GM facts and fiction

[53flyingcloud]

Originally Posted by Larry in MO

Actually, the Nike missiles were long and skinny-about 10 or 11' long and were a foot, or so, in diameter. Maybe you're thinking of the Atlas. It was about 10' in diameter as I recall. I think the Eisenhower theory was that men and machinery could be moved around w/out a lot of trouble.

The Nike missile system was originally built as an anti-aircraft weapons system. They were housed in silos in the ground and were basically ringing large cities. The first one was the Nike Ajax followed in 1958 w/ the Nike Hercules which was made to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles. The Nike Zeus, later renamed Spartan, came around in the late 60's. All of these things were installed in concrete silos and had a command center for 12 or 14 of these silo sights. These centers were manned 24 hours a day but the silos usually were not. If the need arose, a concrete and steel door would move off the underground silo and the missile would be launched.

Once the missiles were in the ground, there were not moved unless they were upgraded. The area south of Kansas City had a bunch of sites. They were identifed as a square chain link fenced area about 200' square w/ a gravel drive and a blue number such as D-13 on the fence. There are several of these sites w/ 15 miles of my house. I grew up around these things (I live across the road from a decommissioned command center now-KC 30, if you're interested) and it wasn't a big deal. If it got boring, we used to walk up to the wire and shake it really hard and then run. Usually, in about 20 minutes, a helicopter w/ armed air force APs would arrive. Great fun!

See: Microsoft TerraServer Imagery

The command center is about 1/4 mile south of where the E-W road curves S. It is the rectangular area just south of the trees. The buildings are to the west. I live just across the E-W road but the house wasn't there in1996.

Sorry about the lesson but it was pretty neat to be in the middle of all of this. It was not a big deal--just the air force and their missiles down the street. What could be neater?

Greetings Larry~
My experiences was so much different than yours. When I was a teenager, due to relatives, I got to visit one Nike site in the Tidewater, Va. area. It was manned by the ARMY personnel, not the US Air Force.
ciao
53FC

[Gene]

I don't think the alternatives in the GM mess are a good vs. bad one. They're all shades of bad. The question seems to be: what are the losses for the various solutions and which are the least bad?

I am no longer clear on whether it's a $25 B or $ 50 B bailout. The first $25 B was to encourage green cars, the second may subsume the first, or be separate as a bridge loan. So whether it's 25 or 50 is up in the air. If the Big Whatever (2.5, 2.8, or 3) get the bucks to last for a while, what are the costs to the society vs. the costs if they go under? What are the chances they will go under? What if one or two go under, and one or two don't? Will they go bankrupt under Chapter 11 (debtor in possession, thus continue to operate under supervision of the bankruptcy court) or under Chapter 7 (dissolution, also under court supervision and what will that mean?—everyone out of a job, parts of the business sold and continues, etc.)?

How many jobs will be lost in each scenario? How many homes will be foreclosed on? How many suppliers will go broke? How many dealerships will close? How many communities and even states will suffer? Seems like every scenario means a loss.

Is it better we loan them $25 B now knowing they have less than an even chance to survive one year because it will actually cost the country less than letting them die in the next 3 months? Do we know how long they will survive? If we give them the other $25 B for green cars and trucks, who will own the technology for those cars and trucks if the rest of the company goes away? Maybe it should be us.

Is there a moral danger in loaning money to executives who have failed? But have they failed as much as they appear to? If the financial industry had not made such a mess of things, maybe the auto companies would not be in this mess. So, maybe, the auto executives are failures, but not as much a failure as the financial execs, and thus, if we loan money to the financial failures because we can't afford a collapse of the banks, why can't we loan money to an industry so important to the country's manufacturing sector? Is the failure of the execs the way to measure whether to help the industry and all the ancillary companies and communities?

Shall be we keep them alive so we can convert them into manufacturing for a green energy and transportation industry? In WWII the auto industry rapidly converted to making war products—they had too and it was patriotic. Why can't it be done again? Otherwise we are going to have start with creating those new industries anyway and it seems less efficient to not use existing factories and workers.

If they go into bankruptcy, why should we believe a bankruptcy judge is going to make sense of this? Bankruptcy judges will take a lot of time to gear up to supervise the industry and we don't have a lot of time to solve this.

There are a lot of numbers being thrown around, but this all seems so complex and full of variables, I don't think we will know with any exactitude the actual results until we live through whatever happens. Waiting until we have the numbers means we've made a decision not to do anything. This is an uncomfortable dilemma.

All the choices (and they don't feel much like choices) are ugly. I think they need to be made without ideology. There are people who can crunch numbers and though they could be wrong, it's the best we've got to determine what to do by asking them (economists):

What costs the country the least and brings us the best chance at an outcome that is desirable.

What is the outcome desired? To me it is saving as many jobs as possible (thus helping the real estate market, providing health care, and economically healthy communities), converting excess capacity to other, though related manufacturing which I think could be renewable energy (solar, wind, etc.), green transport (vastly improved mileage for personal vehicles, mass transit, a national passenger rail system that works as well as it does in Europe), and creating confidence by having a hopeful plan and making it happen. Consumer confidence is a big part of the equation. When FDR became president he was good at instilling confidence in the people and recreating a belief in America. That helped a lot. Right now the perception is nothing much is being done, and what is being done, only favors rich bankers. That needs to change because without support from the public, nothing will work.

It really is better to act than watch the whole thing fall apart. That was tried in 1929-32 and it didn't work. Actually, some things were tried (Reconstruction Finance Corp., for ex.) and they were not close to being enough.

This is not a question of either laissez faire economics or socialism without other possibilities. To call any regulation socialism is to ignore all the possibilities in between. It is also intellectual reductionism. To call it a "command economy" is to confuse communism (which, it can be argued is nothing more than state capitalism combined with a political dictatorship) with socialism and anything to the right of it. What came out of FDR's New Deal was a blend of things and it worked though things were such a mess, it took a long time. After WWII, a greater percentage of people became members of the middle class than ever and this nation prospered as never before. Simultaneously, Western Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan also prospered much like we did. Those countries have single payer health insurance and somewhat more regulation. They are all democracies and have a regulated capitalism. By some measures, some of those countries are more prosperous than the US is. As some of the regulations here and in some of those countries (Great Britain for ex.) have been eliminated, middle class prosperity has declined for the first time since the Great Depression. To go back to the 1920's or 1800's is incomprehensible to me. It is to ignore the lessons of the period 1933 to the 1960's.

Gene

[craftsman]

Originally Posted by Journalist

This coming from the guy who is towing a travel trailer with a motorhome. Hmmmm.... That's got to be the pinnacle of efficiency.
You're right, there are much more efficient ways to travel and, since this is a website dedicated to campers, to go camping. Problem is, Americans don't want to give up their large vehicles for a teenie little econobox for the same reason no one on here is willing to give up their Airstream for a tent. Are you willing to trade your rig for this?

Not for that but maybe for this

[mrmossyone]

Gene I'll have to get back to this, right now I'm laughing to hard.

"I think they need to be made without ideology."

Yeah that'll happen.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by mrmossyone

"I think they need to be made without ideology."

Yeah that'll happen.

I agree that'll be difficult, but I surely would never get ideological, it's always the other guy.

I'm not sure whether you were laughing at the tents, but probably at my hopeful statement. I'm done with tents. The ground was much softer when I was young. First it was curl around the rocks, then a thin foam pad, then those pads that blow themselves up, then the air mattress, now the luxury trailer. Not ready for the hospital bed yet, but I guess it ends there. Wish I could have a private jet. There may be some available 2nd hand in Detroit soon.

Gene

[jimmini]

Originally Posted by thatscool

I am not shocked that some dont want to LOAN the auto companies money. Those mean spirited posts like the one from "Ganaraska" are hurtful. I am a union member, thats how I support my children, thats how I hope to send them to college so they can get a better education than I had. So someday my son could take advantage of his many talents. So what your saying is you just dont care that my ex wife will lose her home because I cant pay child support? and next year it will be forgotton?
What do you do for a living? if your going to attack others, put your rate of pay for us to see and evaluate. Ill tell you if your worth it. Where do you work? I would like to post sensless negative posts over the internet in high hopes I may ruin you financially!

Sorry but it union folk like you that are just PART of the problem.
Why is the UAW not out in front trying to save the company and their members job?The people that run the unions are just like the people that run the auto companies they only want to line their pocket and care not one bit about you,but they talked you into thinking they do.The heads of the unions and auto companies will all come out with your $$$$ in their pockes and will not need to work another day in their life when the ship sinks.But most of they X members will.Remember it is UAW members that help turn out the poor quality cars.
I was an A&P Aircraft Mechanic for 54 year.My first 7 years was at American Airlines under a union that did ME no good, not once.The rest of the years I never had a job that lasted over 7 years.But every job I had I made my owen deals to work.I never let a unionor or Government make deals for me.Never took 1 $ of unemployment.
I retired at 72 .I have my home,Airstream trailer,and cars paid for.I have had a good life and I have no one to blame for any thing in live but me not the Government ,not a union, only me.
Worst of all WHY am I even looking at or writting at this thread? What a waste of my time.

[Over59]

GM and Ford can not make it with the contracts they agreed to over the years. Therefore they should go out of business so another company can make cars and trucks. As long as they were the big deal with little or no competition they could agree to anything amoungst themselves because Americans would pay what they had to for a car to get to work. One way or another those contracts will be voided and the guy on top with get a bonus. The Dem's know it has to be and that the UAW will be unhappy. They are all playing sudden death chicken hoping they get reelected, their executive bonus's and retirements, and the auto companies stay in business. It's always been in the interest of the executive types to agree to excessive pay and benefits because they always got more...... Therefore they should pay the price as well...
Have USA trucks, never will buy another USA designed or built car....

If you visit Europe and rent a car it will likly be a compact turbo diesel. In the ten years between my visits the exhaust of these has all but disappeared in most areas. Then there are the BMW's. How about a diesel Chrysler Caravan style van. The whole system that would get pushed needs a good push so vested interest in inferior invented here technology can be put in the dusk bin.

[cooperhawk]

Well, I have a rather novel solution to the problems of the big 3. The amount of money suggested to bail them out is HUGE! It amounts to several thousand dollars for every man woman and child in the US. What does the consumer get for this money. NOTHING!

Maybe, and I mean maybe the auto industry will survive with the bail out. Maybe not. We've already seen what the AIG execs did with the money. PARTY!!!

How about this. Instead of giving the money to the auto industry, Let's offer every American citizen several thousand dollars if they will buy a vehicle from one of the big 3. Well, maybe it should just be a US manufactured vehicle. No stipulations as to what type or brand. Just American made. Not assembled in Mexico, ect. JUST MADE IN AMERICA!!!

Benefits:
1. We each can buy a new vehicle.
2. The auto industry sells off existing inventory.
3. The workers have work to do building new vehicles for all of us.
4. Lots of older less fuel efficient vehicles are off the road.
5. Auto Manufacturers have to COMPETE to sell the vehicles.
6. The US economy is jump started!
7. Consumers find out that US built vehicles are built very well.
8. No tax payer money pays for any parties directly.
9. All of the infrastructures surrounding the industry are saved.

It's a win, win. If some of you who have no faith in American made vehicles don't want to buy one. You don't have to. You just don't get the money.

[overlander63]

Originally Posted by cooperhawk

How about this. Instead of giving the money to the auto industry, Let's offer every American citizen several thousand dollars if they will buy a vehicle from one of the big 3. Well, maybe it should just be a US manufactured vehicle. No stipulations as to what type or brand. Just American made. Not assembled in Mexico, ect. JUST MADE IN AMERICA!!!
It's a win, win. If some of you who have no faith in American made vehicles don't want to buy one. You don't have to. You just don't get the money.

The dealers could treat it like a rebate, right off the price of the vehicle at the time of purchase, just like they do with factory rebates now.
It would be easy to tell American-made vehicles, their VINs start with "1".

[cooperhawk]

Originally Posted by Over59

If you visit Europe and rent a car it will likly be a compact turbo diesel.

By the way. Our toad is a VW Jedda Turbo Diesel. 46 mpg. They are available in America after all.

You can blame the CAFE Standards for their non-existance in America. The US CAFE standards are the most restrictive in the world. Who do we blame for that. Try the Environmentalists! The biggest enemies America has ever had.

Okay, I am an environmentalist myself. But I am able to see the folly of the excessives that the likes of the Sierra Club and Earth First promote. Why do they get away with it. WE LET THEM! We even donate money to them. I have in the past, but no more. They have fallen over the precipice of bad judgement. Most view their crusade as a religeon! They have no touch with reality!

[flashbackk]

Originally Posted by jimmini

......Never took 1 $ of unemployment.
I retired at 72 .I have my home,Airstream trailer,and cars paid for.I have had a good life and I have no one to blame for any thing in live but me not the Government ,not a union, only me.
Worst of all WHY am I even looking at or writting at this thread? What a waste of my time.

I am very impressed. You do quite well for having no pension , social security or helath care I assume. Bless you. I wish I was in such good shape.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by cooperhawk

Well, I have a rather novel solution to the problems of the big 3. The amount of money suggested to bail them out is HUGE! It amounts to several thousand dollars for every man woman and child in the US.

If you divide 300,000,000 Americans into $25,000,000,000 the answer is $83.33 each. This won't pay for the title and dealer stuff they tack onto the price. It's the $700,000,000,000 bank bailout that is something over $2,000 per person.



Gene

[RedSHED]

Originally Posted by cooperhawk

By the way. Our toad is a VW Jedda Turbo Diesel. 46 mpg. They are available in America after all.

You can blame the CAFE Standards for their non-existance in America. The US CAFE standards are the most restrictive in the world. Who do we blame for that. Try the Environmentalists! The biggest enemies America has ever had.

Okay, I am an environmentalist myself. But I am able to see the folly of the excessives that the likes of the Sierra Club and Earth First promote. Why do they get away with it. WE LET THEM! We even donate money to them. I have in the past, but no more. They have fallen over the precipice of bad judgement. Most view their crusade as a religeon! They have no touch with reality!

Point of detail, not to take away from the substance of the post, parts of which sound right to me and parts of which I may not agree. CAFE stands for "Corporate Average Fuel Economy" and has very little to do with emissions.
It is the combination of California emissions standards and (until recently) high sulfur diesel fuel that made certification here very difficult. This has changed somewhat since 2007 (ULSD). Certification is two parts: the amount, and the process of certification. US and California OBD are MUCH more difficult standards to meet (demonstration) than Euro, at least this is my understanding. That is, even when - on or about 2015 - the Euro and US emissions standards (in terms of what comes out of the tailpipe) are effectively the same, the certification process will still likely be more expensive here.
One "bailout" along those lines, would be to allow any manufacturer to replace one lost truck sale with a sub 3000 lb car that meets Euro emissions and NCAP 3 star standards. This would cost us essentially nothing, but allow the 3 to experiment and see what actually does sell. Since it would apply to all manufacturers, it could avoid tariff and WTO action as well.
Just a thought.

[overlander63]

Guys, we don't want to get the thread closed. Let's keep it on-topic, without hitting below the belt.

[thatscool]

For the last 30 years do you know what the life expectancy has been for a retired auto worker? 5 yrs. thats why the union fought for health insurance. The uaw did you no good perhaps, but you were not working in conditions to where the haze and oil were so bad nside the plants that you could barely see the other side of the factory.
I would like to post more, put more thought into my reply, but Iam going to see the orchestra tonight with my girlfriend who is a ceo of a company that makes surgical masks. She makes well over 350k a year, she just got a 60,000 dollar bonus. Her plant is non union. her employees do the 8.00 hr thing. She just bought a new car and yes it was American! and yes she is buying dinner!...lol

I will be back tomorrow. so until then...have a coke, and a smile!

[wheel interested]

What about a different direction here. Do small cars kill? I burn more gas but drive fewer miles because of it. But I do feel more protected. Alot of that safety being built into the cars is heavy as well, as with side air bags, isn't it? But just having a big car it isn't going to crumple up as tight and small, is it? And there will be plenty of older vehicles still around to reak havoc, won't there. I drove a Geo once, rented it. I felt I was sitting on the ground. High speed driving and the interchanges and I felt more like a sitting duck in a little put-put.

About 50 percent of all occupant deaths occur in single-vehicle crashes. Extra mass in a car involved in a collision with a tree or a bridge abutment or a brick wall is incredibly protective. You find differences in survival rates between sub-compacts and large cars on the order of four times as great or eight times as great, a four to eight times DELETE 'THE' higher death rate in very small cars as in the larger cars. There is simply no question whatsoever that in single-vehicle crashes larger, heavier cars are safer.

The other half of all occupant deaths, however, occurs in multi-car collisions, largely in two-car collisions, and there the issue gets a little more complicated.

In multi-car collisions adding mass to your car protects you more but it does put the occupants of the other car at somewhat greater risk. And so the question is, what is the net effect?

When the two cars involved in that multi-car collision are pretty much identical, larger mass helps the occupants of both cars. When they're not identical but are still pretty similar to each other, adding mass to your car protects you. It tends to hurt the occupants of the other car, but its net effect overall is more protection, and so society benefits from added mass.

[overlander63]

Originally Posted by wheel interested

When the two cars involved in that multi-car collision are pretty much identical, larger mass helps the occupants of both cars. When they're not identical but are still pretty similar to each other, adding mass to your car protects you. It tends to hurt the occupants of the other car, but its net effect overall is more protection, and so society benefits from added mass.

With all the mass I have, I should never be injured again...

[mrmossyone]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

If you divide 300,000,000 Americans into $25,000,000,000 the answer is $83.33 each. This won't pay for the title and dealer stuff they tack onto the price. It's the $700,000,000,000 bank bailout that is something over $2,000 per person.



Gene

Narrow it down to adult tax payers and what do you get. Not just adults but those that pay taxes. Then it's more like 40-50 million adults. Plus these bailouts will go over a trillion, we all know it. See then you get about 20,000-25,000 per person. Now we're talking. I could buy a new work truck and another mower for my business, that would not only stimulate the economy but it would stimulate me as well. Oh.....this needs to be done without raising my taxes either.

[hampstead38]

The UAW contracts would not be a problem if the productivity of UAW workers was substantively greater than the productivity in foreign-owned, non-union plants. The contracts would be less of a problem if the increased cost of union labor was offset by the increased quality of union-made vehicles. The problem for GM and UAW members is that they can't beat foreign auto makers on quality or cost.

This is not a new argument, folks. We've had the same argument about "saving" manufacturing jobs for decades. It's happened with steel, textiles, etc. Yet despite the fact that a great deal of manufacturing now occurs in other countries, the standard of living in American is higher than ever. The level of income is higher than ever. Life expectancy is higher than ever. The great command economies of the world have failed (the former USSR) or slowly morphed into market economies (China). All you have to do is compare North Korea and South Korea to understand the different outcomes of a command economy and a market economy.

[mrmossyone]

Originally Posted by wheel interested

What about a different direction here. Do small cars kill? I burn more gas but drive fewer miles because of it. But I do feel more protected. Alot of that safety being built into the cars is heavy as well, as with side air bags, isn't it? But just having a big car it isn't going to crumple up as tight and small, is it? And there will be plenty of older vehicles still around to reak havoc, won't there. I drove a Geo once, rented it. I felt I was sitting on the ground. High speed driving and the interchanges and I felt more like a sitting duck in a little put-put.

About 50 percent of all occupant deaths occur in single-vehicle crashes. Extra mass in a car involved in a collision with a tree or a bridge abutment or a brick wall is incredibly protective. You find differences in survival rates between sub-compacts and large cars on the order of four times as great or eight times as great, a four to eight times DELETE 'THE' higher death rate in very small cars as in the larger cars. There is simply no question whatsoever that in single-vehicle crashes larger, heavier cars are safer.

The other half of all occupant deaths, however, occurs in multi-car collisions, largely in two-car collisions, and there the issue gets a little more complicated.

In multi-car collisions adding mass to your car protects you more but it does put the occupants of the other car at somewhat greater risk. And so the question is, what is the net effect?

When the two cars involved in that multi-car collision are pretty much identical, larger mass helps the occupants of both cars. When they're not identical but are still pretty similar to each other, adding mass to your car protects you. It tends to hurt the occupants of the other car, but its net effect overall is more protection, and so society benefits from added mass.

Carol you are correct. I will try and find the study done by the Fed. dept. of transpo. it is very telling. But here is this from a study done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Here ya go:

Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2007. Source: IIHS

Vehicle Size

Rate

Car — Small

96

Car — Midsize

62

Car — Large

64

Car — Very Large

35

Pickup — Small

104

Pickup — Large

90

Pickup — Very Large

86

SUV — Small

48

SUV — Midsize

41

SUV — Large

43

SUV — Very Large

47

My Buick Roadmaster Estate Wagon is very safe.