If you all feel so strongly that the industrial complex located out of Detroit is so vital to the defense and preservation of the US, why don't you just make it a permanent function of the US government. If it is as vital as you think it is, then it is no different than the military, and it should be treated as such. But that would be extreme, and even all of you can recognize that.

However Americans would rather choose the "third way", not quite socialism and not capitalism; rather the dirty ill defined in-between. That way we can all absolve our collective guilt in the face of failure and celebrate as nationalistic heroes in the event of success.

 

Its certainly possible that there would be some attrition in that respect. The overlap between the areas probably depends on exactly what is being made, with more overlap for something like a Humvee as compared to an F-22. The F-22 has somewhere in the range of a 1000 sub-contractors working on it, most of them highly specialized outfits that only do one thing...

Given the margins that can be made in gov't "cost plus" contracting, I think the overall impact would be minimal though. Thats not to mention that GM/Chrysler are not the only companies outside defense that are likely using those types of contract manufacturing services. Think about CAT, John Deere, the car companies that would still have plants here in the US, etc etc...

 

Rules have always been broken. In fact there are rules designed to break rules. They're called loopholes in a legal context. Only the very few are able to escape the clutches of the law. The other is government. The world is continually evolving with dangerous precedents being set each day. You might not like it. I mightn't either. When I don't like it, I know I'll get people on my back for objecting publicly. Just like your good self.

I have no qualms about Wall Street if all they did was lend money to a thriving economy and stick to dealing with their financial instruments. I do object to them handing out huge sums of money to fund political campaigns and the like. I do object to them artificially inflating oil prices. I do object to them having a pecking order above that of government. We elect the government to rule for all. Implied, the government should regulate activities of financial institutions (ya know, those offering 40 year loans to people unable to pay it back ... GM is not the only liability in this climate right now. Global Financial crisis ring a bell?).

We've been down the path before about GM's failure to deal with its endemic problems. We don't need to keep bringing it up. What I would like to read more about is the new GM. But there's a good few here who religiously put themselves and their views out in an attempt to convince others of what's right for America... as if to say all is well right now but a disaster is looming!

 

So... what's the holdup? Why didn't the company get sold to the Russian Mafia or something??? (Clue: it's about who AMERICA is willing to sell it to).

It's the Board of Directors that decide such things, not the shareholders.
Glad I could provide some amusement (I guess?). But I wasn't claiming GM factories could start churning out F22's in a crisis. Obviously such production is a very specialized business. I was speaking more about the general infrastructure (plants, personnel, operational readiness) available to make industrial goods. All the other major industrial nations have understanding they need to support and nurture their industrial capacity. Only now is America starting to take action to keep up with this global trend. If done right it will help protect our national strength and security.
That's a valid concern. But who will replace them in a crisis? Packard? ( http://www.johnpenrice.com/dnn/Packa...7/Default.aspx ). You said you are 26. I was entering USAF active duty in 1982 as an aerospace engineer, helping manage weapon system acquisitions, about the same time you were born. Aside from the 9/11 attacks, you've had a gentle and protected life in America (thru no fault of your own). In contrast, I remember wondering when the USSR was going to roll their armor over a weak and divided Europe. We came closer than a lot think, to that living He** during the 1970's. If it had happened we'd have given just about anything to boost production of conventional arms with which to fight Soviet expansion, so we didn't have to "go nuclear".

I hope we never have to fight another large-scale conventional war like WWII. I hope we never have to register our tires, ration our fuel, butter and milk, or weep over losing thousands of brave American troops in one day. But the best way to avoid it is to be ready, not snicker about how silly it all might be.

If you think wars are typically started on a cold calculated basis of logic, you're more naive than even I expected. Wars often begin on the ego of a tyrant. China for example has had a chip on its shoulder for decades about the 'rightful position of Taiwan' (under China's boot of course)... maybe they will decide soon that it's time to just take over (and while on a roll, how about Japan too). Seeing the USA as having weak industrial capacity will only spur them on.

It's not just about China either. A resurgent Russia is just as bad... witness their recent handiwork in Georgia.

Back on this thread. Not much has been said about what a GM pullout from Canada might do to relations between us and Canada. It would be problematic on a lot of levels - such as our alliance and for that matter on GM trying to sell vehicles in Canada.

 

Get off your high horse. Living through the 70's and being in the military in the 80's doesn't make you smarter than anyone else, nor him dumber/less wise/whatever than anybody else.

And for what its worth, if the Russians had "rolled their armor" through Europe (got Fulda Gap?), we would have had two options: just "rolled over" ourselves and let them do it, or gone nuclear. There was no legitimate conventional option to that scenario...no matter what you may have believed or been told as a "butter bar".

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...KRE&refer=homehttp://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/..._hXIQD984ARR00

 

It was your implication, not mine, about the intelligence of those involved in this discussion

It was nova who raised the topic of personal qualifications for this discussion, not me. I've not made any implications about his/her basic qualifications to contribute here (in contrast to your insinuations)... merely noted that I had a personal reason, based on actual American history, for being concerned about our national industrial infrastructure and its impact on national security.

Everyone's got their speculation about what might have happened in response to Soviet aggression had it come. But there are a variety of possibilities, made moreso by the perception of American industrial strength. Without it, we would indeed only have the nuclear option and that's a poor strategic posture that opens up a lot of interesting possibilities for potential adversaries.

 

Nope, you made no insinuations at all. None.

But I'll digress before someone (obviously not you) comes and whacks me upside the head....again.

 

Wow! I am impressed by the depth of analysis in this thread. A number of well articulated positions that expose just how complex this issue is.

Still looking for the "popcorn" smilie.

 

I don't elect anyone to "rule". I elect people to lead. There is a difference. Government does not overrule law. And the "rules are made to be broken" speech you gave is certainly applied everywhere - I'm not dumb. That doesn't necessarily make it right however.

If the Obama administration has a problem with bankruptcy law and how this is all supposed to work in the context of GM and Chrysler, they need to pass legislation to change that law. THAT is how an elected government is supposed to work.

 

You finally hit the nail on the head, the holdup is that there is no buyer to speak of.

The BoD that is beholden too, representatives of and morally and ethically obgligated to provide the best return on investment possible to the shareholders. If the BoD refused a sale (say $2/share today) with an imminent bankruptcy that will completely wipe out the current shareholders looming on the horizone, they could and probably would be held civilly liable for the losses incurred to the shareholders. It would not be the first time a BoDs has been held liable for being derelict in their duties...


But how does a factory that you can't readily convert to military production help? From my perspective it doesn't...

Just because the rest of the world is doing it does not make it a good idea. There's a lot of evidence they are systematically weakening their industry and overall economy with these actions. Not to mention we're talking such defense powerhouses as some of our NATO "allies" who depend on the US military for such fundamental capability as strategic airlift.

Small world to come across another aero around here


Who is snickering about anything? I want a strong national defense as much as anybody, hell my job depends on it. Throwing good money after bad just to make sure that 2 particular companies stay in the exact same **** poor state they've been in is not the way to do it, especially when it causes long term harm to the economy that lets us put forward real defense infrastructure.

For the money we pissed away on GM and Chrysler loans, we could have bough 100 more F-22s, 1000+ M1A2 Abrams tanks or nearly that many 64D Apache Longbows. Better yet we could have bought 50-60 more C-17 Globemasters to supplement our strategic airlift fleet which is rapidly wearing out.

There's any number of DoD programs where $15 billion would have been better spent and given us useful defense capability...

Based on your own statement, wars are started on the ego of tyrants and if they're not concerned with our massive combat capability, then they're sure not thinking about what our heavy industry capacity is now are they?

I can guarandamntee you that last thing any potential adversaries are looking at when considering going up against us is how many Chevy Malibu's and Dodge Chargers we can crank out. They're looking at our current combat capability, not our possible maybe combat capability 2 years from now if we manage to get the factories converted over...


A resurgent Russia thats fast on its way to crashing back to earth because the only way they had any money at all to rebuild the military was oil exports? That Russia?

 

As far as who America is willing to sell to. That has nothing to do with it. If anyone was willing to buy GM at a price point that would have made the shareholders money it would have been sold. (Clue: it' NOT about who AMERICA is willing to sell it to) Its about who is willing to buy it (Clue #2: NO ONE!!!!)

 

Well, it's the 15th. Any news?

 

Damn.....am I ever glad that I bought a lightly used 2008 GT500 last week! I have a feeling the marketplace for a factory built fun car is going to get pretty tight very soon based on these threads!

 

This thread is great! Good info and minimal bashing!!

One thing I wanted to get an opinion on, is the idea of government intervention is the root of all evil. I was under the impression that deregulation of the markets allowed the banking policies to go unchecked that created a lot of this mess. Deregulation meaning less involvement of the government in the private sector.
Unfortunately I believe that the current economy has allow the government to swing to far the other way. I think finding the correct balance will be tough if not impossible because of the speed that the market changes and the length of time it takes for government to react.

I also agree that a Chevy, Caddy GM would make them much more profitable IMO. But to say that the trickle down effect of job losses makes me cringe is an understatement.........