GM's Chief pushing for higher gas taxes.

"MG" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not a fan of the auto bailout (never was - terrible idea). I do
>>> beleive
>>> we should raise taxes on imported oil significantly.
>>
>> Won't that simply subsidize domestic producers?
>>
>> Why not instead raise the federal gas tax, which has remained at 18.4
>> cents/gallon for 17 years? The cost of maintaining the Interstate
>> Highway System hasn't stayed constant over that time.
>>
>> I'm normally against corporate bailouts, but the economy went into
>> such a big dive in 2008 that the federal takeover of GM and Chrysler
>> was probably a lot cheaper than the alternative, and if those
>> companies had folded, even temporarily, suppliers would have collapsed
>> as well, and that would have affected even Ford, despite that company
>> being in sound financial shape. At least the auto bailout wasn't
>> mishandled like TARP, which had few strings attached, so instead of
>> putting money back into the economy, much of the federal funds were
>> just pocketed by the big banks. The federal government actually has
>> an unusually good overall track record at bailing out companies, maybe
>> because it does it so infrequently, and when it is done, the
>> government acts like an investment banker, rather than a bleeding
>> heart social worker.
>
> I am still trying to figure out why some people think letting GM and
> Chrysler die would have been a good thing. To lose manufacturing capacity
> of that magnitude, and the number of jobs directly and indirectly lost,
> and the subsequent shift of purchases to even more foreign product would
> have been disastrous from both an economic and a national security
> standpoint. I'd like to hear someone's reasoning for this in more specific
> terms than the usual sloganeering.

The alternative was not to let them "die," The alternative was to let them
declare bankruptcy and reorganize in the traditional manner. But if the Feds
had done this, then UAW would not have been protested. Instead, the
creditors and stockholders would have been protected. It seems to me that
the goal of the bailout was to protect the UAW, not the stockholders.
Essentially the US goverment nationalized GM and Chrysler, gave a part to
the UAW, and are slowly selling off the rest to new owners. The original
stockholders and creditors were left with nothing. I can't see how this was
fair (or in the case of GM less than nothing).

Ed

MG > wrote:
>
>I am still trying to figure out why some people think letting GM and
>Chrysler die would have been a good thing. To lose manufacturing capacity
>of that magnitude, and the number of jobs directly and indirectly lost, and
>the subsequent shift of purchases to even more foreign product would have
>been disastrous from both an economic and a national security standpoint.
>I'd like to hear someone's reasoning for this in more specific terms than
>the usual sloganeering.

The only good argument that can be made is that the GM and Chrysler
factories are very obsolete and that the best thing to do with them is
to shut them down, and to open up new factories with new management and
new equipment.

I'll buy that argument although I don't think letting GM and Chrysler
collapse is the only way to promote that.

There are a lot of small manufacturers in this country who rely on getting
parts made by companies that also make parts for GM and Chrysler, and even
some who rely on manufacturing surplus from them. If you shut down GM, you
shut down GM's suppliers, but you also wind up shutting down folks who use
GM's suppliers as well.

The guys who make O-rings for GM air conditioning systems also make
microphone shock mounts. The guys who make tooling for GM body stampings
also make tooling for music stand makers.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Roger Blake > wrote:
>There are existing laws on the books for dealing with companies
>failing and going bankrupt. The administrative branch of government
>had no authority to rewrite them on the fly for this specific case.

But they didn't.

cf. the LAST time they bailed Chrysler out, in the seventies.

>One of the fundamental tenets of government in the U.S. is that we
>are supposed to be a nation of laws rather than men. That is,
>government action is supposed to be constrained to the written law
>rather than being directed by the whims of politicians or the
>public. (BTW, this is not a democracy. The Constitution guarantees
>us a specific form of government and "democracy" is not it.) I see
>abrogation of this principle as extremely dangerous, much more so
>than companies of any size going through the established bankruptcy
>process.

Yes, this is true. But I don't see any laws being broken.

>In the wake of this fiasco I personally would not buy a new General Motors
>(or Chrysler) car for any reason.

Fiasco? It looks like the government may actually be making a profit
off of GM, depending on the Fiat deal. It's not a bad investment; I
bought some myself.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message It's a win for everyone,
even those of us paying
> the tax because it ensures alternative fuels get brought online which
> is what we need to happen in the long run. And we can easily afford
> to pay $80 a barrel, we've been paying at least that much for years
> now.

Why would "GM's chief" want higher gas taxes?? So the Volt will
sell better?

If we were taxed more on gasoline so that we would commit to
development of true alternative fuels, so be it...but I rather suspect
that is NOT what would happen.

They would just **** away the extra revenue as they have done in
the past.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 23:16:13 -0400, "MG" >
wrote:

>
>I am still trying to figure out why some people think letting GM and
>Chrysler die would have been a good thing. To lose manufacturing capacity
>of that magnitude, and the number of jobs directly and indirectly lost, and
>the subsequent shift of purchases to even more foreign product would have
>been disastrous from both an economic and a national security standpoint.
>I'd like to hear someone's reasoning for this in more specific terms than
>the usual sloganeering.
>
>mg

Basically because they're know-nothings about finance.
Most are union-haters.
Most all are guided by purely partisan politics.
Wacko libertarians comprise a good percentage.
Probably many got burned by bad GM cars.

They have no idea what it would have done to the economy.
Even now they have no idea that the UAW stake is all in a retiree
pension/health care trust fund, and that bankruptcy would have dumped
those costs onto the taxpayer via the PBGC and Medicaid.
Or that last year GM labor cost was down to $58.15 an hour vs $56.15
for non-union Toyota,
Or that starting GM union wage is now $15 an hour.
Or that Ford took a direct $6 billion Government loan and it has
government guarantees for much of its $23 billion debt.
Or that Ford debt didn't stop CEO Mulaly from scoring a +$50 million
bonus this year.
Most aren't batting an eye at the Fed printing and providing $billions
in interest-free greenbacks for the big Wall Street investment firms
and banks.
They also don't bat an eye at the Fed keeping interest rates at
nothing for Joe-blow saver in order to keep the Wall Street equity
market pumped up.
But man, talk UAW and their panties get all wadded up.
Funniest part is they think they paid taxes on the bailouts.
My taxes didn't go up, did yours?
If the bailouts cost anything to the taxpayer, which is highly
doubtful and most likely the reverse, it just got added to the debt
along with all the other spending that isn't being collected in taxes.
But that's another issue.

--Vic

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:32:47 +0000, Roger Blake wrote:

> On 2011-06-10, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>> But they didn't.
>
> Where is the provision in the law for the "special bankruptcy" in
> which GM's assets were taken from its owners by the federal government
> and redistributed?
>
>> cf. the LAST time they bailed Chrysler out, in the seventies.
>
> Those were loan guarantees. That should not have been done (once again,
> no lawful authority existed for it), but since Chrysler did not default
> at that time it did not cost taxpayers anything.
>
>> Yes, this is true. But I don't see any laws being broken.
>
> Once again, where do you find the lawful authority for what was done?
>
>> Fiasco? It looks like the government may actually be making a profit
>
> Yes, fiasco. Ask any of GM's former stockholders. Not to mention that
> last I read, the government now expects to lose about $14 billion on the
> deal (that they'll admit to).

This is the interesting part: a company that focused on their
*shareholders* more than their *customers* wound up driving the customers
away in droves, got into serious trouble, and wound up royally screwing
the shareholders in the end!

Now they are back on their feet, and they're playing to the *shareholders*
again!

How frigging *stupid* can you be?!?!?!

Toyota, Nissan and Honda play to the *customers* and their shareholders
didn't have to take a bath, even with all of Toyota's woes.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:14:00 -0400, C. E. White wrote:

> The alternative was not to let them "die," The alternative was to let them
> declare bankruptcy and reorganize in the traditional manner. But if the Feds
> had done this, then UAW would not have been protested. Instead, the
> creditors and stockholders would have been protected. It seems to me that
> the goal of the bailout was to protect the UAW,


And a lot of where their power base comes from. If they had let the unions
hang, the unions might have turned their backs on them.

Jeeze, Ed, did you come up with this, or was this a discussion you'd heard
somewhere in the media? Interesting slant on things, and probably, the
truth.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:22:27 -0500, hls wrote:

>
> "Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message It's a win for everyone,
> even those of us paying
>> the tax because it ensures alternative fuels get brought online which
>> is what we need to happen in the long run. And we can easily afford
>> to pay $80 a barrel, we've been paying at least that much for years
>> now.
>
> Why would "GM's chief" want higher gas taxes?? So the Volt will
> sell better?

That's what it's looking like...

>
> If we were taxed more on gasoline so that we would commit to
> development of true alternative fuels, so be it...but I rather suspect
> that is NOT what would happen.
>
> They would just **** away the extra revenue as they have done in
> the past.

On 2011-06-10, C. E. White > wrote:
>
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2011-06-09, C. E. White > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> All market manipulations must end. All of them. Proposing different ones
>>>> just changes the problems caused somewhat.
>>>
>>> You don't think the Saudi's (and OPEC) manipulate oil prices? Get them to
>>> stop, then the oil companies would do it directly.
>>
>> So your argument is because some other government varies production of
>> oil in the territory it rules, the US federal government then has the
>> right to manipulate the fuel markets here inside the USA? What's next,
>> the argument that because North Korea's rulers do something, then it's
>> ok for the US federal government to do it?
>
> I want to the US Federal governemnt to address a security threart by cutting
> off the sorce of funding to most of the wackos in the world.

The so called "security threat" is the result of the US federal
government's meddling in the affairs of other people which it has no
business meddling in. Bombing people's homes and businesses after
proping up brutal dictators for decades tends to **** people off.


> Instead of just
> slapping an import duty on Saudi Oil, I would prefer to prohibit us doing
> buisness with them at all, but in the short run that is impossible. So as an
> alternative, I want to raise the cost of Saudi Oil to make domestic
> production / energy alternatives more attractive. Are you really comfortable
> sending billions to wackos like the ones in Saudi Arabia, or closer to home,
> Venezuela, or for that matter the Russians? The DA Republicans talk a good
> game when it comes to national security, but it seems to me they are the
> tools of the Saudis and the Military Industrial Complex. If you are in the
> arms business it is a perfect senario - we buy oil from the Saudis, who give
> a chunk of it to terrorists, who we then have to "defeat" by spending
> billions on the military. It is an insane game.

The US federal government set up the status quo. If you don't like it,
asking for more federal meddling is like well... the idea that
overspending can be solved with more spending. You want Saudi oil to be
expensive? Get rid of the US federal government for the Saudis and they
wouldn't remain in power for very long. The oil there would become very
expensive very quickly due to the political instability.

>> Anyway, the Saudis would have been long out of power without the US
>> federal government proping them up.

> True and they (the Saudis) spend big time to keep the Republicans in power
> (and Democrats too). And they are buying politicians with the money we send
> them.

And yet I'm the kook for suggesting the two winged single party system
be done away from?

> Wasn't it Lenin who said something like "The Capitalist will sell you the
> rope you hang him with?" Well it seems to me that is sort of what we are
> doing when we buy oil from the Saudis and other wackos.

Trade is not a problem. Meddling is. The US federal government needs to
stop meddling. That's it. We the people who live under its rule need the
federal government to stop meddling, not tax us further.

> A lot of Republicans get really upset becasue we keep dealing with the
> Chinese, but to my way of thinking, dealing with the Saudis is just as bad.

Stop listening to them and start watching their actions.

=?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= > wrote:
>
>This is the interesting part: a company that focused on their
>*shareholders* more than their *customers* wound up driving the customers
>away in droves, got into serious trouble, and wound up royally screwing
>the shareholders in the end!

This is always what happens when companies do this. We live in an age
where shareholders aren't in it for the long term, so they care only
about short-term profits. When companies attempt to focus on keeping
their stock profitable in the short term, rather than focussing on making
a good product so that they keep a customer base, they screw themselves,
their customers, and ultimately their investors.

And sadly, far too many American businesses are doing this. GM is by
no means unique.

>Now they are back on their feet, and they're playing to the *shareholders*
>again!
>
>How frigging *stupid* can you be?!?!?!

Agreed. And they are doing some pretty boneheaded things. At the time of
the collapse, they had finally developed some decent new products, including
(for the first time) a Cadillac that didn't drive like a wallowing pig. Of
course, they laid off the teams that developed these things when the fall
came.

>Toyota, Nissan and Honda play to the *customers* and their shareholders
>didn't have to take a bath, even with all of Toyota's woes.

Sure, but they're also not trying to get Americans to invest in them either.
They have shareholders who are interested in more than the past six months'
numbers.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."