Comments:US automakers GM and Chrysler seek more government aid

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Only and I say Only if they are held accountable.....get the unions under control and do their part...and get these high priced top managementteams out of there.....Obviously they are not capable of doing the job they are making these big bucks and recieveing these large bonuses for —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.26.144.222 (talk • contribs)

no more our tax money for these failed companies... it is sad that people will lose their jobs but let's not waste good money on failed company.

No. Governments should be chiefly concerned with maintaining the rights of their citizens. If we analyze this situation in terms of rights, it's seen not to be a difficult dilemma at all. Nobody has a right to be employed by GM or Chrysler. GM and Chrysler do not have a positive right to make money or remain solvent, only a contingent right to be able to pursue profit and stability within the law. On the other hand, citizens do have a right not to have their tax money allocated to non-public purposes. GM and Chrysler are not public entities, and they are not being contracted to provide a public good, therefore any allocation of money to them by the government is per-se illegitimate. This is pure theft, graft and abuse of power. 129.110.242.8 20:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The High Price of Rampant Capitalism

We live in a society that is ruthlessly capitalistic, and as long is doesn't directly affect you or I, that's ok. Well, now it affects you and I. Perhaps in the complete s*** storm that will most probably come to fruition in the next few years, we will see more people turning to the alternatives of every man for himself capitalism. For many reasons, I say no, these institutions should not be bailed out. They are private institutions that have obviously been mismanaged. They may go out of business. But guess what? In the land of the free, hard working people's businesses go under every day. I think it's time that the country sees the price of greed firsthand. Times will be hard, but we have no one but ourselves to blame, for letting an unfair system run rampant for far too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.55.184 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your comment. The solution you advocate seems quite capitalistic, so your concomitant invective against capitalism is incongruous. The capitalist solution is to allow the market to decide the fate of these companies, which is exactly the result that non-intervention will produce. The fact that hard-working people's businesses go under is perhaps unfortunate, but I don't see how these hard-working people can even have an opportunity to create businesses, whatever their fate, without capitalism. 129.110.242.8 22:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be bailed out again. If a company can't be profitable by itself, then it should go out of business. That's how capitalism works, and it's how the fittest companies thrive and the lethargic beasts that are Chrysler and GM go out of business.

And besides, how come Ford can survive without government loans but not Chrysler and GM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.49.22 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ford isn't fairing too well either. What needs to happen is that people need to be encouraged to spend their money and not be so damn frugal. Spending will increase the money in flow and less money will be printed meaning inflation slowly but surely goes down. It is our frugalness that has actually caused these companies to start going down and not just bad management. I know we do not have that much money. But those who do have enough money need to get off their high horses and start understanding that they are going to have to spend money. When they start spending money. We get money. We spend money the companies get money. Finally the people on When the companies get money they hire people so that we can get more money to spend and last the people on their high horses get money and they continue the cycle. It's cycle that has been broken because of frugalness. These companies SHOULD get another bailout. But these companies also should not close down any factories. They are just digging the economic hole bigger and bigger the more they layoff people and I don't think any of us get it that this is of our own creation. We don't want to work. We don't want to spend. We go down a never ending spiral. It's not too late to become socialists. 72.224.127.117 23:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your solution is one of the problems that caused this economic crisis: over-consumption of unneeded goods. The economy relies too much on money spending to distribute resources, and the industry has been concentrating on creating needs rather than cutting expenses. Instead of reducing the use of the raw material, everyone tries to waste them as fast as possible to achieve an apparent immediate prosperity. In my opinion these car manufacturers have to be saved from bankruptcy int order to protect the workers, but they shall adapt their production as not to constantly overproduce and then try to persuade people into buying them. -Unicode (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that 128.114 fellow. Fephisto (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

US auto industry

The problem with GM, Chrysler and US Ford is structural. For many years now these companies are in crisis. But instead of doing something about it, they opted to rely on subsidies and "subsidies" from the US government and from the pockets of many rich families in the US. They continued to produce completely inadeqaute, out-of-date products (cars), that are no match to european and asian cars. It's only natural that this would occur, especially after the arrival of this Great Depression, that makes those subsidies and "subsidies" disappear way too fast... One thing that make my argument credible is the british Ford. How many americans know that Ford has its european division? Do they know that the cars that Ford sells in Europe are VERY different from those they buy in the US? Are they also aware that british Ford isn't suffering from the problems that plagues its american counterpart? I guess not. So, why is european Ford doing well, while its american counterpart is doing so poorly? The answer is adequate products. There is some sort of autism in the US car industry that I can't seem to understand. In an age, where people want smaller, economical cars, the US car industry is so stubborn, to the point of releasing very recycled models, full of 1970's technology, with very, but very, poor mileage. The europeans with their 21st century diesel engine technology are kicking asses Made In USA... I just hope that, when electric and hydrogen powered cars arrive, things change for the better. But so far, the US auto industry shows to have no interest in changing, into putting an effort. They show that they want it easy and fast. This way, they will all file for bankruptcy in no time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.167.1 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is simple economics. If you can't balance your costs with your income; you aren't a successful business. People are obviously not interested in buying those companys vehicles. Foreign cars are ahead of the race when it comes to fuel efficiency and thats what people are looking for these days. They needed to have changed thier business plans long ago in order to have avoided this situation. The government has been handing them money for the past decade. Its time we said goodbye to companys that depend on the goodwill of the nation.

If they do get a bailout, where will that end. The oil industry isn't doing so hot these days. Are they going to get a bailout too? The forestry industry has been doing terrible for the past 15 years and they haven't seen a cent. Why now? Why this particular industry?

Trim the fat. Its like burning a wart. The faster its over with, the less it hurts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.27.250 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

American cars suck

I have visited the US on a couple of occasions, and what you see in showroom forecourts is a joke - and probably a gas-guzzling joke at that. The country's politicians have been bought by the auto industry and, as a result, the simpering sycophants in Washington never had the balls to tax gasoline appropriately. A realistic tax would have meant that the revenue actually required to maintain the roads network would have been raised, and the American public would have brought pressure to bear on manufacturers to provide more fuel economic models. Instead we've had politicians saying, "please make more fuel efficient vehicles". The industry response is, "here's a cheerleader who can suck golfballs through a hosepipe - forget the legislation". Frankly, this rent-a-representative bullshit is what caused the problem.

Now these dinosaurs are begging for money because of craptacular business decisions. Not just from the American government, but from European countries where they have subsidiaries. These subsidiaries, such as Saab, are, and for the most part remain, profitable business units. Obviously if the Swedish government heeds this begging for bailout money they won't see it spent in their country, it will help the American divisions. It would better serve their interests to let the American parent company fail, then pick up the Saab business unit at a fire-sale price and keep it in public ownership. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, that Saab has been without ANY profit for many years, and that the swedish government, because of that, refused to give the company a bailout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.118.140 (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Another update... SAAB Auto is going independent. No more GM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.241.64.118 (talk • contribs)

This is very sad

I feel sorry for the US automakers, because their cars are just as good as those made by the Japanese, but there's this stupid ideology in American that people have to go with the flow - simply sheep! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.95.198 (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)