Dancing in the Streets~!

Dancing in the Streets~! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> Dancing in the Streets~! (11/12/2008 11:04:55 AM)
It's amusing to see many who previously heralded the demise of big, evil, corporations now whine about their failures. It wasn't prevalent with the first round of financial institution failures - EVERYONE hates banks and bankers! There started to be some concern with with the demise of Linens 'n Things, and Circuit City. However it really didn't hit the panic stage until the auto manufacturers went on life support. Why the concern? Where's the celebration from those who pontificated about "Corporate Greed"? A couple of points of practicality. There can be no bail out of US car makers without a complete restructuring of the employee compensation and pension program. GM, Ford, and Chrysler start with a $3,500/car handicap representing the cost of the retiree benefits program. How can they compete when, in every case, all foreign manufactures have major benefits, such as health care, paid through the State? The level playing field that would be created if the health benefits program for the auto makers was replaced with National Health Care is a good first step in any bail out process - It WON'T happen. The Unions won't, and can't, let it happen. Those contracts, established long ago when people didn't live as long and current health care costs couldn't be imagined, must be honored. The best economic stimulus wouldn't be to bail out the current business model doomed to fail. The best method would be to let them fail and from the ashes reorganize the industry to reflect current conditions. Starting a new version of GM would have a much better chance of success than trying to maintain a company that was designed to function in the 1950's and 60's. The same should apply to each and every company and industry failing. As difficult as it would be for just about everyone in the short term - long term it provides a stronger foundation. Personally, its a sad thing to see the demise of these companies. My father worked with pride as a laborer for GM for 30 years. It financed my life and gave me the ability to waste 4 years in college fooling around. Chrysler holds an even dearer place in my heart. It was my first 'big' Wall Street 'win'. Back in July 1979 I put $10,000 on the 'pass' line that Lee Iaccoca would be bailed out by President Carter and turn the company around. I thought it was all the money in the world back then when it produced a 10x ROI. Even after seeing it rise to 16x after I sold I still considered myself a 'savvy' investor. For a second I was considering a similar play now; but this isn't 1979, and the incoming President was elected on a mandate of 'economic redistribution' not one of rewarding investment, while Congress can't wait to be in session to start spending money on social engineering programs to facilitate that 'redistribution'. No way - I've liquidated everything I can into cash and hard currency. Investment and doubt does not go together. I am not unique. Never before has the lag time between election and the taking of power been such a detriment. What we are seeing, and will continue to see until January at the earliest, is the result of doubt. The last quarter of the year traditionally has been one of planning and projecting the next year. I know of no company planning growth or investment. Of course its not all about the unknown. Out here in LA the bureaucrats want to make sure it's not economically smart to open a retail business. They just upped the sales tax to over 10%. Imagine than - your money, already netted by Federal, State, and local income tax; is taxed again at a 10% rate every time you want to spend it. How's that for an economic stimulus? The State is in the 'red' by Billions; directly caused by spending and planning based upon the 'boom'. Not one cut or eliminating any program is considered. First idea, the only idea coming from the State Senate and the Govornator, is to tax more. The result? Drive down any retail street and see the 'going out of business' and 'For Least' signs. Retail space is a buyer's market. There are too many vacancies and business closures. My business lease is up for renewal and they are offering me the exact same price for another 5 year renewal that I got in 2004. When I told them I would have to think about it, they came back with a lower offer! I think I'll think some more; while they negotiate with themselves for me. Meanwhile, shouldn't there at least be some of you 'dancing' seeing your 'best case' of corporate demise hit the poster child of evil corporate greed? The very one who was so arrogant as to represent; 'What's Good for GM is Good for the USA!"

popeye1250 -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/12/2008 11:17:48 AM)
Merc, good points but the problem with that is that big companies and individuals who were making $300k, $800k, $2m per year were begrudgeing the working people in this country who made $50k per year. And our own government was pushing their wages down further with all that "free trade" B.S. If we keep pushing people's wages down that means they'll be able to buy less and less from big companies. People who work and have no health insurance are paying for the U.S. Senate's healthcare plan which is among the best in the world! I don't think that $70k for an autoworker is "overpaid." I made about that one year back in the 80's selling insurance. All Generals and Admirals know that, "you have to take care of the Troops!" Bush and big business didn't take care of the Troops! On G.M. you could make a play on it but maybe with the preffered stock? The common is basically worthless.

pahunkboy -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/12/2008 11:46:17 AM)
Merc, you miss the point. Pay a man a fair days wage for a fair days work. Not this golden parachute bull. If a person come to you in need of a band aid , then of course help. But when the grid comes to a person for a band aid, why? It is not that simple. The anger is over the obseen greed and downright immoral taking of the resources that do not belong to the entity. The nation state is a thing of the past. Globalization is wrecking us and a billion people are going to stave to death with in 3 years. If things are no longer suitable in California, then move. You wont be the first to leave there. I agree that 10% is too high for sales tax.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/12/2008 12:10:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Merc, you miss the point. Hunk, What point was that? quote: Pay a man a fair days wage for a fair days work. Not this golden parachute bull. "Fair" doesn't enter into the picture when the company is bankrupt. As a percentage of income - a 'fair' wage is $0.00. CEO's and many executives have something called 'contracts'. Their 'parachute', golden or otherwise, is part of that contract. The only way not to pay it and see them get the same $0.00 'fair' wage as a severance - is to allow the company to go bankrupt. Otherwise, whether the funds come from tax dollars or investment dollars, not honoring the contract would be more expensive than paying it. However, remember to consider the collective 'golden parachute' negotiated and in place with the retired workers. Their annual 'parachute' payment is in the Billions of dollars. quote: It is not that simple. The anger is over the obscene greed and downright immoral taking of the resources that do not belong to the entity. Yes it really is "that simple". Numbers are very simple and when they don't add up the conclusion and plan to go forward is just as simple. Why apply immorality and "obscene greed" only to one side of the equation? The "resources" actually do belong to the owners and/or shareholders of any entity. Employees, whether they be executive or labor, derive what they have from that entity. quote: The nation state is a thing of the past. Globalization is wrecking us and a billion people are going to stave to death with in 3 years. How will a bail our or a non-bail out feed the soon to be starving billions? quote: If things are no longer suitable in California, then move. You wont be the first to leave there. Soon my friend, VERY soon; the cliffs of Tuscany are so like the cliffs of PVE that we won't even notice the difference. quote: I agree that 10% is too high for sales tax. Really immaterial if it is or isn't. The point is how it is counter productive and is counter to any attempt of stimulating the economy. I'd expect it will not see any increase of tax revenue as long as the local tax exceeds every other neighboring State and the internet provides a zero tax alternative on most goods desired. What will happen is that there will be no stores, and as a result - no entry level sales hiring. The ultimate result is, as you suggest, more people will leave CA or at minimum spend the little discretionary money they have someplace else. For example, why pay 10% on a major purchase when you can drive or fly someplace else and pay less than half that amount? Everything from an engagement ring to a new furniture now costs more to buy in CA as opposed to anywhere else in the county. Buyers are stimulated to buy someplace else, while retailers will also take your advise and move. A perfect storm created by a failing bureaucracy.

pahunkboy -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/12/2008 12:49:00 PM)
on sales tax, I have bought things online simply when shipping and tax and cost balance ... I did not mean the move comment to be rude- simply to improve the life. I belong to a yahoo group where most are in Cal, they love the hot weather but the politics make them =most of them want to leave. they are Caucasion I dont know how much that is a factor. I dont quite grasp your mail content with the area you live. I live in totally the opposite area, rednecked here. Things work- tho I spend time online as I dont really have much in commen with the locals...and I will never be part of the inner circle. So you like big corporations? I think we agree to disagree. Shareholder value does not trump human life.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/12/2008 1:02:06 PM)
quote: I did not mean the move comment to be rude- Hunk - I didn't take it as rude at all! Sage advise for anyone complaining about their life situation as a matter of fact. I answered the way I did because I had those plans for quite some time now and hope to accomplish that goal in the near future. quote: So you like big corporations? Did you really think that from my posts? How do you reconcile that position in the face of me saying that no corporation should benefit from a tax payer bailout? I support healthy corporations and think that investment in one supports to create jobs benefiting both the corporation and individuals working for them. What I "like", at the corporate and individual level, is self determination. I'm neutral in my feelings to corporations in general. I am however, pragmatic about the place of importance they hold in the US. No growth comes from an initiative that starts from the bottom and works up. Creating jobs, good paying, poor paying, and anything in between requires a free market within a corporate structure which includes outside investors who seek a return on that investment. Unless, of course, you want to replace all that with government. Even a co-op is more corporate than it is government. All people share in the work and the result proportionately. There is no redistribution to anyone who is able to contribute but doesn't. Now if your point is that I support and believe that a corporate entity gives more opportunity for everyone, at least those who want to work, versus a government - YES, I do believe that as fact.

pahunkboy -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/12/2008 3:44:30 PM)
a corporation personality http://howfreearewecool1.blogspot.com/2007/11/corporation-2223-psycho-therapies.html is not a human personality.

popeye1250 -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/12/2008 5:52:16 PM)
Nothing wrong with big business as long as our govt. doesn't do things like "NAFTA" or H1b visas or things like that. Our govt can't be "for" big business and "against" The People!

OneMoreWaste -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/12/2008 5:55:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth The best economic stimulus wouldn't be to bail out the current business model doomed to fail. The best method would be to let them fail and from the ashes reorganize the industry to reflect current conditions. Starting a new version of GM would have a much better chance of success than trying to maintain a company that was designed to function in the 1950's and 60's. There are a few practical problems with this theory as applied to the automotive industry. If a bank fails, creditors and debtors can open an account at the bank across the street. If that one fails, they can move to the one on the opposite corner. Even after decades of mergers and acquisitions, there are several hundred local, national, and international banks in the U.S. There are three domestic automakers. If somebody wants to start their own bank, they can lease a building (most likely former bank needing very little renovation), some computers, software, hire some lawyers to handle the paperwork, get unemployed tellers with experience at any of the hundreds of other banks, and get rolling in a couple of months off a couple million in seed money. The time and capital investment required to develop an automotive platform, design and build the machinery and shop floor, get the vehicle through the various federal standards hoops, test it thoroughly enough to ensure good reviews and survivable warranty claims, develop a dealer network and the kind of brand appeal that will enable a new business to move billions of dollars of product in a year... it surpasses that by orders of magnitude. There are very practical reasons why we ended up with only a couple of domestic manufacturers. So if those manufacturers shut their doors and their assets are liquidated, what then? The odds that a new large-scale domestic manufacturer will develop are extremely slim, for the same reasons that the number of manufacturers has been on the decline since the roaring 20s. All of the crap above comes into play. Some facilities will be purchased by overseas competitors and put back into use, say, 30%. Meanwhile, the hundreds of other domestic businesses directly and indirectly dependent on the automotive industry will fail. The ripple effect consequences are hard to even fathom. So that's why I'm not cheering over the potential demise of the domestic auto industry. Now, the public hanging of their last couple decades of upper management... that would be worth cracking open a bottle or two [:)]

candystripper -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/12/2008 6:37:30 PM)
Merc, the failure of the Savings and Loans due to junk bonds affected our ability to safely deposit funds and buy high-risk, high-interest intangible assets. The failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac carried with it the possibilty that home ownership would be the exclusive province of the very wealthy. The bail-out of the banking industry was a necessity because the U.S. economy cannot function on barter alone. However, the Auto Companies have been a case study in how to f*k up. If they go belly under, their shareholders and workers will be displaced, but so what? We'll still be able to buy cars. I say NO to bailing out the Auto Compnies. They have failed for nigh on 100 years. Let them go the way of the buggy whip. candystripper [sm=pole.gif]*

MmeGigs -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/12/2008 8:40:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth The level playing field that would be created if the health benefits program for the auto makers was replaced with National Health Care is a good first step in any bail out process - It WON'T happen. The Unions won't, and can't, let it happen. Those contracts, established long ago when people didn't live as long and current health care costs couldn't be imagined, must be honored. That's pretty much baloney. A National Health Care program would make it pretty easy for companies to get out of their health care contracts with the unions. With more and more companies unilaterally cutting the benefits they've promised to retirees, or declaring themselves insolvent and voiding their obligations to retirees, I'm guessing that unions and corporations and their retirees would be happy to have National Health Care take the health insurance issue off their plate. quote: For a second I was considering a similar play now; but this isn't 1979, and the incoming President was elected on a mandate of 'economic redistribution' not one of rewarding investment, while Congress can't wait to be in session to start spending money on social engineering programs to facilitate that 'redistribution'. This is also baloney. There hasn't been any talk of any actual redistribution of wealth, just of reallocation of tax burden. These aren't the same thing, no matter how much the investor class would like to convince folks that they are, and it isn't really much of a boon to the people on the bottom. From a practical standpoint, it's absolutely ridiculous that unearned income - money from gains on investments and such - should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income - money from wages paid for hours worked. It seems insane to me that if I spend my days sitting on my ever-widening ass living on the $50k/yr proceeds of my inheritance, I will pay less in taxes than I would if I were working a full-time $50k/yr job. Why should business be enabled by social programs and Earned Income Credits to pay their employees - who are also our taxpayers and consumers - less than it costs them to survive? If I'm counting on paying my employees less than it costs them for food, shelter, transportation, etc,.isn't my business plan unsustainable?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/12/2008 9:30:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OneMoreWaste The time and capital investment required to develop an automotive platform, design and build the machinery and shop floor, get the vehicle through the various federal standards hoops, test it thoroughly enough to ensure good reviews and survivable warranty claims, develop a dealer network and the kind of brand appeal that will enable a new business to move billions of dollars of product in a year... Fair point OMW, but the re-tooling would be job generating. The closing of the Big Three creates a acumen. Toyota, Mercedes, or any of the foreign companies can come in, using the existing re-tooled factories. It's a thought; and without the burden of the current union contracts and pension plans they may actually be able to make money. However, this may be a moot point. Who in their right mind would be considering the purchase of a domestic car with the very real possibility that the company standing behind the warranty no longer exists? quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs This is also baloney. There hasn't been any talk of any actual redistribution of wealth, just of reallocation of tax burden. These aren't the same thing, no matter how much the investor class would like to convince folks that they are, and it isn't really much of a boon to the people on the bottom. From a practical standpoint, it's absolutely ridiculous that unearned income - money from gains on investments and such - should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income - money from wages paid for hours worked. It seems insane to me that if I spend my days sitting on my ever-widening ass living on the $50k/yr proceeds of my inheritance, I will pay less in taxes than I would if I were working a full-time $50k/yr job. This is really salami! Your "wide ass" generating inheritance was the balance left over after whoever left it to you was taxed at the Fed, State, and local level. Even sitting on your ass, you're putting money back into the system. Taxing inheritance or a stock portfolio is a redistribution of wealth acquired net of the soon to be increased income tax burden. You seem to forget or choose to ignore that the money invested had to be earned at some point; meaning it has already been taxed as income. This is reinvesting that money. The incentive is, to make more. As a function of that investment usually business is conducted; buildings are constructed, offices built out, employees hired. Considering those facts, it makes a good argument for there being no tax on the investment income and perhaps minimal tax if the investment vehicle is sold. I doubt it could happen but the idea produces more benefits for the nation as a whole than taxing the investment ideas out of existence. The question people with wealth to invest for the next few years will ask themselves is why do any investment at all? Without that investment there is no construction, no build out, and no employees. A good idea? quote: A National Health Care program would make it pretty easy for companies to get out of their health care contracts with the unions. With more and more companies unilaterally cutting the benefits they've promised to retirees, or declaring themselves insolvent and voiding their obligations to retirees, I'm guessing that unions and corporations and their retirees would be happy to have National Health Care take the health insurance issue off their plate. Now this is more like head cheese. Its not up to the companies. They have contracts, concessions were and are negotiated. Besides, the point you made in isolation was relevant to the competition; specifically this: quote: The average hourly compensation, including the value of all benefits, for a Big Three autoworker is $73.20 -- compared with $48 for a worker at a Toyota plant or $31.59 for other workers in manufacturing-related industries. This wage differential is not sustainable. Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/387562_autoed.html The auto companies would love it too. In fact there would be little need for bankruptcy without the billion dollar benefits burden they currently carry. Point of information: quote: Half of the $50 billion the auto industry wants is for health care for its current and retired employees. Source: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10957440 Feel free if you want to discuss any other cold cuts.

SilverMark -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/13/2008 2:45:03 AM)
Without union concessions as well as a sliming of retiree benefits and an adjustment of all benefits going forward it is really simple....NO DOMESTIC AUTO INDUSTRY for us! I have no qualms with the UAW as a union goes but, they are killing the companies that feed them and there is no way in the world the government should even consider a bailout without the UAW re-negotiating the existing contracts. As I was writing on another similar thread I got on Forbes thinking I wonder where the big money execs of the auto industry are listed by earnings....not one in the top 150. These are not the robber barons of Wall Street and yes they can adjust their incomes as well, this is pain that must be shared from top down and from bottom up. One of my stores has outfitted the homes of the KIA execs moving to LeGrange, Georgia as they have built the new plant. In talking to the top exec they have a number of positions that pay well but do not overpay to the detriment of the company. They offer benefits that are excellent but do not risk the company's ability to make a profit. Perhaps the time has come to get past our own smugness and learn from the Japanese and Koreans? Until Detroit, and I do mean all of Detroit understands that the companies can no longer pay $30.00 per hour, and the benefits packages they have had for so long and survive there should be no bailout....it would simply be good money after bad! I hate the thought of the consequences if there isn't some settlement and help but, the truth is in front of our eyes....a band aid won't fix the wounds!

meatcleaver -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/13/2008 3:42:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth You seem to forget or choose to ignore that the money invested had to be earned at some point; meaning it has already been taxed as income. This is reinvesting that money. The incentive is, to make more. As a function of that investment usually business is conducted; buildings are constructed, offices built out, employees hired. Not necessarily, maybe I'm being over simplistic but the credit crisis is due to money making money from money and there being no solid foundation to the money. My brother makes the claim he hasn't done a hard day's work for years, he just works hard at making money and doesn't work hard at earning a living. One of my bones of contention with him with me being somewhat left of him, I think one should contribute to society, his answer is he doesn't make the rules, he just plays them. In fact I would contend that he can do what he does because politicians deliberately model the regulatary and tax rules to benefit themselves and the vested interests of their pay masters. People like my brother are just small fry that pick up the crumbs behind them. That is why we have ended up in a financial crisis, not because of unions wanting too many benefits for their workers and the cars they make are too expensive to sell or too many social benefits taking away money for investment, that would just hit a few people but because the financial markets have been making money out of fresh air. My brother says money grows on trees if you know where to look and he's been right for the last 15 years or so.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/13/2008 6:04:19 AM)
As one commentator noted on the news the other day, car manufacturers cannot stop on a dime. Closing a plant, or even ending a shift, is a weeks long, even months long process for them. Some of this is the logistics of bringing together all the various parts of an automobile, but a large part of the time frame are the contracts with the work force. Any business must be able to adapt to changing economic conditions. Ideally this means bringing on more workers as conditions improve, but it also means reducing the work force when conditions deteriorate. That is the unpleasant reality of the business cycle. When the car manufacturers have more pensioners than laborers, when they are obligated to defined-benefit pensions that have no correlation to today's markets and costs, maintaining a truly competitive posture is indeed difficult. Worse, because it skews labor costs and priorities, it makes rational business decision making even more difficult. While I am not in favor of bailing out any industry, if the auto industry must be assisted by the government, the assistance should take the form of, via the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, relieving the auto manufacturers of their pension obligations, and, via the Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws, allowing them to renegotiate their labor agreements sans the pension burdens and obligations. Alternatively (and perhaps preferably), the unions themselves could assume the costs of the pensions, financing them via union dues, but relieving the manufacturers of these costs.

Dnomyar -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/13/2008 6:17:12 AM)
Technology is the reason we have less people working today and will have even less working tomorrow. This is the worlds greatest problem. How will this problem be solved?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/13/2008 9:26:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dnomyar Technology is the reason we have less people working today and will have even less working tomorrow. This is the worlds greatest problem. How will this problem be solved? The "problem" does not exist. If it did, unemployment would steadily rise over time, rather than remaining with in a fairly consistent range ("structural" unemployment in this country during periods of economic health appears to fluctuate between about 3 and 6 percent). The problem people do have is how to contend with the disruptions and dislocations brought on by innovation and technology. The assembly line that once required twenty people now only requires five, and those five require different training and skills than before. Technology creates new jobs and destroys old ones--and people must constantly adapt to a changing work environment, even as the pace of change has increased. Jobs which once lasted for a generation may now last but a few years. Thus technology is a mixed blessing--it increases what one man may produce, and thus makes a great many things available to the mass market--while it challenges all men to find new things to produce. How that challenge gets answered is a constant question for us all, with no permanent or easy answers.

MmeGigs -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/14/2008 4:30:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth This is really salami! Yeah, the "baloney" stuff was over the top and really pretty silly. I apologize. quote: Your "wide ass" generating inheritance was the balance left over after whoever left it to you was taxed at the Fed, State, and local level. Even sitting on your ass, you're putting money back into the system. Taxing inheritance or a stock portfolio is a redistribution of wealth acquired net of the soon to be increased income tax burden. Here's how it looks to me - If investors didn't have to pay taxes on their gains, they'd have more money to invest. Without investors, there'd be no capital to keep businesses going and providing jobs for labor. If businesses didn't have to pay taxes on their profits, they'd have more money for capital improvements, research and development, and all the other things that businesses need to do. Without business, there'd be no place for investors to put their money and no place for labor to work. If labor didn't have to pay taxes on their income, they'd have more money to spend on goods and services. Without labor, there's no one to make and buy the products that the businesses sell, and no profits to attract investors. Each of these three groups - investors, business and labor - are equally important. They're all contributing to the ecomony - all supporting the system. All of them could do good and constructive things with the money they're paying in taxes. The govt needs money to operate - even if pared down to the absolute essentials it would cost a bundle - and that money has to come from somewhere. Investors, business and labor all benefit from the things that government provides, so they all ought to help pay for those services. If any one of them is excluded from providing tax revenue to the govt or is given a big break in the taxes they pay, the others have to pick up the slack. Take investors out of the mix, and businesses and labor have to pay more taxes and have less money to do the things that they need to do. To me, it only makes sense that whether the $50,000 I made last year came from investment gains, profits from my business, or wages for my labor, the taxes I pay on it should be the same. quote: Half of the $50 billion the auto industry wants is for health care for its current and retired employees. Source: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10957440 Yep, it's ridiculous, and absolutely not sustainable. Something will be done about it one way or another. The current contracts will be renegotiated as they expire. Many auto workers have already taken pay and benefit cuts in their contracts. I don't think that fully-paid insurance after retirement is in those contracts. Fully-paid insurance during employment probably isn't in them, either. The retirees are a bigger issue. Either the company, union and retirees (and probably courts and legislature) will put their heads together and work something out, or the automakers end up turning over their retirement plans to the govt, and the retirees will have to take whatever they can get, which won't include fully-paid health care, because there's just no way that the automakers can keep paying those premiums.

pahunkboy -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/14/2008 6:08:42 AM)
It is odd the capital gains tax applies to the first 100k a household.

Musicmystery -> RE: Dancing in the Streets~! (11/14/2008 6:13:53 AM)
~FR~ We bailed out Chrysler in 1979 because they made large cars no one wanted. What did they do? Retooled to build SUVs that now nobody wants. At this rate, nationalization would be better (not that I'm proposing it)! GM has cash--a lot, actually, but with such slow sales now due to the credit crunch discouraging large purchases and making car loans difficult for all but those with the best credit, that cash will be gone in months. I don't hate banks as the OP assumes. I think they're key. Getting confidence back is crucial, but the sins of the mortgage bundling abuses leave true evaluation of assets difficult. Until then, all businesses (and consumers) are ultimately in jeopardy.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.298828E-02