Should Detroit receive a bailout?

[Pangloss]

"Roger & Me" is also Moore's rawest and most compelling work. I'm guessing he's in favor of the bailout? That's ironic, albeit not very surprising. Bailouts are very appealing to many on the far left, which pretty much lives in belief that money grows on trees and jobs are a right rather than a privilege/opportunity. It's an area where they differ radically with many of their new fellow Big Tent dwellers, though.

[bascule]

"Roger & Me" is also Moore's rawest and most compelling work. I'm guessing he's in favor of the bailout? That's ironic, albeit not very surprising.

 

You aren't surprised by your guess about his position? I'd hope not. However, a quick Googling reveals you're wrong:

 

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081120/AUTO01/811200428

 

If you thought a high-profile, avowed fan of the Michigan autoworker would leap at the chance to support the Big Three's clamor for a Washington bailout, think again.

 

Michael Moore, the Flint native turned lightning-rod filmmaker, has mixed feelings about the money, the auto industry and the company, General Motors, that helped launch his film career.

[Realitycheck]

He basically takes the tack that they don't deserve it, that even amid change, they are still churning out products that nobody wants and how they are wasteful and far too slow to act.

[Pangloss]

Am I wrong, though? From that same article:

 

When King asked him why he had "mixed feelings," Moore responded: "Well, because we can't let all these people lose their jobs because of the bad decisions, the stupid decisions made by the management of these auto companies."

 

Moore suggested that Congress demand change in exchange for the money, including a call to help rebuild mass transit in the country.

[bascule]

Am I wrong, though? From that same article:

 

If you completely ignore the opinion he gave before being prompted by the reporter as to why he isn't completely against the bailout and instead claims he has "mixed feelings", then sure, you're right!

 

Unfortunately he doesn't have a black-and-white opinion on the matter. His opinion is nuanced! Imagine that...

[Pangloss]

Nuanced for face-saving reasons only, in my opinion.

[iNow]

Yeah, he couldn't possibly be sincere about having anger at the actions and missteps of the companies while having compassion for its workers being screwed by all of this. What kind of idiots approach the bailout with a mindset like that?

[Phi for All]

Wow, auto-cranio-rectal-insertion. Could the auto execs BE any more clueless?

[iNow]

Yeah, in addition to the spectactular public relations blunder that was, it truly doesn't speak well of their ability to adequately manage money and costs. They didnt' even seem to recognize why it was a big deal.

 

If they can't pull their head out of their butts long enough to figure this simple thing out, I don't hold out much hope that they are the "best and brightest" to lead the automakers toward recovery and maximze bailout money (if they do get it).

[Saryctos]

The problem is it ISN'T a big deal. I don't know why that's being so blown out of proportion. You have a private jet to get places you need to be when you need to be there. It's just not that much of a luxury as it is a staple of doing business in the high end.

[Phi for All]

The problem is it ISN'T a big deal. I don't know why that's being so blown out of proportion. You have a private jet to get places you need to be when you need to be there. It's just not that much of a luxury as it is a staple of doing business in the high end.

Oh, so that's the impression they should be giving the American people? That this bailout is just business as usual in the high end? They should have at least jet-pooled together. I wouldn't have expected them to take a commercial flight, like the UAW guy.

[Saryctos]

Oh, so that's the impression they should be giving the American people? That this bailout is just business as usual in the high end? They should have at least jet-pooled together. I wouldn't have expected them to take a commercial flight, like the UAW guy.

 

They don't work together, they compete against each other. Why would they 'jet-pool' together? So they can hear each others' phone conversations and view the enemies' spread sheets?

 

It is business as usual. These companies will still exist even if they file bankruptcy. They just won't be supplying nearly as much welfare to the auto industry.

[john5746]

I think it is a gross oversimplification to blame the big three's problems on only a few managers. Keeping gas prices low, expecting high returns on investments, frowning on factory work, thinking wealth can be created without actually building something, flocking from hard science and engineering courses to more financially rewarding business or medical degrees, buying foreign because they must be better.

 

Most of the country has a hand in the fall of manufacturing in America, myself included. I worked in manufacturing for 13 years, with several companies. All those companies are gone and many of the ones I interviewed with are gone as well. This isn't something that just happened in a few years, it has been an ongoing ordeal. Maybe this financial crisis has made the problem more accute in the short term, but in the longer term, more change is necessary. Sure, some companies need to be restructured or allowed to fail, but the culture of this country needs an adjustment as well. Maybe tax incentives for buying a green car from the big three and investing in their stock as well. Target degrees in certain majors and provide incentives via loan rates, etc. We need manufacturing in this country and that requires more than just good management.

[Phi for All]

They don't work together, they compete against each other. Why would they 'jet-pool' together? So they can hear each others' phone conversations and view the enemies' spread sheets?

You're assuming they'd be taking other calls and openly working on other business on a flight that gives them time together to strategize before their meeting with Congress? You think less of their business acumen than I do.

 

It is business as usual. These companies will still exist even if they file bankruptcy. They just won't be supplying nearly as much welfare to the auto industry.

My objection is not over execs flying in private jets. My objection is to the insane public relations gaff of the big three auto execs flying their separate jets to DC to ask the taxpayers to bail them out of their financial dilemma. As Rep. Ackerman put it, it's like getting in line at the soup kitchen in your tuxedo.

[iNow]

As anyone who works in manufacturing knows, it's all about cutting cost. At the company I work for, we are all cutting costs wherever possible to survive, and that is what this is about, survival.

 

It's not business as usual, precisely because business as usual is what caused much of this mess.

 

When we held an all hands meeting last week on the special project I'm part of, we had global attendance. Our executive sponsor is the CFO, and he made sure that we cut out the usual starbucks coffee, the boxed lunches, and all the fluff... We got some fruit and some sodas, because these are difficult times and we need to cut costs at every possible corner.

 

It's a part of our culture. Every employee does every tiny bit they can to help, even if that is something as simple as turning off their monitor and lamps when they're away from their desk to save a few on electricity costs.

 

 

Anyone who tries to argue that a $20K expense for a trip to DC is a valid expenditure when they could have gotten there commercially for $500 is just being silly. What's next? Using the bailout money so we can put gold cupholders into their cars? Come on.

 

This is about survival. It's time they start acting like it, and quit being so nonchalant. I'd be ashamed and embarrassed right now if I worked for one of those men.

[Pangloss]

I agree, and kudos to congressional Democrats for rejecting their nonsense this week and requiring the makers to produce a logical plan and projection for this bailout.

 

I think this is just more evidence that the entire first and second tiers of management and the board of directors of any firm that accepts bailout money should be immediately terminated regardless of past performance. I know that sort of thing would take a few good people with it now and then, but they can be hired back by interim management on the basis of merit.

 

The more I think about that idea, the more I like it.

[ParanoiA]

Great post iNow. Not sure there's anything I could add that wasn't covered in it.

 

So, I'll nit-pick Phi for All...

 

My objection is not over execs flying in private jets. My objection is to the insane public relations gaff of the big three auto execs flying their separate jets to DC to ask the taxpayers to bail them out of their financial dilemma. As Rep. Ackerman put it, it's like getting in line at the soup kitchen in your tuxedo.

 

This seems a weird take actually. You're not bothered by the incident, rather you're bothered by appearances? That's essentially what that boils down to. Appearances is the last thing thinkers like us should be worried about. Do you care about the public relations gaff that might be caused if a CEO of a major company came out of the closet and engaged in a civil union? I sure as hell don't. Substance over symbolism, I say.

 

No, I'm pissed that they aren't operating in "survival" mode, as iNow put it. The public relations gaff just makes them look stupid and completely out of touch with public expectation of a bankrupt executive. Even sharing a private jet would still piss me off.

 

Granted, maybe I'm too ignorant about the daily grind of executives in a massive corporate atmosphere, but I would think it's not actually necessary to have a private jet to get where you need to go. A nice perk, with practical application of course, but necessary? I'm not buying it.

 

The problem is it ISN'T a big deal. I don't know why that's being so blown out of proportion. You have a private jet to get places you need to be when you need to be there. It's just not that much of a luxury as it is a staple of doing business in the high end.

 

I get your drift here, but tell me how this really applies when you're facing bankruptcy. Imagine how much respect they would get from the employees of the company if they demonstrated their own cut back in expenses. It's hard to sell the notion that the union is draining you when you insist on blowing money as if there's no financial jeopardy. Where's the pass on bonuses? Where are the cut-backs happening?

 

For the record, I do believe their union is completely ridiculous and shares a huge part of the blame here, if not half. Just like these executive jokers, they refuse to recognize their financial predicament and respond to it responsibly. Like all unions, they're like an activist group blaming everything wrong with the company on management and promoting militant anti-productive, anti-business motivations. They have no business sense and behave like lawyers trying to squeeze every penny out of the "rich greedy management that's out to get them".

[iNow]

For the record, our executives last week all took a 10% pay cut so we could save more peoples jobs. I respect this. When you look at the extravegance of the auto execs compared against this, it's out of touch in the extreme, almost cartoonish.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I respect that too. That's the kind of thing I fully support and expect from the private sector. You want to keep government from legislating morality and lashing out against your profiteering? Then, demonstrate it's not necessary. Show the people that you can be decent and considerate, and maybe they won't force you to be so using laws and expanding government power.

[Phi for All]

So, I'll nit-pick Phi for All...

 

This seems a weird take actually. You're not bothered by the incident, rather you're bothered by appearances? That's essentially what that boils down to.

Remember where they were going? Washington DC, to speak to Congress about a bailout using taxpayer money. When you engage in politics with politicians in Politicianville, appearances become more important.

 

Appearances is the last thing thinkers like us should be worried about.

Appearances affect perceptions. Think about that.

 

Do you care about the public relations gaff that might be caused if a CEO of a major company came out of the closet and engaged in a civil union? I sure as hell don't. Substance over symbolism, I say.

I'm not sure why that would be relevant to this situation. Maybe if the CEO was trying to lobby Congress to ban gay marriages as he held hands with his gay lover while seated before the committee, I would. I would probably think that was a boneheaded move that would affect public perception adversely. That's exactly what it did for Focus on Family's Ted Haggard when it came out that he was doing drugs with a male prostitute while championing the far Christian right.

 

No, I'm pissed that they aren't operating in "survival" mode, as iNow put it. The public relations gaff just makes them look stupid and completely out of touch with public expectation of a bankrupt executive.

Ignoring public perceptions when you're trying to get the public to give you money is also anti-survival.

 

Even sharing a private jet would still piss me off.

Actually, I think you would have given a grudging nod that they made the effort. Especially when they can argue that their contracts call for this type of transportation for security reasons. They would have been overriding security concerns and at least trying to save some money, and I think the public would have grinned a bit at the thought of Ford giving GM and Chrysler a lift. See, if they were *thinking*, they could have had an advantage, however small.

 

Granted, maybe I'm too ignorant about the daily grind of executives in a massive corporate atmosphere, but I would think it's not actually necessary to have a private jet to get where you need to go. A nice perk, with practical application of course, but necessary? I'm not buying it.

I'm not in the mood to be *that* judgmental just yet. As you imply, there may be times it's necessary, just not in this instance and someone at that level should have realized it. Out of touch, brain-dead, sloppy thinking from captains of industry.

[npts2020]

I agree, and kudos to congressional Democrats for rejecting their nonsense this week and requiring the makers to produce a logical plan and projection for this bailout.

 

I think this......

 

If only this had been done with the money handed out so far......

[ParanoiA]

Remember where they were going? Washington DC, to speak to Congress about a bailout using taxpayer money. When you engage in politics with politicians in Politicianville, appearances become more important.

 

Appearances affect perceptions. Think about that.

 

I'm not sure why that would be relevant to this situation.

 

Public perception = what other people think. I've spent my entire life hearing and then practicing not to care what other people think. The only point I'm really making here, and it's pretty lame considering the gravity of the situation, is that "appearances" is that game you play with the american sheeple and that's the kind of thing I'd like to see dissappear. There's nothing healthy or accurate about the notion of "appearances" and has no place in intelligent conversation except in the form of analytical prediction.

 

But note the difference between analysis and personal opinion. Appearances should mean absolutely nothing to us in terms of our personal position, while being relevant only to critical analysis. That was my point. You stated you were upset about appearances, which suggests, to me anyway, that you're invested in the "game" rather than real substance. I just found that to be odd.

 

And as an example, I threw in the civil union scenario. Again, why should I care about "appearances" here? Appearances is for the symbolic crowd. Substance should matter infinitely more. It shouldn't matter if the country is homophobic, I'm not going to be pissed off at a CEO for consequential "appearances" from coming out of the closet.

 

Ignoring public perceptions when you're trying to get the public to give you money is also anti-survival.

 

That sounds more like an analytical deduction, which I can agree with.

 

Actually, I think you would have given a grudging nod that they made the effort. Especially when they can argue that their contracts call for this type of transportation for security reasons. They would have been overriding security concerns and at least trying to save some money, and I think the public would have grinned a bit at the thought of Ford giving GM and Chrysler a lift. See, if they were *thinking*, they could have had an advantage, however small.

 

Fair enough, maybe I would. But the substative insult of maintaining their luxury, which I doubt is necessary, is what upsets me. Not the fact that it made other people mad.

[Phi for All]

But the substative insult of maintaining their luxury, which I doubt is necessary, is what upsets me. Not the fact that it made other people mad.

You're just looking at it from your own perspective, and you admit that your perception of what the auto execs did was insulting. I'm just taking that to the national level as a *public* perception that I'll bet the majority share.

 

I don't really care that you're upset. The fact that it bugs me to the core isn't particularly relevant either. But, again, when you're a CEO of a major auto manufacturer, an industry that is driven by how people perceive your products (oooooh, isn't this year's model enough to make you want to trade in last year's model?), you have to be more concerned about what the public thinks. And if you've driven your company to bankruptcy (which may not be true but is, again, what the public is thinking), then you shouldn't flaunt your wealth when you ask the taxpayers to give you money.

 

I never suggested that appearances were the *primary* concern in all of this. I can understand your desire to have them not matter, but you'll have to settle for appearances taking a back seat position in this instance. I doubt you can eradicate public perception as a factor in any dealings with the public.

 

Bottom line, spending $20K instead of $3k to get to your loan appointment is just plain bad business, and how that is perceived by the loan officer *is* valid, no matter how much you wish it wasn't. It may not be responsible for your loan being denied but it certainly makes the bank wonder if you're good for it.

[Mr Skeptic]

An important part of a company is their appearance. The CEO of the company should know this. That he would do something like that which negatively affects his company, shows that he is a bad CEO in that respect. That his company is going bankrupt is more evidence that he is a bad CEO. While I generally don't care much about perceptions, if it is someone's job to care about perceptions they had better be good at it. For example, someone who works in advertising but messes up public perception probably deserves to be fired. Someone should have told the CEO not to look like an ass, or he should have figured it out himself.

[ParanoiA]

He should have figured it out himself. However it doesn't make me mad because I don't care about public perception. That's for HIM and his company to be mad about - or any investor in their business - people that are affected by public perception. I still don't see why anyone else should be upset about other's perceptions.

 

I think I'm being misunderstood, to a point, or maybe I'm not understanding Phi, but it's not important enough for a line by line exchange.

 

They messed up with public perception and that will hurt them, and they deserve it.