here was no thought whatsoever of foreign cars in those times, sure some wealthy people drove XKE's and some drove foreign nameplates for their own reasons, but the number were so small as to be insignificant. I know I cant go back and seeing Detroit now is tragic.
Some people are upset about the loss of US jobs. I am upset because Detroit did it to themselves. They didn't even try hard to COMPETE. They are too SOFT. I'm ashamed that this country that put a man on the moon and gave us the internet, the personal computer, the human genome, the ipod CAN'T COMPETE on cars because our own UAW-ridden manufacturers are so SOFT that they spend more time whining than innovating. Other countries are HUNGRY. That softness will be the downfall of the US.
".....For a car with >70% US content (such as Camry), the bulk of the parts, the plant, the advertising, the transportation, and the dealership and service dollars are spent here. Relatively little goes to Japan. Even many of the foreign nameplates are designed here with US staff. "
Getting back to my original point about the labor, I have less of a problem with this (stubborn union pride, I guess), than that of a car built elsewhere. About a year before I bought the Lacrosse, I had pondered the idea of an econobox. Looked at the Astra, as it is well received in Europe. Saw the 3% (that's THREE) domestic content, and walked away. No way, NO HOW!!!
"......I'm ashamed that this country that put a man on the moon and gave us the internet, the personal computer, the human genome, the ipod CAN'T COMPETE on cars because our own UAW-ridden manufacturers are so SOFT that they spend more time whining than innovating."
I know that the UAW complains about the labor rates and such, but management gets a good whack here too. Back in 1970 when the Clean Air Act was passed, the Big 3 fought it tooth and nail, instead of trying to innovate. With a 90+% market share, labor rates weren't an issue, but "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" was. I imagine that a lot of the engines in the '70's and '80's that were choked with emisssion controls could've been more powerful and cleaner if they had invested their money in R&D instead of lobbying.
Getting back to my original point about the labor, I have less of a problem with this (stubborn union pride, I guess), than that of a car built elsewhere. About a year before I bought the Lacrosse, I had pondered the idea of an econobox. Looked at the Astra, as it is well received in Europe. Saw the 3% (that's THREE) domestic content, and walked away. No way, NO HOW!!!
That makes some sense. We should differentiate from when people don't want to buy foreign nameplates (regardless of country of manufacture) vs. foreign-produced vehicles. When people insist on buying US nameplates that is usually a pro-UAW desire expressed inaccurately as a "buy US" desire. If you want to help the US, buy a vehicle made here, regardless of nameplate. The "profits go to Japan", etc. argument is usually a "I don't want any non-UAW manufacturing in this country" statement.
The profits earned by any publicly traded corporation go to its shareholders, who can live anywhere
True, but there's also taxes,...
But, many large corporation keep a significant amount of their profits in order to build up their cash reserves, fund IRAD, etc. This is money that is not going to the owners (shareholders), at least in the short term. Now, a certain amount of that is needed to sustain the business. I'm not sure what's the right amount. Google, Microsoft, and Apple all have on hand cash balances of around $20 billion, I believe.
Then, there's those investment houses that reserve 50%-70% of their profits for bonuses. Again, that is money that's not being returned to the owners.
I imagine that a lot of the engines in the '70's and '80's that were choked with emisssion controls could've been more powerful and cleaner if they had invested their money in R&D instead of lobbying.
I think I read somewhere that Honda took a 1977 Impala or Caprice, took apart the engine, and modified it with their HVCC technology and other stuff, and got it to run cleanly enough that it didn't need a catalytic converter. GM had been whining that it couldn't be done, so naturally, they weren't amused.
So how is it ethical to dilute shareholder value to repay TARP money? Selling more stock/issues to repay the TARP money makes the present stockholders at a loss. Thats the slickest and latest Wall Street deal to ensure those wonderful bonuses. Not to mention that the government (the taxpayers) are the biggest shareholders.
So how about GM selling new issues and repaying the lenders? I'm sure the present shareholders would love it.
DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp on Tuesday detailed plans to all but wipe out the holdings of remaining shareholders by issuing up to 60 billion new shares in a bid to pay off debt to the U.S. government, bondholders and the United Auto Workers union.
Finally, GM is negotiating with the UAW and is seeking to get the union to take GM stock in exchange for $10 billion owed to a trust fund for retiree healthcare
General Motors Corp on Tuesday detailed plans to all but wipe out the holdings of remaining shareholders
I thought there weren't any remaining shareholders, right? Everybody went to the government or to the UAW. Can somebody clarify for me? thanks. :confuse:
From the reports, GM did good in China. If it's not UAW related, please take it to GM News, New Models and Market Share (where a couple of recent posts were moved to).
GM had been whining that it couldn't be done, so naturally, they weren't amused
It wasn't just on emission issues that Detroit was always crying wolf. Every federally mandated change from rear view mirrors to seat belts to head rests to 5 mph bumpers (I know, what a joke) to the seat belt/ignition interlock has brought cries of "we can't do that", "it'll cost too much", "the public doesn't want it" (well, that last one might be true in some cases) from the D3. They collectively spent more energy whining and lobbying against regulations than it would have cost them to just engineer the solution in the first place.
So how is it ethical to dilute shareholder value to repay TARP money
What's ethics got to do with it? I mean, this is big business, right :P ?
But, isn't one way publicly held companies have of raising money is to issue new stock? So nothing really new in that regard.
In the case of GM, the original shareholders were essentially wiped out when GM went C11, (or had it gone C7 had the government not stepped in with it's $50B bailout). The shareholders of GM have been behind the 8 ball for years, technically ever since GM's liabilities began to exceed it's assets.
BTW, my earlier comment was just to the effect that not all profits are always returned to the owners of the company in all cases.
my earlier comment was just to the effect that not all profits are always returned to the owners of the company in all cases.
That seems to be particularly true with the Automakers tied to the UAW. They were promising future profits to cover retiree Health care. When the profits were no longer coming in the companies were spending money they did not have to support those UAW contractual promises. Which was deficit spending that brought GM and C down. Their losses out paced their value, both present and future. The bailout was a gift to the UAW, that will never be recouped. Unless GM moves enough of their auto making offshore or to Mexico they will not be able to survive under current UAW contracts and retirement deals. Anyone left holding GM stock screwed up. They had decades of poor management decisions as signs to get out.
The city of Detroit was once one of the wealthiest in the country and it once boasted the most prosperous African-American community in North America. There's a vast gulf between the prosperous Detroit of the 1950s and 1960s and the one featured in Eminem's "8 Mile."
You IMAGINE they were? No, they we're positively STRANGLED by emissions controls. The monster 500-cube V-8 in my 1975 Cadillac DeVille was only putting out a measly 190 hp. My Dad had a 1981 Ford Thunderbird with a puny 255 cid V-8 that you had to floor to get up a hill. It was truly the Dark Ages of the Automobile!
Did Honda ever license its CVCC technology? Imagine if GM hadn't been to proud to license Honda's technology. Maybe we wouldn't have been stuck with emasculated engines with miles of hoses.
Every federally mandated change from rear view mirrors to seat belts
If I'm not mistaken, Ford started selling seatbelts before most car companies. It was due to Robert McNamara's push (yes, *that* McNamara).
In 1956 "McNamara placed a high emphasis on safety standards, introducing in the Lifeguard package both the seat belt, and a dished steering wheel that reduced the chances of a driver being impaled by the steering column." (from wikipedia)
Interestingly, he was the driving force to cancel the Edsel, and "was a force behind the wildly popular Ford Falcon sedan."
The big 3 can be in the vanguard when they want to.
My Dad had a 1981 Ford Thunderbird with a puny 255 cid V-8 that you had to floor to get up a hill.
Yeah, those were bad times. I had a friend in HS who's mom gave him her handy down late 70's Cutlass with a 260 v8. It truly was a "nutless" Cutlass. Nice overall car, but painfully slow. The funny thing is, when his dad ordered it for his mom, he ordered it with posi-traction. LOL, I don't know if that car could break the tires loose in the rain. But it was a sharp car with T-tops, bucket seats with console shifter, full gauges etc. The prefect car for a teenager as it looked good, but was to slow to do anything too crazy.
I had a '71 Mustang convertible in HS that only had lap belts. I'd guess they'd keep you in the seat only to be impaled by the steering wheel.
Shoulder belts never did make it to domestic convertibles, at least not the first time around, up to their finale with the 1976 Eldorado. However, when they started making a comeback in the early 80's, with the likes of the Mustang and LeBaron/400 convertibles, and Cavalier/Sunbird, I think they did finally get shoulder belts worked into the design.
Back in 1956 when Ford made all that safety stuff standard on their cars, it actually created an unintended backlash and the cars didn't sell all that well. Many people wondered why the car NEEDED seatbelts, dash padding, etc anyway. They figured that if it needed that stuff, then it wasn't safe to drive in the first place! It's amazing, the things that people can rationalize sometimes.
Ford and Chrysler did, but never used it for anything that I can find. Probably a combination of NIH syndrome and a bit of lingering racism. Henry II supposedly made some snotty remark in response to the idea of Ford selling rebadged Civics in the '70s.
So how is it ethical to dilute shareholder value to repay TARP money?
Isn't debt serviced before stock? So if I invest in a company's stock and that company fails, then during liquidation the debts are paid first. The stockholders are always taking the biggest risk. This should be known by anybody investing in the market.
My 1968 Buick Special Deluxe had shoulder belts. I remember because they were a PITA to stow in their little chrome clasps on the headliner. My Dad also had them in his 1970 Ford Torino and they were an even bigger PITA to stow. I don't know if shoulder belts were in cars prior to 1968. My Buick didn't have headrests. They wouldn't appear until 1969.
Isn't debt serviced before stock? So if I invest in a company's stock and that company fails, then during liquidation the debts are paid first. The stockholders are always taking the biggest risk. This should be known by anybody investing in the market.
Except the current administration didn't do that. Bondholders and stockholders didn't get anything. The new owners are the govt and the UAW. They can call it a bailout, but it really was a nationalization.
Isn't debt serviced before stock? So if I invest in a company's stock and that company fails, then during liquidation the debts are paid first. The stockholders are always taking the biggest risk. This should be known by anybody investing in the market.
Yes, common stock owners are generally the last in line to get anything when a company goes through bankruptcy. You can buy preferred stock which has priority over common stock. Still, if a company you invested in fails, regardless you'll lose much or most of your investment unless of course you short the stock, thus making money as the stock drops.
Even with bonds, the odds of getting all of your investment back is low when a company is bankrupt.
My '69 Camaro had seat belts. So did the '62 Rambler I got as a second car from my dad, IIRC. The '52 Plymouth I learned to drive on definitely did not :P .
Also, had to squirt a couple of drops of brake fluid into the vacuum motor assembly every couple of weeks in order to keep the rubber diaphram inside flexible.
Except the current administration didn't do that. Bondholders and stockholders didn't get anything. The new owners are the govt and the UAW. They can call it a bailout, but it really was a nationalization.
And yet GM's sales are down in Dec while Ford's are up. Can't fool the populace.
Anther thing I remember about that car was the vacuum operated windshield wipers. Step on the gas and the wipers would slow to a crawl!
God, I remember those! My 1st new car was a '68 Rambler American, which Dad bought for me because it was the cheapest car on the market then: $1795.
All other American manufacturers had switched to electric wipers back in the 40s, but electric wipers were a $25 extra cost option on the Rambler, & Dad wasn't in the mood to spend an extra $25 on me. The car did have an AM radio ($19 extra) & a cigarette lighter (dealer installed for $8). That was it.
In hilly upstate NY, where it rains or snows half the time, the wipers would slow to a virtual halt as I drove up a long hill, only to whip themselves into a frenzy as I drove down the other side.
The Rambler's 3-on-the-tree had a non-synchro 1st gear, so I learned how to double clutch. How many young Americans know how to double clutch today? Even 40 years ago, it was a dying art, since Ford & GM had gone over to fully synchronized manual trannies. (I think, but I'm not sure, that the base Plymouth Valiant / Dodge Dart came with non-synchro 1st gears when equipped with the base 170 cubic inch 6.)
Actually if you exclude the 4 brands they are off loading, the "core" brands went up 2% in December.
Still much less than Ford. And according to the article, below analyst's expectations.
I wrote about a year ago that GM needed to radically downsize, dump about 50% of their models, eliminate the UAW contracts, and work like heck to put out some good models. They are trying, but when you are out of money and it takes3 years to develop good iron, that's a really tough thing to do.
With Wagoner gone, the board almost entirely replaced, and new upper management, GM is doing mostly the right things. The Malibu is at least competitive and the Acadia series is good although not that reliable. The CTS is very competitive. The new LaCrosse appears to be a really good car. But that's pretty thin stuff for a company of even their downsized stature. They still have the UAW contracts. It's sort of like a patient in ICU where the doctors realize what is wrong and begin taking the right measures, but they (Wagoner) waited too long and the patient is too far gone.
The last big challenge is that even with the infusion of money, new management, and some better vehicles, -- GM's reputation is very poor. Many people don't want to support the 2 out of 3 UAW failed companies (GM and C). With Ford around, why not buy from the company that didn't take a bailout if you want a US nameplate? But of course the UAW is not willing to offer similar sacrifices to Ford, so Ford has a bigger anchor around its neck than GM and C. Ford could still be wheeled into ICU as well.
The UAW should have an "all hands on deck" to find ways to be more efficient and help wherever possible. They should be concerned about the survival of their parent companies instead of being a lethal virus. I wonder how many of them realize how critical the situation is?
Your advice was partially followed....the UAW is still around, however.
It'll take three years to get some decent cars out of GM as you say...only a few meet the competition...Howie Long pitches they're better, HAHAHA!
Need to work the quality issues that will arise in the Malibu and LaCrosse in 2010...Fairfax is running non-stop...UAW are not geared to do that without issues...
I'll be happy when they pay bak ALL of the bailout money and make THE BEST cars in the world.
Period. 5 out of the top 20 vehicles sold in December were out of GM and 2 were PUT's. Let me know when the UAW start making top cars that sell....and don't fall apart.
Pelosi speaking out against Senate Health Care plan: Senior House Democratic leadership aides say Pelosi was pointedly referring to Obama’s ’08 pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class, which she interprets to include a tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care plans that offer lavish benefit packages to many union members.
Comments
Some people are upset about the loss of US jobs. I am upset because Detroit did it to themselves. They didn't even try hard to COMPETE. They are too SOFT. I'm ashamed that this country that put a man on the moon and gave us the internet, the personal computer, the human genome, the ipod CAN'T COMPETE on cars because our own UAW-ridden manufacturers are so SOFT that they spend more time whining than innovating. Other countries are HUNGRY. That softness will be the downfall of the US.
Regards,
OW not UAW
Getting back to my original point about the labor, I have less of a problem with this (stubborn union pride, I guess), than that of a car built elsewhere. About a year before I bought the Lacrosse, I had pondered the idea of an econobox. Looked at the Astra, as it is well received in Europe. Saw the 3% (that's THREE) domestic content, and walked away. No way, NO HOW!!!
I know that the UAW complains about the labor rates and such, but management gets a good whack here too. Back in 1970 when the Clean Air Act was passed, the Big 3 fought it tooth and nail, instead of trying to innovate. With a 90+% market share, labor rates weren't an issue, but "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" was. I imagine that a lot of the engines in the '70's and '80's that were choked with emisssion controls could've been more powerful and cleaner if they had invested their money in R&D instead of lobbying.
Wow, that's about as low as I've seen. Guess it can't get much lower;)
That makes some sense. We should differentiate from when people don't want to buy foreign nameplates (regardless of country of manufacture) vs. foreign-produced vehicles. When people insist on buying US nameplates that is usually a pro-UAW desire expressed inaccurately as a "buy US" desire. If you want to help the US, buy a vehicle made here, regardless of nameplate. The "profits go to Japan", etc. argument is usually a "I don't want any non-UAW manufacturing in this country" statement.
Definitely. Shared blame all around.
True, but there's also taxes,...
But, many large corporation keep a significant amount of their profits in order to build up their cash reserves, fund IRAD, etc. This is money that is not going to the owners (shareholders), at least in the short term. Now, a certain amount of that is needed to sustain the business. I'm not sure what's the right amount. Google, Microsoft, and Apple all have on hand cash balances of around $20 billion, I believe.
Then, there's those investment houses that reserve 50%-70% of their profits for bonuses. Again, that is money that's not being returned to the owners.
I think I read somewhere that Honda took a 1977 Impala or Caprice, took apart the engine, and modified it with their HVCC technology and other stuff, and got it to run cleanly enough that it didn't need a catalytic converter. GM had been whining that it couldn't be done, so naturally, they weren't amused.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/177751-wells-fargo-please-dilute-shareholders-an- d-repay-tarp-now
So how about GM selling new issues and repaying the lenders? I'm sure the present shareholders would love it.
DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp on Tuesday detailed plans to all but wipe out the holdings of remaining shareholders by issuing up to 60 billion new shares in a bid to pay off debt to the U.S. government, bondholders and the United Auto Workers union.
Finally, GM is negotiating with the UAW and is seeking to get the union to take GM stock in exchange for $10 billion owed to a trust fund for retiree healthcare
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54471X20090506?feedType=RSS&feedName=busin- essNews
I thought there weren't any remaining shareholders, right? Everybody went to the government or to the UAW. Can somebody clarify for me? thanks. :confuse:
I would have walked too; 3% domestic content is way more than enough to ruin the car... :P
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
It wasn't just on emission issues that Detroit was always crying wolf. Every federally mandated change from rear view mirrors to seat belts to head rests to 5 mph bumpers (I know, what a joke) to the seat belt/ignition interlock has brought cries of "we can't do that", "it'll cost too much", "the public doesn't want it" (well, that last one might be true in some cases) from the D3. They collectively spent more energy whining and lobbying against regulations than it would have cost them to just engineer the solution in the first place.
What's ethics got to do with it? I mean, this is big business, right :P ?
But, isn't one way publicly held companies have of raising money is to issue new stock? So nothing really new in that regard.
In the case of GM, the original shareholders were essentially wiped out when GM went C11, (or had it gone C7 had the government not stepped in with it's $50B bailout). The shareholders of GM have been behind the 8 ball for years, technically ever since GM's liabilities began to exceed it's assets.
BTW, my earlier comment was just to the effect that not all profits are always returned to the owners of the company in all cases.
That seems to be particularly true with the Automakers tied to the UAW. They were promising future profits to cover retiree Health care. When the profits were no longer coming in the companies were spending money they did not have to support those UAW contractual promises. Which was deficit spending that brought GM and C down. Their losses out paced their value, both present and future. The bailout was a gift to the UAW, that will never be recouped. Unless GM moves enough of their auto making offshore or to Mexico they will not be able to survive under current UAW contracts and retirement deals. Anyone left holding GM stock screwed up. They had decades of poor management decisions as signs to get out.
If I'm not mistaken, Ford started selling seatbelts before most car companies. It was due to Robert McNamara's push (yes, *that* McNamara).
In 1956 "McNamara placed a high emphasis on safety standards, introducing in the Lifeguard package both the seat belt, and a dished steering wheel that reduced the chances of a driver being impaled by the steering column." (from wikipedia)
Interestingly, he was the driving force to cancel the Edsel, and "was a force behind the wildly popular Ford Falcon sedan."
The big 3 can be in the vanguard when they want to.
Yeah, those were bad times. I had a friend in HS who's mom gave him her handy down late 70's Cutlass with a 260 v8. It truly was a "nutless" Cutlass. Nice overall car, but painfully slow. The funny thing is, when his dad ordered it for his mom, he ordered it with posi-traction. LOL, I don't know if that car could break the tires loose in the rain. But it was a sharp car with T-tops, bucket seats with console shifter, full gauges etc. The prefect car for a teenager as it looked good, but was to slow to do anything too crazy.
I had a '71 Mustang convertible in HS that only had lap belts. I'd guess they'd keep you in the seat only to be impaled by the steering wheel.
Shoulder belts never did make it to domestic convertibles, at least not the first time around, up to their finale with the 1976 Eldorado. However, when they started making a comeback in the early 80's, with the likes of the Mustang and LeBaron/400 convertibles, and Cavalier/Sunbird, I think they did finally get shoulder belts worked into the design.
Back in 1956 when Ford made all that safety stuff standard on their cars, it actually created an unintended backlash and the cars didn't sell all that well. Many people wondered why the car NEEDED seatbelts, dash padding, etc anyway. They figured that if it needed that stuff, then it wasn't safe to drive in the first place! It's amazing, the things that people can rationalize sometimes.
Ford and Chrysler did, but never used it for anything that I can find. Probably a combination of NIH syndrome and a bit of lingering racism. Henry II supposedly made some snotty remark in response to the idea of Ford selling rebadged Civics in the '70s.
Isn't debt serviced before stock? So if I invest in a company's stock and that company fails, then during liquidation the debts are paid first. The stockholders are always taking the biggest risk. This should be known by anybody investing in the market.
Except the current administration didn't do that. Bondholders and stockholders didn't get anything. The new owners are the govt and the UAW. They can call it a bailout, but it really was a nationalization.
Yes, common stock owners are generally the last in line to get anything when a company goes through bankruptcy. You can buy preferred stock which has priority over common stock. Still, if a company you invested in fails, regardless you'll lose much or most of your investment unless of course you short the stock, thus making money as the stock drops.
Even with bonds, the odds of getting all of your investment back is low when a company is bankrupt.
Is that ironic or what? He should have been so lucky.
The first car we had that I remember having seat belts was our 66 Chevy Biscayne. The first one with shoulder belts was the 67 Tempest.
I took the intake off my Wildcat to replace a freeze plug, 4 nuts for the carb, 8 bolts for the intake, and 3, (count 'em ONLY THREE) vacuum lines.
Anther thing I remember about that car was the vacuum operated windshield wipers. Step on the gas and the wipers would slow to a crawl!
Of course, in all honesty, I don't think the UAW could have done anything about that.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Also, had to squirt a couple of drops of brake fluid into the vacuum motor assembly every couple of weeks in order to keep the rubber diaphram inside flexible.
Ah yes, the good old days!
And yet GM's sales are down in Dec while Ford's are up. Can't fool the populace.
even the government cannot fool all the people all the time.
God, I remember those! My 1st new car was a '68 Rambler American, which Dad bought for me because it was the cheapest car on the market then: $1795.
All other American manufacturers had switched to electric wipers back in the 40s, but electric wipers were a $25 extra cost option on the Rambler, & Dad wasn't in the mood to spend an extra $25 on me. The car did have an AM radio ($19 extra) & a cigarette lighter (dealer installed for $8). That was it.
In hilly upstate NY, where it rains or snows half the time, the wipers would slow to a virtual halt as I drove up a long hill, only to whip themselves into a frenzy as I drove down the other side.
The Rambler's 3-on-the-tree had a non-synchro 1st gear, so I learned how to double clutch. How many young Americans know how to double clutch today? Even 40 years ago, it was a dying art, since Ford & GM had gone over to fully synchronized manual trannies. (I think, but I'm not sure, that the base Plymouth Valiant / Dodge Dart came with non-synchro 1st gears when equipped with the base 170 cubic inch 6.)
Actually if you exclude the 4 brands they are off loading, the "core" brands went up 2% in December.
Still much less than Ford. And according to the article, below analyst's expectations.
I wrote about a year ago that GM needed to radically downsize, dump about 50% of their models, eliminate the UAW contracts, and work like heck to put out some good models. They are trying, but when you are out of money and it takes3 years to develop good iron, that's a really tough thing to do.
With Wagoner gone, the board almost entirely replaced, and new upper management, GM is doing mostly the right things. The Malibu is at least competitive and the Acadia series is good although not that reliable. The CTS is very competitive. The new LaCrosse appears to be a really good car. But that's pretty thin stuff for a company of even their downsized stature. They still have the UAW contracts. It's sort of like a patient in ICU where the doctors realize what is wrong and begin taking the right measures, but they (Wagoner) waited too long and the patient is too far gone.
The last big challenge is that even with the infusion of money, new management, and some better vehicles, -- GM's reputation is very poor. Many people don't want to support the 2 out of 3 UAW failed companies (GM and C). With Ford around, why not buy from the company that didn't take a bailout if you want a US nameplate? But of course the UAW is not willing to offer similar sacrifices to Ford, so Ford has a bigger anchor around its neck than GM and C. Ford could still be wheeled into ICU as well.
The UAW should have an "all hands on deck" to find ways to be more efficient and help wherever possible. They should be concerned about the survival of their parent companies instead of being a lethal virus. I wonder how many of them realize how critical the situation is?
Geez, you can never be happy, huh? GM's sales are down b/c they suck. Reality was the opposite, yet you still had to find fault with it.
The market is judging, not me. And the analysts were projecting sales, not me. Reality sometimes hurts. :shades:
It'll take three years to get some decent cars out of GM as you say...only a few meet the competition...Howie Long pitches they're better, HAHAHA!
Need to work the quality issues that will arise in the Malibu and LaCrosse in 2010...Fairfax is running non-stop...UAW are not geared to do that without issues...
Regards,
OW
Period. 5 out of the top 20 vehicles sold in December were out of GM and 2 were PUT's. Let me know when the UAW start making top cars that sell....and don't fall apart.
Regards,
OW
Pelosi speaking out against Senate Health Care plan:
Senior House Democratic leadership aides say Pelosi was pointedly referring to Obama’s ’08 pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class, which she interprets to include a tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care plans that offer lavish benefit packages to many union members.
Pelosi tries to keep promise to Unions
I'm letting you know that GM cars don't fall apart. Any car that can survive my wife's driving is an extremely solid and dependable car.
Unfortunately, not all of us have had the same experience. If GM vehicles have been as good as you state they wouldn't be a bankrupt company.