Please go to http://www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the Join The Show link to participate.

Thanks,

Gary

The auto industry has been an uneasy partnership between the owners (represented by management) and the labor (represented by the UAW). Each party had and has an interest in seeing the success of the company. Like the owner of the goose that laid the golden eggs the union should have understood that wanting too much too quickly could lead to problems. That's the culpability that I see. I see your point as well. I would also argue we are not talking about the big three but rather the big four. Ford, GM, Chrysler, and the UAW. They are all in trouble.

A is like B, therefore A is B. It's fallacious. Note that I oppose bailing out the car companies.

Not what I was questioning.

If you're questioning the purpose of the bailout, and I think you're quite correct in doing so, it seems to me critical that the purposes of what we're bailing out be established FIRST, (As in what are the car companies for?) ...so as to correctly determine what the bailout itself is for.

That you echo what the unions have to say on the matter seems to me to expose a major flaw in your thought process... the first indication of logic trouble.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Executives of the U.S. auto industry take the brunt of public criticism for the failure of Congress to pass an auto bailout package last week, with 64% of Americans saying the auto executives deserve a great deal of the blame. However, the unions representing U.S. autoworkers are next in line, faulted by 43% of Americans -- more than the 35% who blame the Republicans in Congress.

(Emph is mine.)

Further:

That most Americans assign a high degree of blame to auto industry executives for the auto bailout's demise may not be surprising given the substantial negative publicity surrounding the way these executives handled their initial appearances before Congress leading up to the vote --

In short, the way the press is dealing with this has a great deal to do with the reax we're seeing in the polling data.

What Gallup doesn't break out, here, is the number of union members represented in the poll. Gee, ya think that would change the results of the poll?

Can we take as point one that yuor statement here mirrors what the Unions have been saying for generations?

A is like B, therefore A is B. It's fallacious.

Note that I oppose bailing out the car companies.

What I said was that those who want to give GM and Chrysler a bailout want to do so to save jobs (in management's case, their own).

In which case the bailout should not be done, since the purpose of a business is not to create or support jobs. The purpose of business is to provide return on investment. These businesses are not doing that and the bailout, in itself, will not make that happen. There is a very big question whether or not it will lead th that happening in the long run.

The purpose of an automaker is a) to build cars, or b) to provide jobs? Rhetorical question: if it was b they would be called "job makers" not "automakers." Since nobody is buying their cars it makes absolutely no sense to spend money continuing their ability to produce them.

The money could, perhaps, be more effectively spent converting that capacity to producing items which people are buying which are no longer made in this country.

Absolutely untrue and I challenge you to support that from my comment.

Can we take as point one that yuor statement here mirrors what the Unions have been saying for generations?

Management has failed at that utterly and, consequently, should already have been fired by the shareholders.

While I agree with the sentiment, it's not so clean cut as this. That relationship gets distored to the exact degree the unions are being supported by the government. A situation develops where there's no way you're going to get by without dealing with the unions on their terms. So what then is to be gained by the stockholders dismissing management?

Where's the poll question asking if the UAW is culpable in these failures and should make substantial concessions?

Exactly so, Steve. Exactly. That's the center of this whole thing. Absent that being dealt with first the rest of this is, as Jethro Tull would put it, 'love in the sink'.

Absolutely. This bailout would basically punish Ford for not hating car buyers (rather than SUV/truck buyers) quite as much as GM and Chrysler did for not quite so long

.

(Sigh) More detachment from reality. You're still stuck in the small car fantasy, are you?

Explain to us why the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world.

I agree that in order for the companies to survive that concessions from the union will be necessary. That's not the same thing as saying that the unions did anything wrong. All that happened is that management thought they could get by without being negotiators as tough as the union negotiators.

Consider, too, that giving a handout to GM and Chrysler necessarily and unfairly puts companies that aren't in as dire straits as those two at a disadvantage relative to where they would be if the handout hadn't been awarded. Are we advocating giving handouts to every auto company that builds cars domestically or just two of them?

Absolutely. This bailout would basically punish Ford for not hating car buyers (rather than SUV/truck buyers) quite as much as GM and Chrysler did for not quite so long.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that a company's primary task is to create jobs.

Absolutely untrue and I challenge you to support that from my comment. The purpose of a car company is, like that of any company, to maximize shareholder value. Management has failed at that utterly and, consequently, should already have been fired by the shareholders.

What I said was that those who want to give GM and Chrysler a bailout want to do so to save jobs (in management's case, their own). Do I really need to substantiate that? That's what every politician, columnist, blogger, and commenter I've seen who supports a bailout has said.