  Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3615 Registered: 04-2006 |
She makes a compelling case that Detroit should be nationalized. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI CS/11/13/granholm.energy/index .html | ||
Englishkills Member Username: Englishkills Post Number: 12 Registered: 10-2008 |
Quoting Granholm from the article: "What seemed impossible just months ago is now a reality: One or more of the world's biggest automakers could go bankrupt before the year is out." Really, this seemed impossible just months ago? I've had a feeling this could possibly happen for many years now and I don't even follow the auto industry. This just goes to show the types of leaders who run the state of Michigan and how they've been asleep at the wheel (no pun intended) for about as long as anyone can remember. | ||
Detroitbill Member Username: Detroitbill Post Number: 685 Registered: 09-2006 |
I really don't think the state leaders should shoulder the responsibility of the auto companies inability to run their companies effectively. Any state leader ( no matter what party is involved) follows on the lead of their business community. If that community for years indicates it is viable then that is the direction one goes. I really don't mean this to be a Democrat vs Republican issue. Either party would be involved with this mess we have now. The factors blamed are often well beyond the borders of Michigan. For some reason many people love to blame their governor for the economic state of the auto industry. The analysis is much more detailed and complicated. | ||
Englishkills Member Username: Englishkills Post Number: 13 Registered: 10-2008 |
Successful cities and regions are those that have had leaders who could look to the future, emphasize education, diversify the economy, plan smart and sustainable growth and efficient transit systems, and move away from the status quo with innovative thinking. Sadly, in the Detroit area and Michigan in general residents and leaders have generally ignored the aforementioned concepts. Travel around the country and you'll see the difference between healthy places and dying places. Perhaps you've heard, in New York we're having just as many problems on Wall Street as you're having with the auto industry. The difference is we have other industries to fall back on and grow, intelligent leaders (not all of them but many), residents who care about their surroundings and who are willing to invest in their communities. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5607 Registered: 06-2004 |
No you don't. If the Feds weren't giving Wall Street all that money New York would be headed straight down the shitter. | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1441 Registered: 11-2003 |
Englishkills said, "...residents who care about their surroundings and who are willing to invest in their communities." We have lots of those. You don't live here, but not only the residents, but the business community. If you had any idea how much GM has plowed into the community (as well as the other Big 3 and suppliers), you might be singing a different tune. However, yes, New York, from formerly doing an extended work stay there, is actually very diverse in it's employment and industries. Pretty much whatever industry you're in, there's people in NY who do it in spades. Yes, Detroit should have - and should still - diversify and be more progressive. However, if the banks instead of using the money to consolidate with each other actually did what they were supposed to do with the bailout money and lend, maybe Detroit wouldn't be in such a predicament. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3616 Registered: 04-2006 |
Well everywhere seems to have an extremely diverse employment base compared to Detroit. But I think New York is very finance heavy. I was at a networking event last night and 75% of the people in the room were in a finance related occupation. I also think it's a bit misguided to say that Wall St. is hurting as badly as Detroit now. Wall St. is only just now approaching a level of anxiety that the auto companies have been at for months, if not years. And it still has yet to see an equivalent number of jobs eliminated. One thing about Detroit and New York that is directly linked though, is that if GM, Ford or Chrysler are allowed to go under, you've just lost one (or two, or three) of the largest advertisers on the globe. New York being both the marketing capital and the media capital would be immediately affected by that. Add to that Toyota, which is also one of the largest advertisers, wouldn't need to spend as much on advertising because of a smaller field of competitors... | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 7932 Registered: 02-2004 |
YAY GRANHOLM! Keep on finding alternative jobs. | ||
Folk313 Member Username: Folk313 Post Number: 20 Registered: 01-2008 |
If we want to talk about inept leadership in Michigan, we should realize that the State House leads that pack and not the governor. The legislature is almost as juvenile as the Detroit City Council, and no executive can govern effectively when she not only inherits a significant magnitude of deferred dysfunction from the previous executive, but has an unruly playroom of a legislature to mediate as well. It's not Granholm all of you halfwits out there should be getting all worked up about but instead the legislature. | ||
Bobl Member Username: Bobl Post Number: 204 Registered: 07-2008 |
folk313: Well put. How could any prudent person defend the elimination of the Single Business Tax last year, with no cut in spending and no replacement? It was a transparent attempt to discredit the governor. The amazing thing is that it worked as well as it did. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5480 Registered: 02-2005 |
A bailout to Detroit is sinking money into a losing cause. Unless the money comes with 1,000 impossible stipulations (impossible because they'd involve cutting off all of the Big 3's liabilities to pensions), the money is lost, gone, sunken. A bailout to banks (or almost any business with a better business model and a better assets-liabilities balance than the Big 3) will almost assuredly be paid back, so it's a government investment for the sake of stabilizing, rather than a handout for the sake of saying "we tried to help." Now, there's a perception that having major auto companies in America is a good thing. I, in fact, think this more than perception-- it's an increasing reality. Everyone in India and China is going to buy a car in the next 10 years. Detroit needs to supply them. It's our big chance to be on the winner's side of globalisation. Yet, I watched a great piece on the PBS news hour Tuesday about India's growing car culture, and a Ford rep. that was interviewed said "yeah, we're looking into investing here." Why aren't they there already? The management and planning at these companies is horrendous. Any government money needs to come with a thousand stipulations and a thousand kicks in ass to get them moving in a smarter direction. That's the only way this money might go towards something beneficial for all involved, and might come back to the taxpayers. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5638 Registered: 06-2004 |
Mackinaw, China and India already have their own auto companies. To assume Detroit can walk in and immediately dominate the market is naive. The other factor to consider is the relative stability of both countries. Neither is as solid as some would have you believe. Tata Motors had to scrap plans to build one of their factories in its chosen location due to civil unrest. Ford is fully aware of what's going on in India. Remember to whom they sold Jaguar? |
