BlackHorse Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Oh God, that clown is back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Oh God, that clown is back? Not for long, but he's fun, while coherent. Kinda like Whack-A-Mole, but with a thicker skull. P-71 Lite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Oh God, that clown is back? Clown troll... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 You don't have proof Find one unsupported assertion I've made on this board, and I will furnish you reputable sources that support my conclusions. Until then, this is just another one of your unsupported claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Find one unsupported assertion I've made on this board, and I will furnish you reputable sources that support my conclusions. Until then, this is just another one of your unsupported claims. I think you just enjoy trouncing that clown's ridiculous claims. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I think you just enjoy trouncing that clown's ridiculous claims. lol Nah. Not when the same subjects come up over and over and over. You have to do better than this to earn a permanent suspension. Bluecon and P71 did. Shoot, I think that P71 had his first psychotic break when he got banned here. There was a time when a guy could almost but not quite have a conversation with P71. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Nah. Not when the same subjects come up over and over and over. You have to do better than this to earn a permanent suspension. Bluecon and P71 did. Shoot, I think that P71 had his first psychotic break when he got banned here. There was a time when a guy could almost but not quite have a conversation with P71. "P"s other personalities started posting on all of the other car sites under different names. Since they all shared the same abbie normal brain, all the posts sounded the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 some kind of betrayl to what really happened in Washington when the Big 3 came with hat in hand. Even if Ford ultimately didn't take the money, they certainly supported GM and Chrysler taking it for many important reasons. Let's say your neighbor was totally irresponsible and bought a house he couldn't really afford and doesn't know how to manage his finances, so he's about to be foreclosed. If he gets foreclosed the house will either sit empty for months or years wasting away or be sold for pennies on the dollar. Either way your neighbor's irresponsibility will cost you thousands of dollars. Would you go to the bank and support your neighbor getting a restructured loan so they can keep the house? Of course you would. Does that make what your neighbor did ok? Of course not. Ford managed their way out of their financial problems. The other 2 didn't. It's that simple. And none of your spin changes that fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) It's true Ford did not participate in accepting that source of government funds in the 'bailout'. However, Ford has accepted Government money in the past in the form of loans such as from the Dept of Energy and The Canadian Federal/Provincial governments have helped invest in Essex Engine to give us the lovely 5.0 just for example. The "Not built with your tax dollars" is false in a sense. Of course with a loan, you pay it back. I believe Ford has payed the loans back yet GM has claimed the same for theirs as well for example. Personally, I feel the advert is playing on over-simplifying the reality which is misleading. I felt Ford has played the moral high-ground and focused on product because product sells. If a potential customer walked into a dealership because "No tax dollars" was a motivator, fine. I feel the quality product was the closer. Edited October 1, 2011 by Hugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) It's true Ford did not participate in accepting that source of government funds in the 'bailout'. However, Ford has accepted Government money in the past in the form of loans such as from the Dept of Energy and The Canadian Federal/Provincial governments have helped invest in Essex Engine to give us the lovely 5.0 just for example. The "Not built with your tax dollars" is false in a sense. Of course with a loan, you pay it back. I believe Ford has payed the loans back yet GM has claimed the same for theirs as well for example. Personally, I feel the advert is playing on over-simplifying the reality which is misleading. I felt Ford has played the moral high-ground and focused on product because product sells. If a potential customer walked into a dealership because "No tax dollars" was a motivator, fine. I feel the quality product was the closer. The difference is that Ford cleaned up their own mess, while GM sat in their own shit and waited for others to clean them up. Sitting on $32 billion cash and letting tax payers lose with every sale of their company's lousy stock...that really sucks big time. Edited October 1, 2011 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 The difference is that Ford cleaned up their own mess, while GM sat in their own shit and waited for others to clean them up. Sitting on $32 billion cash and letting tax payers lose with every sale of their company's lousy stock...that really sucks big time. Would Ford have avoided bankruptcy if GM and Chrysler weren't bailed out? I don't think so. The only rational explanation for their support of the GM/Chrysler bailouts is that they don't think so either. Federal bailouts created an environment in which Ford could succeed, when they could not have otherwise. Can you truly say "they did it on their own" if their avoidance of bankruptcy is predicated on federal bailouts, albeit of a competitor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) Would Ford have avoided bankruptcy if GM and Chrysler weren't bailed out? I don't think so. The only rational explanation for their support of the GM/Chrysler bailouts is that they don't think so either. Federal bailouts created an environment in which Ford could succeed, when they could not have otherwise. Can you truly say "they did it on their own" if their avoidance of bankruptcy is predicated on federal bailouts, albeit of a competitor? Go back a step, how much support was Ford expecting the government to give GM and Chrysler? GM and Chrysler originally asked the government for loans, not CH 11 refinancing, that is what Ford was supporting.... I seriously doubt that Ford would have ever supported a makeover of GM that gave them such a huge advantage in the market place by eliminating practically all of their debts and giving them plenty of cash reserves, can you imagine Ford agreeing to any of that? No, Ford supported government loans like they did to Chrysler and Fiat, not the complete rejuvenation of a major competitor like GM. IMO, the government helped GM way too much and I think that's the reason you're now seeing true feelings leak out of Ford.... Edited October 1, 2011 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Go back a step, how much support was Ford expecting the government to give GM and Chrysler? GM and Chrysler originally asked the government for loans, not CH 11 refinancing, that is what Ford was supporting.... I seriously doubt that Ford would have ever supported a makeover of GM that gave them such a huge advantage in the market place by eliminating practically all of their debts and giving them plenty of cash reserves, can you imagine Ford agreeing to any of that? No, Ford supported government loans like they did to Chrysler and Fiat, not the complete rejuvenation of a major competitor like GM. IMO, the government helped GM way too much and I think that's the reason you're now seeing true feelings leak out of Ford.... That's certainly possible, I don't remember off-hand hearing anything from Ford about the Chapter 11 deal. Do you (or anyone) have any links to any official statements or high-level interviews about the subject? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) That's certainly possible, I don't remember off-hand hearing anything from Ford about the Chapter 11 deal. Do you (or anyone) have any links to any official statements or high-level interviews about the subject? There's a lot on public record including Mulally's testimony. In addition to our plan, we are also here today to request support for the industry. In the near-term, Ford does not require access to a government bridge loan. However, we request a credit line of $9 billion as a critical backstop or safeguard against worsening conditions as we drive transformational change in our company. 1) Mulally requested support for the industry...... 2) He used the terms "Government bridge loan" and "Credit line" 3) those terms carry an implicit intention of loaned money, terms of repayment and interest on borrowings I get the distinct Impression that he and Ford thought that government bridge loans would be extended to GM and Chrysler.... Instead, GM was split into two, the best parts saved and debt liability for New entity reduced to around $12 billion A huge Escrow fund was given to new GM to pay down those debts and provide a cash float... Can you really see Ford being pleased by any of that? Not when Ford was carrying over $30 billion in debt but he couldn't then go and recant support, they were "trapped". Edited October 1, 2011 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) There's a lot on public record including Mulally's testimony. 1) Mulally requested support for the industry...... 2) He used the terms "Government bridge loan" and "Credit line" 3) those terms carry an implicit intention of loaned money, terms of repayment and interest on borrowings I get the distinct Impression that he and Ford thought that government bridge loans would be extended to GM and Chrysler.... Instead, GM was split into two, the best parts saved and debt liability for New entity reduced to around $12 billion A huge Escrow fund was given to new GM to pay down those debts and provide a cash float... Can you really see Ford being pleased by any of that? Not when Ford was carrying over $30 billion in debt but he couldn't then go and recant support, they were "trapped". Right right, I've got all that - what I was asking is, did Ford ever say anything publicly about the terms of GM's chapter 11 deal? I have yet to find anything indicating that Ford's executives ever publicly commented that GM's deal was unfair or put them at a disadvantage. For example, in August 2009: Barron's: You've managed to keep Ford out of bankruptcy. But has this put your company at a disadvantage against Chrysler and GM, which have used the bankruptcy process to reduce debt, dealers and workers?Mulally: No, the bankruptcies at GM and Chrysler haven't put us at a disadvantage. Yes, they have negotiated deals with the UAW and restructured debt. But it's not my perception that GM and Chrysler have more strength in dealing with the union. If it would have been an advantage for us to go to bankruptcy, we would have gone to bankruptcy. But we think that we can recreate a viable company without that, and we are already on that path. Every company has a slightly different business model. We negotiated things that were important to us. They negotiated things that were important to them. http://online.barron...nel_article%3D1 Or this quote from October 2009 which suggests Ford still considered itself to be at an advantage following the GM/Chrysler bankruptcies: DL: To pick up on the cash point, how important do you think it is for Ford to have avoided filing for Chapter 11?AM: It's one of the biggest advantages that we have because what the consumers are telling us is that they absolutely want the cars and trucks that they value and appreciate; but right behind that they want to know that they are buying from a strong business, a company that is going to be there for them, that has a long-term perspective, that is going to continue to invest. They want to know that you are creating a strong business. ... DL: How do you communicate that kind of message while maintaining a kind of sensitivity to the plight of your rivals? AM: Information is ubiquitous and everybody knows who has been in Chapter 11. I have seen surveys suggesting that 97% of the adult population in the US knows that GM and Chrysler have been bankrupt. And they also know that through this process they are owned by the US government, which means they are using taxpayers' money to try and recover. They also know that Ford is not doing that and has a viable business. http://www.just-auto...n_id101792.aspx Doesn't much sound to me like someone sour over the terms of their competitor's bankruptcy... Edited October 2, 2011 by Noah Harbinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Would Ford have avoided bankruptcy if GM and Chrysler weren't bailed out? I don't think so. The only rational explanation for their support of the GM/Chrysler bailouts is that they don't think so either. Federal bailouts created an environment in which Ford could succeed, when they could not have otherwise. Can you truly say "they did it on their own" if their avoidance of bankruptcy is predicated on federal bailouts, albeit of a competitor? Try looking at it another way. Let's say GM and Chrysler didn't need any help. Would Ford have made it on their own? Absolutely. Those government loans were an incentive to convert older plants to produce newer more fuel efficient vehicles - they were offered to everyone and they were loans, not gifts that will be paid back with interest. Go back and read my example of the neighbor with the pending house foreclosure. Just because you support someone getting help doesn't mean they didn't screw up in the first place. I don't understand the issue. Ford managed their own way out of their problems. GM and Chrysler did not - they needed help. Period! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) I don't understand the issue. Ford managed their own way out of their problems. GM and Chrysler did not - they needed help. Period! GM got a huge financial surge past Ford, the government and tax payers got screwed but guess what? Ford brass aren't complaining about it and I tip my hat to them for acting that way.. A few caustic remarks in an advertisement is just gentle prodding and probably a reflection of attitude in the community.. The rest is all water under the bridge. Edited October 2, 2011 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Try looking at it another way. Let's say GM and Chrysler didn't need any help. Would Ford have made it on their own? Absolutely. Those government loans were an incentive to convert older plants to produce newer more fuel efficient vehicles - they were offered to everyone and they were loans, not gifts that will be paid back with interest. Go back and read my example of the neighbor with the pending house foreclosure. Just because you support someone getting help doesn't mean they didn't screw up in the first place. I don't understand the issue. Ford managed their own way out of their problems. GM and Chrysler did not - they needed help. Period! To extend your analogy, GM/Chrysler's chapter 11 would be like half your neighbors getting loan modifications, instead of being foreclosed on, at a time when you happen to be trying to sell your house. You're benefiting a ton from your neighbors' assistance, since you're not gonna have a shot in hell at getting a decent price if half the homes in your neighborhood are selling as REOs. Now in that situation, you come along afterwards and claimed you sold for a good price because you avoided foreclosure - ignoring that you would have had to sell at a loss if your neighbors hadn't gotten assistance. To pretend that your outcome rests solely on your own virtues, you have to be either a self-righteous prick or flat-out lying. And that's how I see Ford in this situation, and that's why it grates on me so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 ...the government and tax payers got screwed... Honestly, with 900,000 employees, if the payroll and income taxes of GM's employees since the first bailouts haven't already surpassed for the cost of loans and the feds' stake in GM, it probably won't take too long to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) Honestly, with 900,000 employees, if the payroll and income taxes of GM's employees since the first bailouts haven't already surpassed for the cost of loans and the feds' stake in GM, it probably won't take too long to do so. Nope, GM has around 209,000 workers world wide... In the USA, GM has 49,000 UAW members and around 10,000 to 15,000 white collar workers After the new GM was formed, it was given a $45.4 billion tax exemption that could leave it tax-free for years, it will be able to shield its future profits using past losses using so-called "tax-loss carry-forwards Edited October 2, 2011 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Check out this NYT article: "On the Road to Detroit’s Big Pileup" “HI, Bill, it’s Rick Wagoner. You know, I think it’s really time we put our companies together.” Bill Ford wasn’t sure he’d heard right. Mr. Wagoner, the chairman and chief executive of General Motors, wanted to talk about a merger between Ford and G.M.? He did. Mr. Wagoner and his operating chief, Fritz Henderson, would come by to talk. Mr. Ford was stunned. He knew G.M. was desperate. But even now, in July 2008, he had no idea it was this desperate. And he couldn’t snub Rick Wagoner. Sure, Mr. Ford said. Come on over, and bring Fritz. The idea had been the subject of theoretical debate for years. What if G.M. and Ford joined forces? Even in their shrunken state, they would have a combined 38 percent share of the United States market, and a huge international presence. All that purchasing power, manufacturing muscle and technical skill under one roof. Thousands of overlapping jobs could be eliminated. Painful as that might be, it could save billions. Chrysler? Forget it. Instead of a Big Three, there would be a Big One. But could it even be done? G.M. and Ford had competed head-on for decades. This was not just a rivalry. This was opposite sides of town, you-stay-on-yours-and-I’ll-stay-on-mine. So, as a practical matter, a merger had never been seriously considered — until now. Bill Ford didn’t like the sound of it. G.M. must be in serious trouble if its executives were coming to Ford for help or answers. The idea of a merger nauseated him. The U.A.W. would go nuts. Mr. Ford spoke with his C.E.O., Alan R. Mulally, and they agreed that they had to talk to G.M., if only to find out what was going on. Mr. Wagoner’s approach was out of character. Maybe G.M. was in even worse shape than it was letting on. The meeting that followed would profoundly affect the course of both automakers. Mr. Wagoner and Mr. Henderson arrived with Ray Young, G.M.’s chief financial officer. Don Leclair, Ford’s C.F.O., joined, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) Check out this NYT article: "On the Road to Detroits Big Pileup" HI, Bill, its Rick Wagoner. You know, I think its really time we put our companies together. Bill Ford wasnt sure hed heard right. Mr. Wagoner, the chairman and chief executive of General Motors, wanted to talk about a merger between Ford and G.M.? He did. Mr. Wagoner and his operating chief, Fritz Henderson, would come by to talk. Mr. Ford was stunned. He knew G.M. was desperate. But even now, in July 2008, he had no idea it was this desperate. And he couldnt snub Rick Wagoner. Sure, Mr. Ford said. Come on over, and bring Fritz. The idea had been the subject of theoretical debate for years. What if G.M. and Ford joined forces? Even in their shrunken state, they would have a combined 38 percent share of the United States market, and a huge international presence. All that purchasing power, manufacturing muscle and technical skill under one roof. Thousands of overlapping jobs could be eliminated. Painful as that might be, it could save billions. Chrysler? Forget it. Instead of a Big Three, there would be a Big One. But could it even be done? G.M. and Ford had competed head-on for decades. This was not just a rivalry. This was opposite sides of town, you-stay-on-yours-and-Ill-stay-on-mine. So, as a practical matter, a merger had never been seriously considered until now. Bill Ford didnt like the sound of it. G.M. must be in serious trouble if its executives were coming to Ford for help or answers. The idea of a merger nauseated him. The U.A.W. would go nuts. Mr. Ford spoke with his C.E.O., Alan R. Mulally, and they agreed that they had to talk to G.M., if only to find out what was going on. Mr. Wagoners approach was out of character. Maybe G.M. was in even worse shape than it was letting on. The meeting that followed would profoundly affect the course of both automakers. Mr. Wagoner and Mr. Henderson arrived with Ray Young, G.M.s chief financial officer. Don Leclair, Fords C.F.O., joined, too. Thankfully, Bill Ford and Alan Mulally didn't let Wagoner get his hands on Ford. That book looks like a great read. Edited October 2, 2011 by Mark B. Morrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Nope, GM has around 209,000 workers world wide... In the USA, GM has 49,000 UAW members and around 10,000 to 15,000 white collar workers After the new GM was formed, it was given a $45.4 billion tax exemption that could leave it tax-free for years, it will be able to shield its future profits using past losses using so-called "tax-loss carry-forwards That's why I specifically said: the payroll and income taxes of GM's employees As for the number of employees, can't remember where I saw it -- that must have included dealerships and suppliers, or something like that - pulled together for marketing purposes to be sure, but certainly relevant to the number of people who would have lost their jobs if GM had liquidated instead of going through chapter 11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Last thought on the topic: Suppose GM had been liquidated -- where in the world is the only place besides the federal government that had vast sums of liquidity in mid-2009, and has also been showing an interest in getting into the US car market? Imagine if GM where flying the flag of China at their headquarters today? Renaming vehicles from Chery to Chevy would not have been such a difficult transition, after all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Thankfully, Bill Ford and Alan Mulally didn't let Wagoner get his hands on Ford. That book looks like a great read. He'd have gutted Ford for anything of value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.