rosiest suckers value is not more the half a billion. Worst still, pouring BILLIONS upon BILLIONS to temporarily collect millions is, to be ultra kind, NDP level "logical". If we want to buy jobs, why not save the effort of keeping a failed company alive and just build some pyramids. If and when the demand is there, there will be other, better run, smarter companies who will step in and fullfill the jobs.....and taxations returns. I won't debate the value of Chrysler with you - again I don't know and I severely doubt you've been looking at their books. I will say that I'm not suggesting pouring billions upon billions. I'm saying three billion (which is at best a billion upon billions) if there is a chance we can recoup some of the loss in case of an absolute disaster. In other words, if we can turn this to our advantage. Second....Chrysler, from it's brand to it's product to it's humorous pleads for financing, is FINISHED as a company. The ONLY reason it's still standing is it's ability to use it's labour pool to blackmail politicians and the public. Nothing more, nothing less. If this is the case, then fine - let it die. But is it the case? Is there nothing to be gained from propping it up and/or seizing its assets if it goes under? Is there not an opportunity here to exploit? Lastly....running a REAL business is not an abstract or ideological discussion. When it reaches that point, it's no longer a business discussion but rather, a social value discussion/debate that should be neighboring Hugo Chavez discussions. You're quite right. Theories only work until boots are on the ground. However that's all that most of us can do - is talk in theory. I mean come on - if we really outlawed abstract idscussions CO would have to close HabsRUs down because - quite frankly - that's the sum of all we do here. That and complain. Meanwhile, working from a theoretical base (I'm far too risk averse with my own money to ever try anything like this) don't you think it would make sense to evaluate the situation - and what can be gained from it - rather than just an outright no? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 1, 2009 10:58:08 GMT -5
$1.4 million per employee? Where can I get some of that loot?
Ridiculous! Propping up a dying company [actually, GM and Chrysler both died a number of years ago but forgot to lie down] with that amount of money -- pathetic!
I feel for the workers and their potential unemployment . . . but give them [as someone suggested] $100,000 and tell them to make something of their lives. Offer training. Encourage them to become entrepreneurs. But for goodness sake . . . $1.4 million!
I guess it's a good thing the fiscally conservative Conservatives are in govenment -- who knows how much we'da bailed 'em out for!
And while we're at it, what's with the bill the NDP is going to ring forward in Parliament: work 9 weeks, get pogey for a year? Sheesh!
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jun 1, 2009 16:06:24 GMT -5
$1.4 million per employee? Where can I get some of that loot? Ridiculous! Propping up a dying company [actually, GM and Chrysler both died a number of years ago but forgot to lie down] with that amount of money -- pathetic! I feel for the workers and their potential unemployment . . . but give them [as someone suggested] $100,000 and tell them to make something of their lives. Offer training. Encourage them to become entrepreneurs. But for goodness sake . . . $1.4 million! I guess it's a good thing the fiscally conservative Conservatives are in govenment -- who knows how much we'da bailed 'em out for! And while we're at it, what's with the bill the NDP is going to ring forward in Parliament: work 9 weeks, get pogey for a year? Sheesh! According to the National Post, GM plans to have 5500 employees in 2014... so more like $1.7 million... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 1, 2009 19:05:58 GMT -5
$1.4 million per employee? Where can I get some of that loot? Ridiculous! Propping up a dying company [actually, GM and Chrysler both died a number of years ago but forgot to lie down] with that amount of money -- pathetic! I feel for the workers and their potential unemployment . . . but give them [as someone suggested] $100,000 and tell them to make something of their lives. Offer training. Encourage them to become entrepreneurs. But for goodness sake . . . $1.4 million! I guess it's a good thing the fiscally conservative Conservatives are in govenment -- who knows how much we'da bailed 'em out for! And while we're at it, what's with the bill the NDP is going to ring forward in Parliament: work 9 weeks, get pogey for a year? Sheesh! According to the National Post, GM plans to have 5500 employees in 2014... so more like $1.7 million... This is absurd, ridiculous, obscene, stupid, breaks every rule in the book as far as return for the money, moronic...did I miss anything? I'm simply apoplectic that Harper threw away so many billions. He has taken the fiscal conservatism philosophy he espoused and I believe in and stomped all over it. We may as well have the NDP shoveling money out the window and demolishing our economy. |
|
