We've all argued about the pros and cons of a bailout, but just tossing money at the companies isn't going to help. Let's see your solutions. Here are mine:

#1 - A cap on imports. If the car isn't produced in the country where it is sold, then there should be a heavy tariff on the thing. No exceptions. Then the tariff money can be given to the big 3 to help sustain them.

#2 - Remove some of the car safety/pollution/fuel economy rules. They are way too high at the moment for companies to operate profitably. How come the death rate in car crashes has remained constant while cars get safer? And don't drag out that old BS about there being more cars on the road. That may have been true in 1978 and I'm sure that there are more registered cars because some people have 3 or 4 vehicles, but the number of cars on the road at any one time has stabilized over the the years. Just because you own 10 cars, doesn't mean you can drive them all at once. The new safety features may help injuries, but they also add mass to the vehicle which may worsen injuries. So it's a stalemate. As for pollution regulations, don't make me laugh. You can take a car from 2002 and sit in the garage with it running all night without much more than a headache. Some cars are so clean that the air going into them is dirtier than the air coming out of the tailpipe. Fuel economy rules? This is totally useless. When gas is cheap nobody wants thrifty cars and when it's expensive trust me that they'll naturally buy frugal cars. Forcing manufacturers to sell econoboxes that no one wants will not help car companies today.

#3 - Modular assembly lines. Chrysler has the right idea. Have one platform for compacts, one for mid-size cars and one for full-size ones. Make economy cars, sport compacts, minivans, ponycars, family sedans and crossovers on the compact and mid-sizers, SUVs, luxury barges, police cars and trucks on the full size ones. It is not an insurmountable technological hurdle to design a platform that can accomodate AWD, FWD and RWD. Chrysler did it with the old LH cars (though they never used them for RWD applications even if they could). Same for engine design, you need two engine designs: small and large. Small would be 1.0 liter L3's, 1.4 liter L4's, 2.0 liter V6s and 2.8 liter V8s. Large would be 2.8 liter L4s, 4.2 liter L6s, 5.7 liter V8s and 8.4 liter V12s. Then you'd cover the gamut of engine sizes in an inexpensive way.

#4 Limit advertising rights of foreign companies. If a company doesn't have X number of factories in the country, then it cannot operate here. Simple as that.

#5 However, ease most new restrictions to foreign companies if they sell their cars under an American brand. So the Toyota Prius would be heavily tariffed, but not the Chevrolet Prius. This would allow car manufacturers to rent out space in their lineups to the highest bidder.

#6 Force the UAW to lower the rates paid to employees in exchange for getting a free car every couple of years of their choice. So if you work for GM you could go to a dealership and choose a brand new Corvette ZR1 and get a free one as long as you didn't sell it for three years. This would have a dual effect of making companies profitable again but at the same time eliminating sabotage on the assembly lines like has happened before.

That's what I got. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I mention a few good points. What's your take?

#6 would be the biggest issue. Inflated wages for many low-skilled workers is a major factor in the decreasing profitability of these companies. However, I wouldn't exchange that for free vehicles. It's just shifting the money around. The wages need to reflect the skill level of the job, and the qualifications of the worker.

#2 is a little off base. While I agree that the ever-increasing emitions laws get rediculous in their requirements, the safety requirements need to stay there. And the number of drivers on the road has continued to increase. It has increased, on average, by 2-3 million per year consistantly over the past decade. You need to look at the number of crashes and fatalities as a percentage of drivers. See if that is not going down. Also, you can't possibly forget the fact that stupidity behind the wheel remains a constant, as does the fact that many people think they can simply drive faster on the road because the cars are getting better.

I believe that the modular assembly line concept needs to be taken even further. Why does every piece of every vehicle need to be unique? Chrysler was on to something when they used the same tail lights between Durangos and Caravans in the late 90's. Had they actually taken that concept and run with it, using common parts across various vehicles, other than the drivetrains, production costs could be cut further. GM has been doing some things like that with mechanicals, but still not taking the concept far enough. They need to stop engineering every single piece on a car to be different.

Back to the emitions laws for a quick second: the government needs to stop requiring specific equipment, and back it down to simply passing the emitions testing. It shouldn't matter how the result is achieved, just that it is achieved.

Knoxfire wrote:We've all argued about the pros and cons of a bailout, but just tossing money at the companies isn't going to help. Let's see your solutions. Here are mine:

#1 - A cap on imports. If the car isn't produced in the country where it is sold, then there should be a heavy tariff on the thing. No exceptions. Then the tariff money can be given to the big 3 to help sustain them.

you're right, the G8 needs to be taxed to death as well so it isn't so cheap

Knoxfire wrote:
#2 - Remove some of the car safety/pollution/fuel economy rules. They are way too high at the moment for companies to operate profitably. How come the death rate in car crashes has remained constant while cars get safer? And don't drag out that old BS about there being more cars on the road. That may have been true in 1978 and I'm sure that there are more registered cars because some people have 3 or 4 vehicles, but the number of cars on the road at any one time has stabilized over the the years. Just because you own 10 cars, doesn't mean you can drive them all at once. The new safety features may help injuries, but they also add mass to the vehicle which may worsen injuries. So it's a stalemate. As for pollution regulations, don't make me laugh. You can take a car from 2002 and sit in the garage with it running all night without much more than a headache. Some cars are so clean that the air going into them is dirtier than the air coming out of the tailpipe. Fuel economy rules? This is totally useless. When gas is cheap nobody wants thrifty cars and when it's expensive trust me that they'll naturally buy frugal cars. Forcing manufacturers to sell econoboxes that no one wants will not help car companies today.

you can't blame piss poor management and a lack of foresight on govt regulations. while i do not agree with some "mandatory" regulations i also will not blame them for the big 3's problems since their competition is not having the same extent of these problems

Knoxfire wrote:
#3 - Modular assembly lines. Chrysler has the right idea. Have one platform for compacts, one for mid-size cars and one for full-size ones. Make economy cars, sport compacts, minivans, ponycars, family sedans and crossovers on the compact and mid-sizers, SUVs, luxury barges, police cars and trucks on the full size ones. It is not an insurmountable technological hurdle to design a platform that can accomodate AWD, FWD and RWD. Chrysler did it with the old LH cars (though they never used them for RWD applications even if they could). Same for engine design, you need two engine designs: small and large. Small would be 1.0 liter L3's, 1.4 liter L4's, 2.0 liter V6s and 2.8 liter V8s. Large would be 2.8 liter L4s, 4.2 liter L6s, 5.7 liter V8s and 8.4 liter V12s. Then you'd cover the gamut of engine sizes in an inexpensive way.

too further add to this, modular assembly lines GM already has, technically they produce 3-6 versions of the same vehicle now. switching to a more "modular" assembly line and cutting lineups could be a solution, but it will be a costly one up front. eliminate some models.

Knoxfire wrote:
#4 Limit advertising rights of foreign companies. If a company doesn't have X number of factories in the country, then it cannot operate here. Simple as that.

so you want to punish the media for the automakers mismanagement?

Knoxfire wrote:
#5 However, ease most new restrictions to foreign companies if they sell their cars under an American brand. So the Toyota Prius would be heavily tariffed, but not the Chevrolet Prius. This would allow car manufacturers to rent out space in their lineups to the highest bidder.

so kia and daewoo can buy space in an "american" automaker and now we have a giant loophole in the "restrictions" and more crap coming from the big 3. chevy sonata my ass

Knoxfire wrote:
#6 Force the UAW to lower the rates paid to employees in exchange for getting a free car every couple of years of their choice. So if you work for GM you could go to a dealership and choose a brand new Corvette ZR1 and get a free one as long as you didn't sell it for three years. This would have a dual effect of making companies profitable again but at the same time eliminating sabotage on the assembly lines like has happened before.

That's what I got. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I mention a few good points. What's your take?

a free "employee leasing program" will not solve the union problems. any manufacturer that accepts bailout money has to have the stipulation of eliminating their association with the UAW. i agree that they had a purpose at one time but are now a malignant cancer.

unfortunatley the common man cares more aboot the problem than the manufacturers, they seem to only care that they get more something for nothing and to hell with the consequences.

I do agree that my number 5 needs a little work, but my number 1 is sadly neccesary. As for eliminating models, I've looked at GM and short of cutting some flesh, there's very little fat left except in SUVs like the Avalanche and the Suburban. Check it out for yourself and see what I mean. They could probably stand to make GMC and Chevrolet Trucks the same (either that or dedicate Chevy to cars and GMC to trucks) but further than that you're cutting Camaros and Solstices and G8s.

#4 is not fair, but that's life. This should be a temporary measure until the American cars get back on their feet, but it should be an option. When the neighbourhood's on fire you try to save your house first, then help the others. Get my drift?

And you're right about the management. More than anything these people should be replaced, but I felt that was too obvious to discuss first and wanted to throw some newer ideas out there. I really like my #1. It's unfair against imports and keeping it in place too long will only lead to stagnation, but it's neccesary right now to preserve the economy.

I read your post in the GM changes thread and can agree with you on the models with less than 75% American content should be taxed, however I won't be able to agree to giving the excess taxes to the big 3 as they in no way have earned those monies. If a manufacturer managed to have 100% of its lineup above 90% American content then maybe, maybe, they can have a "break".

As for #4, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, since I can't get behind punishing an entirely separate industry for the shortcomings of another. How can we at any point decide that the media, because there is a wide range of advertising available this will affect a lot of people, needs to take a massive cut in their profits to try and help out a group of legendary failures? Robbing Peter to pay Paul hoping that Peter can work extra hours later to make up the difference and not care. Where do you draw the line? Does it end with automobiles or do Honda lawn mowers and small engines get no advertising as well? What aboot consumer electronics? Do we all have to get flyers mailed in from overseas every time a new phone comes out? If you try and isolate the foreign automotive industry alone they will find a loophole easily and stick it to you. Can't advertise a car huh, well lets advertise this (insert product here) right next to the new (insert new model of "foreign" car here). Don't forget that deals with TV and movies are great ways to over-saturate the tube with a certain lineup of models.

PS I love my burb and the G8 is a "foreign" car.

save them if theres no GM I have nothing worth driving

in all honesty the big 3 represent 70 of the GDP, what does that mean?

It means they are alot more than just cars, theres the dealerships and all the people that work at the dealerships. All the people that run the company and the people working in the factory. Theres also the spare parts made for these cars and all the people that work making those which for American cars a good bit is made here in the USA. These people just can't go and find another job working for a foreign make for a number of reasons.

First off the pay is alot less because thats what the foreign makes have been allowed to do in this country is bust all the unions. Busting unions is something thats been near the top of the Reagan Era conservatives list for a long time. I mean how would you like it if you were laid off and forced to try to find a job making half what you are now, I can promise you that would present serious problems to anyone's life. Alot of people would lose everything.

Second of all the automotive industry is hurting as a whole not just a few companies so obviously they arent going to be hiring more people or expanding production which means all those jobless people will not be able to find jobs.

If they can bail out a bunch of banks they can fix the automotive companies that are the root of the American Economy. It would be a pretty sad @!#$ day if your only choices in cars were gutless foreign cars. I'd prob just ride my bicycle from place to place. I for one have always taken great pride (not that most of you have any concept of that being this is a highly foreign friendly site, yet preach your republican bull@!#$ of country first while owning a japanese car) in owning a car that has a US/Canada parts content of 82%, built in Lordstown, Ohio, with the engine built in New York.

The US Economy is a national security issue and therefore it should be subject to being under the watchful eye of the US Government. Businesses should not have the freedom to destroy the economy through being careless. Its because of the lack of regulation that the banks and the Auto makers are having the problems they are having. I think alot of you need to look up the definition of Commie because its a word people throw around without having any idea what it is. Even if the government made moves like that maybe it isnt such a bad move, China has more money than what they know what to do with and they got all the jobs that were lost here, everything is made there.



1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85

Sorry your driving options are limited to GM Matt.

China got all the jobs huh?

And didn't the government help put us where we are by aiding and in some cases mandating some of the business practices that drove us down this road?

Ditch the UAW, that will fix 90% of the problem.
Productivity will go up, b/c people actually need to work to keep their job... rather than just show up to keep a job.

#1. You can't give the tariff money to the Big 3, that would be highway robbery. Just keep it in taxes, and lower the tax rate for regular citizens.
#2. I agree. Let the consumers decide what they are comfortable with. If I want a car without airbags, without side curtains, etc, then I should be able to buy one. Seat belts maybe not so much... Same with the fuel economy. That should be mandated by demand, not by goverment. If everyone wants to buy a gas guzzler, then let them, don't 'punish' the automaker because the consumer doesn't want a fuel efficient vehicle.
#3. Yes and no. Modular assembly lines are good, but you already have 10 or so plants. So you may as well have 10 or so different platforms. Maybe instead of modular assembly lines, use 'flex lines', ones that you can reprogram without retooling. Standardize the end effectors, not the product.
That way, you can make completely different vehicles using the exact same equipment. It'll be a little more expensive to get installed, but much cheaper and easier to changeover production from one model to the next.
#4. Disagree. I think by the time they get charged with the extra tariffs from 1, there's no point to limit their advertising yet too. It'll keep the competition there for the big 3. You can set the foreigners back a bit, but you can't block them out completely. Also, what about cars made in Canada? Are they considered 'imports', what about Mexico?
#5. This seems like creating a major leak in a brand new system. I wouldn't do that.
Any car made outside of the US and Canada should be taxed, no matter what. So that does sadly include the G8, but also cars like the Chevy Optra, etc. Why help a US company if it's just going to open up plants in Korea, Taiwan, etc, for cheap labor. Make it more appealing for these companies to make cars in the US, and stop the shipping of jobs down to wherever.
The idea is to boost the US economy and the bank accounts of US citizens, not the pocket books of the GM shareholders/owners, and it doesn't matter whether that is done by GM and their domestically produced vehicles, or Honda/Toyota using their US plants. The idea is to create more jobs in the US, and to keep them here.
#6. Yes and no. Yes, lower wages. No to give them any free car they want. Maybe give them 'in-store credit', so for example, all assembly line workers get i donno, $17500 towards a new GM vehicle, Engineers get $22500, managers $27500, and you get my drift. Don't let everyone pick whatever car they want, or everyone will be getting free corvettes/G8s, and that would cost the company more money than it would save by lower wages. UAW should be outlawed by the government.

the number one solution would be let them fail and make them learn there mistakes.

Join My Facebook Group: http://alturl.com/ppbe

Sales J Body Connection wrote:the number one solution would be let them fail and make them learn there mistakes.

While I agree with this on principle, the people that need to learn are the people who back the politicians that put their hands into everything.

It has been, in large part, the regulations that the government keeps adding onto the auto industry that is hurting it, not to mention the labor laws and union laws that keep tying the hands of employers. Just wait till the card check law gets passed. Not only will the unions have more power with regard to the employers, but they will also have more power over the very members they are supposed to be protecting, via intimidation.

Anyone who has had any experience running a business with employees, or who has studied business and/or tax and labor laws, knows that the single greatest cost of doing business in any industry is labor. Control that, and you control the profitability of any company. Tie the hands of any company with regard to their labor, and you tie their hands regarding profitability.

However, there has been way to much class-envy in this country, that bolsters the ideas of increased regulations and "employee protections" (read: "sticking it to the corporations") and increased taxes on the rich.

Want things to get better? Get the f&$king government out of the way. Then, companies will either prosper or fail based on their decisions, the strongest will survive, and the country will get better.

Quiklilcav wrote:Want things to get better? Get the f&$king government out of the way. Then, companies will either prosper or fail based on their decisions, the strongest will survive, and the country will get better.

Yep - get government out of the way. It worked with banks and everything went well there.

Do you REALLY think that government regulations are what sealed the fate of the big 3? Remember that imports sold here must also adhere to the same standards. I don't however favor excessive regulation(chokes industries), but can't get behind zero regulation(because the people driving the "free market" aren't always as enlightened as you might like to believe) either. Both strategies are failures. Common sense, situationally relevant regulation and no more FTW.

Unions exasperate the situation and need to go, but like current auto regulations, they are not the root cause of the problem. @!#$ty management and lack of foresight are. A bad business model from the ground up is the issue.




Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring

Solutions to the Big 3 Crisis:
1. Improve perception the domestic vehicles.
2. Put people working.
3. Stabilize the credit, as almost nobody buys in cash anymore.

In the state we are living in, do we actually think that the big 3 or other auto companies will do well? Hell, Honda and Audi are pulling out F1 and ALMS respectively because they need to be cautious with their capital as sales has been going down world wide.

Honestly, giving money to all these major companies (banks) was/is a mistake, that is not being capitalist. Unless we start subsidizing ala European way.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Quiklilcav wrote:
Anyone who has had any experience running a business with employees, or who has studied business and/or tax and labor laws, knows that the single greatest cost of doing business in any industry is labor. Control that, and you control the profitability of any company. Tie the hands of any company with regard to their labor, and you tie their hands regarding profitability.


Want things to get better? Get the f&$king government out of the way. Then, companies will either prosper or fail based on their decisions, the strongest will survive, and the country will get better.

QFT its always nice to hear someone get it right.

personally, i say give them the $. its not like its free....so go ahead and float them a loan. theoretically it will benefit the country in both the short term (not losing 1-2 million jobs) as well as the long term (pay back on the loan) so why not? as long as this is an isolated event and not a continual type of thing, why shouldnt we? we are quickly encroaching upon the worst economic times since the great depression and we need to avoid repeating that AT ALL COSTS, even if its throwing a few billion at the auto industry. as long as certain concessions are made by GM, etc, such as axing the UAW and other things, then its a win-win-win situation. keep the jobs for the present, extra $ in the near future, and better competition in the future.

Since everyone is talking about labor costs, here's some interesting stats about Chrysler:

Major Expenditures Q1 2009
Parts suppliers $ 8.0 billion
Other vendors $ 1.2 billion
Wages $ 0.9 billion
Health care / legacy $500 million
Other expenditures $500 million

Total expenditures: $11.6 billion

I've always said that despite appearances Chrysler is in fairly decent economic shape and here's the proof. Their main costs are parts, and that could be reduced by getting rid of redundant models. The most interesting figure is the wages and health care costs though. Together they total 12% of Chrysler's total operating costs for the first quarter. Hardly a huge insurmountable expenditure. I bet GM envies that figure.

What I'm getting at is that labour costs hardly seem to be the albatross around the neck that these manufacturers make it out to be. If the UAW can cut their most outlandish moneygrubbing demands that's great, but I don't think it'll change all that much.

Bastardking3000 wrote:Do you REALLY think that government regulations are what sealed the fate of the big 3? Remember that imports sold here must also adhere to the same standards. I don't however favor excessive regulation(chokes industries), but can't get behind zero regulation(because the people driving the "free market" aren't always as enlightened as you might like to believe) either. Both strategies are failures. Common sense, situationally relevant regulation and no more FTW.

Unions exasperate the situation and need to go, but like current auto regulations, they are not the root cause of the problem. @!#$ty management and lack of foresight are. A bad business model from the ground up is the issue.

For starters, the words "zero regulations" were not in my post. The problem is excessive regulations. And a bigger problem is that the government wants to tie more regulations to the bailout money. If they want to require a good business plan for getting back on track, that's one thing (hell, any bank would require it, so I see no problem in the government requiring it), but to start boot-strapping more sh!t onto it is just a way for them to get their hands around it.

Also, when I speak about regulations, I'm not just talking about the cars, I'm talking about the unions. The government is about to increase the stranglehold the UAW already has on the big 3. I find it funny that in this forum, even the people who agree with the Democrats on a lot of issues think that the UAW needs to go. You do realize that is the absolute farthest thing from the mind of the new administration, right? They think the unions need more power. And to make things worse, they want to take freedoms away from the union members themselves; the very people they are claiming to be supporting.

There are many factors that caused the crash of the big 3, one of which was the credit market, which none of them could have controled, but others are the standards, and the labor regulations that tie the hands of companies. And yes, some poor management and lack of proper marketing studies aided.

Another facet that you can not see without digging further into their parts vendors, is the fact that the labor costs of those vendors effects the cost of the parts. It's not a simple answer, but, believe me, labor is the single most costly factor in this. Every part that they buy has a labor cost associated with it. That's why more and more parts are coming from overseas. It's extremely hard to be competitive in manufacturing in this country.

Willem wrote:Ditch the UAW, that will fix 90% of the problem.
Productivity will go up, b/c people actually need to work to keep their job... rather than just show up to keep a job.

#1. You can't give the tariff money to the Big 3, that would be highway robbery. Just keep it in taxes, and lower the tax rate for regular citizens.
#2. I agree. Let the consumers decide what they are comfortable with. If I want a car without airbags, without side curtains, etc, then I should be able to buy one. Seat belts maybe not so much... Same with the fuel economy. That should be mandated by demand, not by goverment. If everyone wants to buy a gas guzzler, then let them, don't 'punish' the automaker because the consumer doesn't want a fuel efficient vehicle.
#3. Yes and no. Modular assembly lines are good, but you already have 10 or so plants. So you may as well have 10 or so different platforms. Maybe instead of modular assembly lines, use 'flex lines', ones that you can reprogram without retooling. Standardize the end effectors, not the product.
That way, you can make completely different vehicles using the exact same equipment. It'll be a little more expensive to get installed, but much cheaper and easier to changeover production from one model to the next.
#4. Disagree. I think by the time they get charged with the extra tariffs from 1, there's no point to limit their advertising yet too. It'll keep the competition there for the big 3. You can set the foreigners back a bit, but you can't block them out completely. Also, what about cars made in Canada? Are they considered 'imports', what about Mexico?
#5. This seems like creating a major leak in a brand new system. I wouldn't do that.
Any car made outside of the US and Canada should be taxed, no matter what. So that does sadly include the G8, but also cars like the Chevy Optra, etc. Why help a US company if it's just going to open up plants in Korea, Taiwan, etc, for cheap labor. Make it more appealing for these companies to make cars in the US, and stop the shipping of jobs down to wherever.
The idea is to boost the US economy and the bank accounts of US citizens, not the pocket books of the GM shareholders/owners, and it doesn't matter whether that is done by GM and their domestically produced vehicles, or Honda/Toyota using their US plants. The idea is to create more jobs in the US, and to keep them here.
#6. Yes and no. Yes, lower wages. No to give them any free car they want. Maybe give them 'in-store credit', so for example, all assembly line workers get i donno, $17500 towards a new GM vehicle, Engineers get $22500, managers $27500, and you get my drift. Don't let everyone pick whatever car they want, or everyone will be getting free corvettes/G8s, and that would cost the company more money than it would save by lower wages. UAW should be outlawed by the government.

Bingo.

Quiklilcav wrote:For starters, the words "zero regulations" were not in my post. The problem is excessive regulations. And a bigger problem is that the government wants to tie more regulations to the bailout money. If they want to require a good business plan for getting back on track, that's one thing (hell, any bank would require it, so I see no problem in the government requiring it), but to start boot-strapping more sh!t onto it is just a way for them to get their hands around it.

Also, when I speak about regulations, I'm not just talking about the cars, I'm talking about the unions. The government is about to increase the stranglehold the UAW already has on the big 3. I find it funny that in this forum, even the people who agree with the Democrats on a lot of issues think that the UAW needs to go. You do realize that is the absolute farthest thing from the mind of the new administration, right? They think the unions need more power. And to make things worse, they want to take freedoms away from the union members themselves; the very people they are claiming to be supporting.

There are many factors that caused the crash of the big 3, one of which was the credit market, which none of them could have controled, but others are the standards, and the labor regulations that tie the hands of companies. And yes, some poor management and lack of proper marketing studies aided.

Another facet that you can not see without digging further into their parts vendors, is the fact that the labor costs of those vendors effects the cost of the parts. It's not a simple answer, but, believe me, labor is the single most costly factor in this. Every part that they buy has a labor cost associated with it. That's why more and more parts are coming from overseas. It's extremely hard to be competitive in manufacturing in this country.

Bingo.

Bastardking3000 wrote:Yep - get government out of the way. It worked with banks and everything went well there.

Sorry, I've been away from JBO News (C) for a while, so I might have missed something... Did we determine the housing crisis was NOT caused by the government telling banks to accept sub-prime mortgage applications?




11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/

OHV notec wrote:Sorry...Did we determine the housing crisis was NOT caused by the government telling banks to accept sub-prime mortgage applications?

No, the Democrats did, and told the media, who repeated it 5 million times, and everyone believed it.

OHV notec wrote:

Bastardking3000 wrote:Yep - get government out of the way. It worked with banks and everything went well there.

Sorry, I've been away from JBO News (C) for a while, so I might have missed something... Did we determine the housing crisis was NOT caused by the government telling banks to accept sub-prime mortgage applications?

No - that is a major contributing factor, and hardly the only one. The hands off of the wheel approach had just at much to do with, if not more. Far left agenda + far right agenda = all hell breaks loose. And now we are here.

It amazes me sometimes that the same people who (understandably) put so little faith in our government, put so much faith in the "free market" people that are often just as clueless and often are actually in control of various areas of said incompetent Government (via high paid lobbyists and political corruption) anyways. SInce you said you missed out - I posted this in another thread. Its a very good read and will completely annihilate any faith you have left in the people controlling the markets. It does not mention any political parties, only the inner-market perspective.

Bastardking3000 wrote:Here is a great (but very long) article that gives you an insider's view of what went down. Verdict is - to the surprise of few - 99% of the people on Wall Street(including people in very high places) don't know what the hell they are doing and the other 1% saw this coming and accordingly just got rich off of everyone else's failure.

And we bailed these idiots out so that they can still get their bonuses - "reduced" bonuses that is....

Quiklilcav wrote:

OHV notec wrote:Sorry...Did we determine the housing crisis was NOT caused by the government telling banks to accept sub-prime mortgage applications?

No, the Democrats did, and told the media, who repeated it 5 million times, and everyone believed it.

That is true. Democrat talking heads and the media told their masses that lack of regulation is solely to blame, and those people believed it. Then Republican talking heads told their masses that rather than regulation, it was solely the Democrat's feel good legislation, and their masses believed it. And then there is the truth - that both parties @!#$ us from both sides.

No one wants to accept even 1% of the blame, and why should they when their partisan flocks will believe them? Just as long as they blame "the enemy," it works and you believe. It works all too well for all issues. You point at the sheepish dems, and the mirror points back.




Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring

Bastardking3000 wrote:

OHV notec wrote:

Bastardking3000 wrote:Yep - get government out of the way. It worked with banks and everything went well there.

Sorry, I've been away from JBO News (C) for a while, so I might have missed something... Did we determine the housing crisis was NOT caused by the government telling banks to accept sub-prime mortgage applications?

No - that is a major contributing factor, and hardly the only one. The hands off of the wheel approach had just at much to do with, if not more. Far left agenda + far right agenda = all hell breaks loose. And now we are here.

It amazes me sometimes that the same people who (understandably) put so little faith in our government, put so much faith in the "free market" people that are often just as clueless and often are actually in control of various areas of said incompetent Government (via high paid lobbyists and political corruption) anyways. SInce you said you missed out - I posted this in another thread. Its a very good read and will completely annihilate any faith you have left in the people controlling the markets. It does not mention any political parties, only the inner-market perspective.

Bastardking3000 wrote:Here is a great (but very long) article that gives you an insider's view of what went down. Verdict is - to the surprise of few - 99% of the people on Wall Street(including people in very high places) don't know what the hell they are doing and the other 1% saw this coming and accordingly just got rich off of everyone else's failure.

And we bailed these idiots out so that they can still get their bonuses - "reduced" bonuses that is....

Quiklilcav wrote:

OHV notec wrote:Sorry...Did we determine the housing crisis was NOT caused by the government telling banks to accept sub-prime mortgage applications?

No, the Democrats did, and told the media, who repeated it 5 million times, and everyone believed it.

That is true. Democrat talking heads and the media told their masses that lack of regulation is solely to blame, and those people believed it. Then Republican talking heads told their masses that rather than regulation, it was solely the Democrat's feel good legislation, and their masses believed it. And then there is the truth - that both parties @!#$ us from both sides.

No one wants to accept even 1% of the blame, and why should they when their partisan flocks will believe them? Just as long as they blame "the enemy," it works and you believe. It works all too well for all issues. You point at the sheepish dems, and the mirror points back.

and here i thought it was all just about people going out and buying houses they couldn't afford to pay.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Eliminate job banks?

sndsgood wrote:

and here i thought it was all just about people going out and buying houses they couldn't afford to pay.

True, but this is symptomatic of a huge and looming housing problem that's affecting all of North America. Basically home prices have gone up to such an extent that people who used to be able to afford a house simply can't anymore, and renting's out of the question because a decent appartment is often even more expensive than a house. Moving 100 miles away and commuting to work? Might have worked, (Although three hours a day of driving is just nuts imo) but gas prices were sky high. So what do you do? Change jobs? In this economic climate? Besides, where do you go? It's like this everywhere.

Jobs are becoming more centralized but at the same time people are more spread out than ever and there's just no room "closer" for them to go live. You see it best in a place like Tokyo, where there are people who make the equivalent of 20 bucks an hour and are homeless. They sleep in internet cafes and coffin hotels because they just can't afford anything. The same is going to happen here, just watch.

Knoxfire wrote:

sndsgood wrote:

and here i thought it was all just about people going out and buying houses they couldn't afford to pay.

True, but this is symptomatic of a huge and looming housing problem that's affecting all of North America. Basically home prices have gone up to such an extent that people who used to be able to afford a house simply can't anymore...

Due to mortgages being handed out to everyone, so it turned into a huge seller's market, seeing prices skyrocket.

Back to the original subject, I have to say that I personally want to drive to Washington and slap Bush up side the head. Congress voted down the auto industry bail out, and many Republicans actually had some balls to stand up and oppose it because of all the strings attached, and then Bush comes along and uses money designated for something else. FAIL