meazza Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 I was thinking they might "pull a chrysler" and ask for bailout money, even though they have cash sitting around. They could say they don't want to throw good money after bad. In other words, refuse to put cash into the operation. Who would bailout Toyota? I'm guessing that the bailout money is mostly for North American companies...
RLflutie7 Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 Who would bailout Toyota? I'm guessing that the bailout money is mostly for North American companies... I think so too. But, Toyota could probably say that "Toyota USA" is separate than "Toyota Japan" They probably are separate entities. But the money gets sent back to Japan. I'm just thinking too much. Just a thought.
John Adams Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 What I'm saying is that they could be lying to you. Like false financial statements. Don't put it past them. Dear Mr. LaRouche: I can't believe I've wasted my time talking to you.
/dev/null Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 If they have no debt, chances are, they could survive pretty long since they don't have to worry about defaulting on their debt like certain other firms. Heheheheheheheheh, hey Beavis. You said firm.
RLflutie7 Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 Dear Mr. LaRouche: I can't believe I've wasted my time talking to you. Whose Mr. LaRouche? I've heard the name. Fill me in.
RLflutie7 Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 Dear Mr. LaRouche: I can't believe I've wasted my time talking to you. You are not dealing with the US gov't.
/dev/null Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472304,00.html Oh how those fat cat CEOs love their golf courses while the working union man suffers
KD in CA Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472304,00.html Oh how those fat cat CEOs love their golf courses while the working union man suffers Gee, I'm shocked. I can't wait to see the lame excuses from pBills and the rest of the union sycophants.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 Gee, I'm shocked. I can't wait to see the lame excuses from pBills and the rest of the union sycophants. I think this is great... More power to 'em! See, that is the thing KD... I'd actually rather see the poor slob get perks like this... I don't begrudge them one bit... At least it is the common dude that is getting it... Much better that the salt of the earth receive these rewards. At least MORE people can enjoy it. It is NOT about equality, it never has been with me. It is about who controls things. I just hold some to a higher standard and burden... Cry and whine all you want. Nobody said life is fair. Lame... Who cares.
Tux of Borg Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472304,00.html Oh how those fat cat CEOs love their golf courses while the working union man suffers The greed from both the Corporations and Unions are responsible for this mess. On a separate note, does anybody know the unions stance on illegal aliens? As they are willing to work for less than min wage, i would think they are a threat to the unions. On the other hand, they are a large untapped resource that would be more than happy to pay union dues if let in.
finknottle Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 Who would bailout Toyota? I'm guessing that the bailout money is mostly for North American companies... I dunno... why are the US companies asking for money from Canada, Germany, and Sweden? Is this about preserving jobs in the US, or about where the headquarters are located? Don't forget, you can buy stock in the Japanese automakers too.
finknottle Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 It sounds to me like Toyota is asking for gov't help. They'll probably slash 50% of their production. I guess if you want to believe that Toyota has massive cash reserves you can. But they did increase capacity by tons, so it's hard to say they still have massive cash reserves. In 24 years operating here, Toyota has never cut back or laid off it's US workforce. All cuts in response to slowdowns have always been temp workers in Japan.
finknottle Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 Another stupid post:Why should they dump cash into Chrysler, which is a hugely risky investment? Because that's what owning and running a business is all about. What the hell do you think running a business is about, man? It's not going to always be positive. You have to ride out the bad times to get to the good times. Wow - this speaks volumes about your understanding of the free market. In for a penny, in for a pound, huh? Never cut your losses, never invest in anything unless you are prepared to put up every penny you can lay your hand on, and always double down? Just out of curiosity, what do you think of venture capitalists who pull the plug on startups they have invested in? Are they bad businessmen?
finknottle Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 I am none of those. I just landed a new job. I was unemployed, the first time in my life. I ran my own business for 10 years and I know a BS situation when I see it. I know all about risk, I've lived it. I don't like what Chrysler is pulling. They have owners that have the money to put into the business. GM does not. Regardless of all of that: YOU DON'T TREAT BUSINESS PARTNERS THAT WAY. IT'S NOT DONE THAT WAY REGARDLESS OF HOW BAD IT IS. What's so wrong with a buyout? What's so wrong with a buyout with governement money. Wall Street gets the money. You have no problem with insurance agents getting massages at a resort, but the car dealer can just can eat s--t. Last I checked AIG was insolvent. Was a gun put to their heads? Whether we are talking about auto dealerships or fast food franchises, a business partnership is exactly what it is, no more and no less. Some partnerships suck - so what? If the disadvantageous outweigh the advantages, don't buy in. If a company treats its distributors poorly, that's between them. How is it our problem? Should we have some kind of legally binding sharia for businesses, mandating that they only cut deals that meet your sense of fairness?
finknottle Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 Well we are pouring it into Iraq gleefully... What the difference with that "failed business model?" Fine - let's call it a failed business model and cut our losses. I take it you would be in favor of a bailout for companies like Blackwater? After all, there are about 200,000 Americans actually in Iraq and employed by contractors, not counting those employed directly and indirectly here in the US and dependent on Iraq business.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 Fine - let's call it a failed business model and cut our losses. I take it you would be in favor of a bailout for companies like Blackwater? After all, there are about 200,000 Americans actually in Iraq and employed by contractors, not counting those employed directly and indirectly here in the US and dependent on Iraq business. Maybe it is for the best...?? They seem to be doing a sh*tty job trying to get hot water tanks grounded so people don't die taking showers. The ones that are directly employed by the US, most of them (like some of the people I work with), would just go back to their civilian mission, where they belong and are needed more... IMO.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 Wow - this speaks volumes about your understanding of the free market. In for a penny, in for a pound, huh? Never cut your losses, never invest in anything unless you are prepared to put up every penny you can lay your hand on, and always double down? Just out of curiosity, what do you think of venture capitalists who pull the plug on startups they have invested in? Are they bad businessmen? I think we all understand the free market and can agree it is not what it is cracked up to be. All you have to turn the clock back to the late 1920's to find it in it's purest form.
finknottle Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 I think we all understand the free market and can agree it is not what it is cracked up to be. All you have to turn the clock back to the late 1920's to find it in it's purest form. I take it you also don't believe in evolution and dynamical systems like that? How about football? When you draft a guy in the first round, do you stick with him regardless of how it turns out? Or a coach convinced that his revolutionary system will work once he has the right players? And when you buy a stock, Ford or GM say, do you ride it to the bitter end, regardless of its performance or outlook later on? All of these things have one thing in common - they are experiments competing against other experiments. Not all work out, and only a fool believes in the sort of top-down investing that say's when you gamble on an investment you don't put a cap on your exposure and never get out if it doesn't succeed. I take that back - there is one very prominant sort of investor who behaves that way: big government. Once a program is started, good money will follow bad regardless of any overruns and failure that might occur.
finknottle Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 The ones that are directly employed by the US, most of them (like some of the people I work with), would just go back to their civilian mission, where they belong and are needed more... IMO. What is their civilian mission? And are there such jobs? Seems to me that maybe the autoworkers should snap them up then and save us all some money.
Chump Change Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 If the executives have to get rid of their jets then why shouldn't Goldenfinger have to get rid of his luxury resport? Ooops, I criticized the union...I'm sure I'll receive a stern rebuking from pBills, the resident union appologist.
Recommended Posts