Should Big Oil bail out the US auto industry?

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by Devil_Dog, Nov 22, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. After all, the two need each other desperately. One cannot exist without the other.

    While the oil companies have been making record profits, auto manufacturers have been making record losses.

    I for one am totally opposed to shelling out billions of tax payers' dollars to keep this badly managed dinosaurs afloat. Will the money they are talking about make people buy more cars? I suspect not.

    On the other hand, if Big Oil gives money to Chrysler, Ford and GM they might very well ask for something in return.

    "You feckers must build the kind of cars we want. The you scratch my back I maul yours rule applies here."

    So if you think a 12 mile a gallon car was bad, think again because a six mile a gallon car is on the way.

    What would be the merits or demerits of Big Oil coming to the rescue of the giant automakers?
  2. It is a brilliant idea, DD. I can see nothing wrong with it at all. Why should taxpayers bailout this moribund industry when it is big oil that has the most to lose if it folds?

    However, I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
  3. Let them go out of buisness, who cares about Ford, GM and Chrysler. I don't; never bought one of their shit boxes and hate it every time Hertz or Avis puts me in one while traveling on business or pleasure.

    The limp wristed CEOs have been cowing to the corrupt Union(s) for years, fuck them both. The US manufacturers are not competetive because of stupid unsustainable union contracts over the decades. The union members have been living high on the hog all the while putting out a crap product that cost to much. Go price a Toyota, Nissan, Mazda and a comparable US car. Then look at the resell value after 5 years, the overall quality of construction and amenities, and the cost of ownership. Toyota, Nissan and Mazda win hands down.

    They deserve to fail, and all those union members sitting on the street corner begging for money should be kicked in the face for being a bunch of stupid greedy lemmings.
  4. A republican senator had this to say, ""They're not building the right products," he said. "They've got good workers but I don't believe they've got good management. They don't innovate. They're a dinosaur in a sense."

    If this is the case, why punish the workers, who cannot be absorbed into a failing US economy at this time (if GM were to go under, more than 2.5 million US jobs would be lost) but instead get rid of the top management - who have stopped progress on fuel efficient for years and who have collecting huge payouts and golden parachutes. Reorganise and restructure the automakers.

    "In economic terms, cutting operations in half would reduce personal income by more than $125.1 billion in the first year, and $275.7 billion over three years, the center said. Such a decline in personal income would cost the government tax dollars -- $49.9 billion in 2009 and more than $108.1 billion over three years."
  5. This is a political football and all are posturing. The Dems can win big if the Auto Makers get a bridge loan, buy bringing a major industry under government control. The Republicans fear a failure of the auto industry as it will swell the ranks of the democrats with disgruntled union members that have become accustomed to a lifestyle that far surpasses their IQ and skill level.

    You can ask this another way, why punish the Exec that took a job where their hands were tied from the start due to unsustainable union contracts negotiated prior to them taking charge.

    They are all guilty the Exec's the worker and the unions.

    Bingo and there in lies the rub. Congress is looking at their tax dollars (money they steal from hard working people to give to lazy people) erode and their by lose their power to buy votes by giving to those over their from those over here.

    read something worth reading
  6. If car manufactures will be allowed to go belly up, hundreds of thousands of people across America and Europe will lose their jobs. Who is going to support them? A taxpayer! Isn't it cheaper to bail them out?
  7. I don't see why DD or anyone else thinks “Big Oil” needs Chrysler, Ford and GM.

    The number of cars on the road won't change if they go out of business, and cars are only one of several users of oil and its by-products anyway.

    Let Chrysler, Ford and GM go bust, competent car manufacturers will ramp up production creating jobs and demand for parts. Competent ex-workers from Chrysler, Ford and GM can get jobs with them and the competent parts suppliers can supply them.
  8. This Is the reason the US manufacturers are failing

    Oil prices rise and the US needs more oil to keep it's fuel guzzling cars on the road

    The car companies need to start looking at fuel efficiency to catch up with the competition.

    *A US Gallon is 3.78 litres an Imperial Gallon is 4.54 litres so the best GMC can do is 21 mpUSg or 5.5 Miles per LITRE, and this is a hybrid car!
  9. Oh no you mean let the market work without union and givernment heathen

  10. The recent blip in gas prices saw a decline in sales, but that is not the cause nor is the mix (yes mix) of vehicles that the big 3 produce, or their lack of fuel economy. Consumers have demanded big vehicles for years and the big 3 delivered. If they hadn't they would have been asking for a bail out 8 or more years ago.

    Stop trying to equate US to Europe, the distances between cities is greater. There are more people that are in business for themselves that require a large vehicle for their job, yet can't afford a second smaller vehicle for leisure.

    The vehicles are bought because there is a need, not everyone can make do will a small shitbox to get around.

    The big 3 are in trouble not because of what they are offering, but instead by legacy costs incurred by previous execs bending over to the unions.
  11. That is a very good point - it is not only the workers of these plants that will be unemployed, but all of the industries tied to the auto industry - as I said, estimated at 2.5 to 3 million people. Believe me, the economy cannot absorb these workers - due to the credit crisis (brought about by greed), 100,000 to 200,00 US workers are being laid off a month.

    Ctauch did make a good point about the product of the automotive industries though. I have seen it myself - Americans (often 1 female) driving huge SUVs and pickup trucks which they had no practical use for in most cases - a case of one upmanship so prevalent in US culture. So, if the big three made small fuel efficient cars, would they have sold unless the price of petrol went through the roof? Probably not. That is why the market needs to be regulated - Americans will not do it themselves.
  12. It doesn't justify an 8 liter engine in a family car, and a fuel efficient car needn't be a sh1tbox, a feeble excuse for wanting bigger and "better".
    The US is the world's worst polluter and they don't care because they have the biggest defence budget so nobody dare argue
    I've driven American made cars in the past and the build quality is terrible, reliablity is doubtful and fuel consumption required a tanker in tow. Impractical for any use other than making the oil companies money
  13. Couldn't agree more. There is a huge difference between a car built in a European factory and the same car built in a US factory. There is no emphasis on quality in the US.
  14. Look if you have a brain go back and read "all" my posts on this thread and the only thing you find is that gas mileage is the only point we disagree on.