6 ms·

What’s Another $14 Billion Anyway?

iamdave 18y ago
Okay. What does Matt Maroon do for a living?
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Wrestles alligators. There isn't much money in it, you do it for the love.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  Writes/plays poker/cofounded a startup.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Can it be an alligator wrestling startup at least?
- rokhayakebe 18y ago
  Writing articles that seem to be well thought through. Although I, sometimes, find myself opposing his views, I have to say that they are always interesting. "If two people think the same , one of them is not needed". So we do need writers who bring a different point of view. I think that is what he does with his writings.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Sometimes I think I should do that for a living. But then I worry that that may take the fun out of it.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      At least the other things you do for a living are pretty fun.
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        Yeah, they've been a lot of fun lately. And even when they weren't, it was my fault for doing them wrong, so I can't complain there.
ojbyrne 18y ago
I think the amount of oversight, controversy, and political grandstanding over giving $14 billion to companies that actually make things is just insane giving the $700+ billion given, without any strings attached, to companies that move numbers around on spreadsheets.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  I don't think that's logical. I mean, I agree that there should maybe have been far more strings attached to the $700 billion, but that doesn't mean there should have been less oversight of this one. (There's actually pitifully little.)
  - snprbob86 18y ago
    But who oversees the overseers? The American people have proven they can't pick a smart loan, much less manage $700B. I'm opposed to both of the bailouts, with or without oversight.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      The Fed should oversee the loans, and Congress them, just as with anything else. I don't consider myself informed enough to have a strong opinion about the $700 billion one. I don't have any moral objections.
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
      - palish 18y ago
        I don't have any moral objections [to the $700b bailout]. So you're fine with the government taking your money (i.e. your property) and giving it to someone outside of the government for no reason other than "they're a big company"? I'm totally open-minded on this issue, so I'd love to hear a well-reasoned argument as to why it made sense for the government to have done that. As it stands, I feel that it is quite immortal to redistribute property unjustly. I don't consider myself informed enough to have a strong opinion about the $700 billion one. They're playing poker with your chips. Isn't it worthwhile to understand their tactics (or lack of tactics)?
abstractbill 18y ago
They’re losing because every car costs $2,000 more to build due to higher wages and health care. That’s it. End of story. I'd never buy an American car, and it has nothing to do with the price. They're ugly, and crap. End of story.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  That has everything to do with the price. They're ugly and crap because of the extra cost.
  - wensing 18y ago
    I don't understand. You're saying that GM could build cars of similar quality to Toyota or Honda if they were only able to charge $2,000 more? I defy any one of the big three to release a minivan comparable to the Toyota Sienna for anywhere near the same price (+$2k is fine). And why does inexpensive have to mean low quality? From what little I know, the Japanese manufacturing mindset (read: The Toyota Way) is that high quality equals lower cost over the long haul.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      I'm saying that if Toyota had to pay $2k extra to manufacture every one of their cars, they would either cost $2k more (thus significantly reducing their market share and volume, and therefore reducing profits, increasing relative proportion of fixed expenses, etc.) or would be significantly inferior to what they are now due to having cheaper suspensions, doorknobs, etc. You're talking 10-20% of the manufacturing cost of the car in an industry that has spent 100 years reducing costs in every conceivable way. There isn't that sort of slack laying around. The only way to recoup that cost is to use significantly inferior parts. My next blog post will address that a bit. It's already written, just hasn't published yet.
      - wensing 18y ago
        I do not see why you must lower the build quality in order to lower the cost. Yes, lowering the build quality saves money in the short-term, but there are other ways to save money, no? As they're learning now, going the low quality route is actually very expensive (unprofitable) in the long-term. Have you compared the big three and their Japanese rivals in terms of their manufacturing process?
mhb 18y ago
http://buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg http://buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg
chaostheory 18y ago
whatever the auto makers do it's nothing compared to the f-ups of the bankers. even their loan is miniscule compared to the 2 trillion dollar loan we've already given the banking industry; not to mention the 5 trillion in free money and the complete lack of oversight and transparency for the bankers. More attention should be re-diverted back to the banks...
jamiequint 18y ago
"They’re losing because every car costs $2,000 more to build due to higher wages and health care. That’s it. End of story." If this is really the case than the US government should have agreed to some sort of specific bailout for the health care and benefits wages which are really dragging these companies down. If Toyota can work with US labor (well kind of, see source below) than there is no reason that the big three should not be able to. Interesting side story. Toyota is worried because "Labor costs as a percentage of sales are growing faster than Toyota's profit margin" and there is now talk of unionizing to sustain labor wages. One of their own senior employees is quoted as saying, "I'm more than willing to work with that company to keep my job. But when they just take it because they want more, I don't agree with it at all." (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008112120001 http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008112120001) If Toyota gets caught up in this UAW mess too, I'm not sure how any company will produce in the US. Is there any foreseeable way jobs can stay here if the unions won't let the companies operate profitably?

Okay. What does Matt Maroon do for a living?

mattmaroon 18y ago
Wrestles alligators. There isn't much money in it, you do it for the love.
fallentimes 18y ago
Writes/plays poker/cofounded a startup.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Can it be an alligator wrestling startup at least?
rokhayakebe 18y ago
Writing articles that seem to be well thought through. Although I, sometimes, find myself opposing his views, I have to say that they are always interesting. "If two people think the same , one of them is not needed". So we do need writers who bring a different point of view. I think that is what he does with his writings.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Sometimes I think I should do that for a living. But then I worry that that may take the fun out of it.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    At least the other things you do for a living are pretty fun.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Yeah, they've been a lot of fun lately. And even when they weren't, it was my fault for doing them wrong, so I can't complain there.

I think the amount of oversight, controversy, and political grandstanding over giving $14 billion to companies that actually make things is just insane giving the $700+ billion given, without any strings attached, to companies that move numbers around on spreadsheets.

mattmaroon 18y ago
I don't think that's logical. I mean, I agree that there should maybe have been far more strings attached to the $700 billion, but that doesn't mean there should have been less oversight of this one. (There's actually pitifully little.)
- snprbob86 18y ago
  But who oversees the overseers? The American people have proven they can't pick a smart loan, much less manage $700B. I'm opposed to both of the bailouts, with or without oversight.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    The Fed should oversee the loans, and Congress them, just as with anything else. I don't consider myself informed enough to have a strong opinion about the $700 billion one. I don't have any moral objections.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - palish 18y ago
      I don't have any moral objections [to the $700b bailout]. So you're fine with the government taking your money (i.e. your property) and giving it to someone outside of the government for no reason other than "they're a big company"? I'm totally open-minded on this issue, so I'd love to hear a well-reasoned argument as to why it made sense for the government to have done that. As it stands, I feel that it is quite immortal to redistribute property unjustly. I don't consider myself informed enough to have a strong opinion about the $700 billion one. They're playing poker with your chips. Isn't it worthwhile to understand their tactics (or lack of tactics)?

abstractbill 18y ago

They’re losing because every car costs $2,000 more to build due to higher wages and health care. That’s it. End of story. I'd never buy an American car, and it has nothing to do with the price. They're ugly, and crap. End of story.

mattmaroon 18y ago
That has everything to do with the price. They're ugly and crap because of the extra cost.
- wensing 18y ago
  I don't understand. You're saying that GM could build cars of similar quality to Toyota or Honda if they were only able to charge $2,000 more? I defy any one of the big three to release a minivan comparable to the Toyota Sienna for anywhere near the same price (+$2k is fine). And why does inexpensive have to mean low quality? From what little I know, the Japanese manufacturing mindset (read: The Toyota Way) is that high quality equals lower cost over the long haul.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    I'm saying that if Toyota had to pay $2k extra to manufacture every one of their cars, they would either cost $2k more (thus significantly reducing their market share and volume, and therefore reducing profits, increasing relative proportion of fixed expenses, etc.) or would be significantly inferior to what they are now due to having cheaper suspensions, doorknobs, etc. You're talking 10-20% of the manufacturing cost of the car in an industry that has spent 100 years reducing costs in every conceivable way. There isn't that sort of slack laying around. The only way to recoup that cost is to use significantly inferior parts. My next blog post will address that a bit. It's already written, just hasn't published yet.
    - wensing 18y ago
      I do not see why you must lower the build quality in order to lower the cost. Yes, lowering the build quality saves money in the short-term, but there are other ways to save money, no? As they're learning now, going the low quality route is actually very expensive (unprofitable) in the long-term. Have you compared the big three and their Japanese rivals in terms of their manufacturing process?

mhb 18y ago

http://buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg http://buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg

chaostheory 18y ago

whatever the auto makers do it's nothing compared to the f-ups of the bankers. even their loan is miniscule compared to the 2 trillion dollar loan we've already given the banking industry; not to mention the 5 trillion in free money and the complete lack of oversight and transparency for the bankers. More attention should be re-diverted back to the banks...

jamiequint 18y ago

"They’re losing because every car costs $2,000 more to build due to higher wages and health care. That’s it. End of story." If this is really the case than the US government should have agreed to some sort of specific bailout for the health care and benefits wages which are really dragging these companies down. If Toyota can work with US labor (well kind of, see source below) than there is no reason that the big three should not be able to. Interesting side story. Toyota is worried because "Labor costs as a percentage of sales are growing faster than Toyota's profit margin" and there is now talk of unionizing to sustain labor wages. One of their own senior employees is quoted as saying, "I'm more than willing to work with that company to keep my job. But when they just take it because they want more, I don't agree with it at all." (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008112120001 http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008112120001) If Toyota gets caught up in this UAW mess too, I'm not sure how any company will produce in the US. Is there any foreseeable way jobs can stay here if the unions won't let the companies operate profitably?