Auto Execs Fly Corporate Jets to D.C., Tin Cups in Hand

[KSig RC]

Additionally, let's consider for a moment the message this sends going forward: if you are large enough that the fallout from your industry's collapse will have to be subsidized by the American taxpayer, there is no incentive to reduce risk or include controls to prevent massive collapse, each of which would ultimately eat into profits (providing further disincentive).

Do you really get one 'free' collapse before you're forced to insert controls to prevent MysticCat and epchick from having to pay your bills, sloughing through massive future debt because risk/reward ratios didn't need to care about the risk?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Additionally, let's consider for a moment the message this sends going forward: if you are large enough that the fallout from your industry's collapse will have to be subsidized by the American taxpayer, there is no incentive to reduce risk or include controls to prevent massive collapse, each of which would ultimately eat into profits (providing further disincentive).

Do you really get one 'free' collapse before you're forced to insert controls to prevent MysticCat and epchick from having to pay your bills, sloughing through massive future debt because risk/reward ratios didn't need to care about the risk?

This is one of my larger fears about all of this. It seems a lot of the trouble has come about through poor risk analysis, in terms of investments, mortgages, etc. Continuing a trend of bailouts across all industries would seem to shift the whole risk-benefit analysis.

Plus, I question the government's ability to step in and exercise management, even through a purportedly-savvy "car czar."

[KappaKittyCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Additionally, let's consider for a moment the message this sends going forward: if you are large enough that the fallout from your industry's collapse will have to be subsidized by the American taxpayer, there is no incentive to reduce risk or include controls to prevent massive collapse, each of which would ultimately eat into profits (providing further disincentive).

Do you really get one 'free' collapse before you're forced to insert controls to prevent MysticCat and epchick from having to pay your bills, sloughing through massive future debt because risk/reward ratios didn't need to care about the risk?

I can't believe this, but I might actually be agreeing with KSig RC here.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by KappaKittyCat

I can't believe this, but I might actually be agreeing with KSig RC here.

Ha - I'd bet we agree on the vast majority of issues (I'm much more of a pussycat than you probably imagine), and disagree more on the presentation, but I strongly think this is an angle lots of people are ignoring, so it's good to get some "+1s" on this. I mean . . . AmEx is changing over to a bank after decades of resisting disclosure, just to get in on the money grab. It has to stop somewhere, right?

[epchick]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Do you really get one 'free' collapse before you're forced to insert controls to prevent MysticCat and epchick from having to pay your bills, sloughing through massive future debt because risk/reward ratios didn't need to care about the risk?

Hey hey hey....wait a minute!!! lol. Why me?? jk. I hope I don't have to pay anyone's bills, I don't have a job, I can't even afford to pay MY bills! lol

[UGAalum94]

Can I ask some dumb questions? How/why is the failure of the latest deal being assigned to Republicans, particularly southern Republicans? Certainly, the outcome most reflects their sentiment, but if you look at the composition of the vote and the Senate, it looks pretty much like a Republican breakdown, if you assume that Republicans' logical role would have been to oppose the bill.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_autos
(read the whole article for the Republicans block angle, but here's the vote breakdown)

"The Senate rejected the bailout 52-35 on a procedural vote — well short of the 60 required — after the talks fell apart. Just 10 Republicans joined 40 Democrats and two independents in backing it. Three Democrats sided with 31 Republicans in opposition. Reid also voted "no" for procedural reasons."

Is this pretty much just self-serving spin for everyone so that people who want to be seen as pro-union or pro-US automaker can be, even though they didn't deliver any relief, and southern Republicans can spin it as delivering what their constituents wanted as well, even though if you really look at how the actual vote played out, it hardly seems like a Republican success at all? (if you start with 49 GOP members, and you lose 10 and another six or seven don't apparently vote. . . )

(And, hey Democrats, if you start with 48 members and keep them and get them all to vote and pick up 10 GOP votes and two independents, hey, guess what? you're at 60.)

But, apparently according to the media, the GOP only needs 31 people to hold the line to get what they want. I guess the recent Senate elections weren't as bad as reported for the GOP.

[PM_Mama00]

Don't think there's going to be a domino effect?

Campbell-Ewald to Slash 50-200 Jobs
Chevy's Advertising Company May Cut As Many As 200 Jobs, According To Executives

POSTED: Sunday, December 14, 2008
UPDATED: 9:18 am EST December 14, 2008



WARREN, Mich. -- Chevrolet advertising agency Campbell-Ewald will layoff 50 to 200 employees, as General Motors cuts costs.

A company spokesman would not confirm how many jobs would be cut at Campbell-Ewald's Warren branch.

The advertising company is one of Macomb County's largest corporate employers. It also has a branch in Los Angeles.

The spokesman blamed the current state of the economy for the cuts.

As of January 2008, Campbell-Ewald employed 1,300 people.


Copyright 2008 by ClickOnDetroit.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.