kamui Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 The trickle down effect of the collapse of the Big Three will affect the daily life of millions of Americans, especially in small town America. Besides the loss of millions of Jobs, in small cities the car dealerships are often the ones who pay a great share of local taxes, support schools, sports, e.g.. Also don't underestimate the psychological effect, the death of the US core industry of the 20th century will have nationally and internationally. One more step down for the global US leadership... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pom Michael Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Why not tell the banks that "borrowed" our 700 billion to "lend" the 25 billion or so to the car companies - then let the banks manage like they should to get their money back under the same guidelines that they received (no dividends until paid back in full, etc..) Seems like a nice solution to a messy problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 All political posturing and bullshit. Something has to be done so it will be done, just a matter of what else they can squeeze out of it along the way. All part of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drogon Posted December 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 I am not an American so I am a bit puzzled... Both sides seem to have good arguments, badly managed businesses have to be left dying, potential impact for the country and its people. If some further serious studies (I don't believe the predictions of the big 3 CEO) show the impact on the USA could be tremendous, will it change the mind of enough senators? What a country would have to do if faced with a dilemna, either facing ruin by not helping or having to spend huge amounts of money hoping this industry can reform by itself? I am egoistically very happy not to be a US citizen at the moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Maybe violence & anarchy is what is needed. Help out the Big 3, what will change? Will the CEOs give up their private jets? Will CEOs give up the bonus money? Will CEOs get paid the same as say the Japanese CEOs, which means making about 1/10 of what they are now paid? If major changes are not made by big business, the banks and the US gov, we will be back to the same mess again. Put the bailout on a ballot and let the US citizens decide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Drogon, I believe that the Senators in question are blinded by their ideology, i.e., they think like RY and no amount of anything will change that. PM, that *should* be what happens, but the banks who took the money to open credit have changed their minds and are now just sitting on it unless giving it away as thinly disguised bonuses. Fine job Congress, agreeing to no oversight on those "loans." Which makes this Big 3 thing even more infuriating to me -- purely a class war IMHO. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartThais Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 I don't think the Big 3 should be allowed to fail. I just don't think the govt should step in through direct lending at very low rates. How do they expect the banks to start lending if they become essentially a direct competitor offering 5% loans? Banks want to lend. They were basically forced to borrow money at 5% due to TARP whether they wanted it or not. What's keeping them from lending is that they can't come to agreement with borrowers on rates and terms. As long as the gov't is a better alternative, we'll never know what the market rate should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Uh, enlighten me. Banks were *forced* to take TARP money? Link? Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartThais Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/business/economy/15bailout.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&adxnnlx=1228971554-GCq4RMcdp2MV3foNb1aYJA It's no secret. Paulson's brilliant idea was that if TARP funds were optional, the market might see the banks taking money as weak and would cause further chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Ahhh, stupidity reigns supreme! Thanks, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.