Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options

GM News, New Models and Market Share

1278279281283284631

Comments

  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    edited April 2011
    My check engine lights have never come on in my 3 cars.

    That's because the bulbs don't work! :P

    JK, of course. Also, as auto computers get more sophisticated and diagnose respective issues with a warning message, the Idiot Lights, most likely named after past GM management, are a thing of the past, like most GM management!

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    They're all GM products: the Mark of Excellence.

    Did you consider a complete bankruptcy "The Mark of Excellence" also?

    Regards,
    OW
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Did you consider a complete bankruptcy "The Mark of Excellence" also?

    LOL!

    I know Richard Wagoner said everything was fine and GM would NOT go bankrupt.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,934
    It's true a CEL means emissions failure in CA. Thankfully, they don't require Emissions testing every year. I believe at 5 years is the first time it's required, or if you sell after 4 years, and I think every 3 years after that first 4 or 5 years?
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    emissions standards and procedures will vary from state to state, but in almost every instance I've ever heard of, a check engine light will signal an automatic failure. Nowadays, most of them just plug into the OBD-II port under the dash, and depend on whatever lies, damned lies, or statistics that thing might be spouting out.

    In Maryland, I believe a car gets tested once it's two years old, and then it's every two years after that. 1996 and newer get the OBD-II test, 1977-1995 get the old fashioned tailpipe test. If it's '76 or older, or you get historic tags for it (20 calendar years and older, so as of January 1, 2012, anything 1992 or older can qualify), you're exempt.

    And, not all counties in Maryland require an emissions test, mainly just the more populated ones.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    edited April 2011
    That's pretty much the same as WA state, although I think you get 5 years before you had to do an every other year emissions check.

    Here you can have antique plates for a car over 40 years old or year of manufacture plates for a car over 30 years old - the latter waives the yearly registration fee (I don't know if the others do). I've had year of manufacture plates on the fintail since I found a set at a yard sale in 1996 - nice investment.
  • jae5jae5 Member Posts: 1,206
    D1,

    They've changed it, in some instances for the better, some for the worse. I still have to get my DD tested, just passed it a couple weeks ago, but the Olds, naw.

    When they changed it a couple years ago anything OBDI or older ('95 and older) doesn't get tested. Two reasons were given:

    A lot of the older cars were not on the road anymore and

    Seems IL was paying so much cash to people having their car damaged by over-zealous, not properly trained workers running the older cars on the dynos they decided to stop testing them

    The newer tests check 8 - 10 parameters and if you fail any of those parameters, you fail the test. Some stations still check your gas cap, some still do the under-car visual. If your CEL comes on during the test, even for something non-emission related you fail. It is now tied to your registration - you don't take the test or can't pass you can't get your tags renewed. They also push for owners of failed cars have their car repaired at "approved" facilities, most of which are located right next door to the emissions testing.

    It's still every two years and based on your zip / location. Had I moved to the area were I was looking for a home I'd been totally free from testing.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    In Pennsylvania, emmissions testing is every year. The only time you'd be exempt is if you put less than 5K miles on the car since the last inspection or the car is over a certain amount of years old. Can't remember if it's 20 or 25 years.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,934
    Wow! Emissions Testing EVERY YEAR!!!! I can't believe Pennsylvania doesn't look more like Libya or Egypt right now!!! If I had to do emmissions testing every year I'd have torches and molotov cocktails ready by all the politicians' homes. What a hassle!!!

    Do they "pay for it?" Or do you get gouged like in CA since it is REQUIRED.
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited April 2011
    It was that way in Boise too, but no where else in Idaho afaik. Air quality problems (Boise is in an inversion prone valley like LA). And if your CEL was on, you needed to clear it and try again. $15 a year, although my guy always gave me a $2 discount. Nothing in this part of Michigan required.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    IIRC, I was charged something like $20 for emissions testing in Ohio. I don't remember how often I had to do it. We only lived in Ohio for about 3 years.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    Seems IL was paying so much cash to people having their car damaged by over-zealous, not properly trained workers running the older cars on the dynos they decided to stop testing them

    Now that you mention it, when I went to Maryland's emissions website, I noticed that there was no mention of those treadmill tests anymore, just OBD-II or tailpipe. So I guess they finally got rid of 'em in Maryland, as well.

    One problem with the treadmill test is that if you went in on a rainy day, it was often hard for them to get an accurate reading, because of your tires and the test equipment being wet. So sometimes they'd have to do 2 or 3 attempts, and it would take a LOT longer than the old fashioned tailpipe test.

    I wonder if Maryland will ever drop the testing for older cars? It used to be that they'd only test cars up to 15 years old, and every year they'd move it up one, so eventually, you could count on your car being old enough to be exempted from the emissions test. But once they got up to 1976 and older, they stopped it at that year, so anything 1977 and newer is forever doomed to the emissions test...unless you get historic plates for it. And, just about anybody in Maryland still driving a car that old has probably done that.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,934
    Speaking of Emmissions and Smog Testing, I've talked to a lot of fellow Audi owners lately, and one thing that came up was yet ANOTHER advantage of Quattro All Wheel Drive:

    Nobodies testing facility has a Dyno that can handle Quattro 4 wheel drive, so the emissions testing is easier to pass since they can only do it idling. Helps with those performance modifications!
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    Could that 1975-77 business have to do with the introduction of the catalytic converter? I have to imagine most early cats aren't functioning anymore. Per the WA state site it looks like pre-87 vehicles might be exempt now.
  • maple2maple2 Member Posts: 177
    edited April 2011
    doesnt really matter for you...since your cel is likely on anyway...auto fail :lemon:
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    I believe at 5 years is the first time it's required, or if you sell after 4 years, and I think every 3 years after that first 4 or 5 years?

    It's every two years after that. And they have decreased the amount that they are allowing on older vehicles despite the fact that they officially state that they are more lenient on older vehicles. Case in point - I had an old 4Runner. In three years, they lowered the allowable limits by 30%. In the end, the vehicle had a new cat, new plugs, proper compression and timing, new header and exhaust and still passed by only 2 thousandths.

    What this means is that they expected my 24 year old truck to pollute *less* than when it was new. I have the smog checks to prove it. I ended up selling it because it was clear that I was going to have to pretty much buy a whole new engine in another two years, since the limits kept creeping downwards while nobody was paying attention.

    Also, if you fail a smog test twice in a row and/or get a waiver at any time, they permanently classify it as a problem vehicle/gross polluter and require smog checks every year.(or until you get a whole new engine and get that passed by a referee ($) ) They simply want old cars off the road in this state. The limit in CA is 1975. It's mandated by Federal law to be a 20 year rolling target to allow potential classic cars to be exempt (eg - Buick GNX and similar, which are exempt in most of the rest of the U.S. now), but they simply ignore it and haven't changed the cutoff date since 1995.

    Sigh. And this is just the tip of the iceberg on CARB and their activities. If I could get rid of one agency or overhaul it entirely, it would be this group of morons. I can't believe that I'm paying taxes to fund such idiocy. Well, actually, living in CA, I think I can. :sick:
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "GM announced before last week’s Shanghai Auto Show that it will double sales in China by 2015. Annual auto sales in China are expected to top 18 million by the decade’s halfway point, and GM’s deft management of its Chinese partnerships should keep it easily eclipsing U.S. sales moving forward."

    GM Well Slotted For Steady China Growth (AutoObserver)

    image
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,934
    :lemon: :lemon: is the Dodge, not the Audi.

    I don't know how you concluded my CEL light is on anyway, or likely to be on. Being that it's been on only for a short period two seperate times for two separate small parts that were beginning to fail (note, the sensors noted problems prior to full failure), I don't think it's likely at all. That's about 2 times in over 75,000 miles.

    Shoot, The Dodge had more CEL activations then that!!!! And in less miles!!
    and in that car a CEL meant repairs greater than $500 would be needed usually. Sometimes it was just because the battery reset, but who knows, totally unsophisticated in the Dodge. I trust my Audi's CEL gives early warnings.
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    You forgot about the large share of GM that the US Govt bought, and which is well below the purchase value at the current time. Much larger than the number you cited.

    I didn't forget about that. The GM IPO was a sale of stock that paid back all but $9.1 billion to the gov. Can you show me a GM quote where GM said they will never pay back the loans, effectively reducing the bailout to zero?
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    You might like their products but reality bites.

    When President Obama pushed his ill-advised plan to bailout two failing auto companies, we were told that the taxpayers were going to make a profit in the end. Well, it turns out that’s not going to happen at all:

    The U.S. government plans to sell a significant share of its remaining stake in General Motors Co. this summer despite the disappointing performance of the auto maker’s stock, people familiar with the matter said.

    A sale within the next several months would almost certainly mean U.S. taxpayers will take a loss on their $50 billion rescue of the Detroit auto maker in 2009.

    To break even, the U.S. Treasury would need to sell its remaining stake—about 500 million shares—at $53 apiece. GM closed off 27 cents a share at $29.97 in 4 p.m. trading Monday on the New York Stock Exchange, hitting a new low since its $33-a-share November initial public offering.

    “Planning for the sale of our remaining GM stock is still at an early stage, and the IPO lock-up does not expire until late May,” a Treasury spokesperson said. “At that point, we will consider all of our options, based on our twin goals of protecting taxpayers’ interests and exiting as soon as practicable.”

    Shares have been hurt by rising fuel prices, industry production disruptions and management turnover. At Monday’s price, and taking into account shares sold during the IPO, taxpayers would lose more than $11 billion on the rescue if the government dumped the rest of its stake now.

    Government officials are willing to take the loss because the Obama administration would like to sever its last ties to the auto maker, the people familiar with the matter said.

    Of course, the government never should have had any ties to General Motors to begin with. The company should have been allowed to fail and let it’s assets be acquired by better suited competitors, rather than being bailed out by the government so that someone can produce an electric car that nobody wants to buy.


    Regards,
    OW
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    In the end, how did the US taxpayer fare as 99ers ran up hundreds of billions of dollars in unemployment compensation payouts by the Federal gov.

    In the end, your link cries about $11 billion that would be lost if they tried to sell out now. That means a lot in a day and age when we go $7.7 billion a day deeper into debt and Stim, QE1&2 caused $5 gas. Every dollar I have and my salary has lost 21.5% of it's value since 2002. I should cry if the gov. loses 20% on an investment that saved jobs? Sorry but I have to keep perspective.

    Right now it is tough to find things going right. The other list (things going wrong) would go on for pages before I got to the part where I offered up GM for addition to it.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    In the end, your link cries about $11 billion that would be lost if they tried to sell out now. That means a lot in a day and age when we go $7.7 billion a day deeper into debt and Stim, QE1&2 caused $5 gas. Every dollar I have and my salary has lost 21.5% of it's value since 2002. I should cry if the gov. loses 20% on an investment that saved jobs? Sorry but I have to keep perspective.

    I'm not going to debate whether the bail out was good or bad. I was disputing your claims that GM is close to paying back the money loaned and invested.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    wow...In the midst of losing 14.5 Trillion we don't have, we didn't make a profit off GM.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    I think his reasoning is that since the government is bailing out the horrible banks, it's ok to bail out GM as well as there are a lot of people suffering in the car industry, and so why not help? GM deserved a piece of the pie! ;)
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Let me put it this way....GM is the Bernie Madoff of the Car Industry. A 40 year Ponzi scheme that eventually failed. What YOU call GM now is part of the greed that continues to add huge debt our Nation. To say GM is a small piece of the problem is as ridiculous as saying the Earth is the majority of the Universe.

    They should have gone away for good.

    Regards,
    OW
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    What YOU call GM now is part of the greed that continues to add huge debt our Nation

    GM now:
    Aura
    Sky
    Avalanche
    Malibu
    Acadia
    G8
    Vette
    Camaro
    Equinox
    Cruze
    Volt
    Traverse
    Lacrosse
    Regal
    Enclave
    CTS
    STS
    Past and present GM workers and their suppliers made Trillions and paid taxes on all of it for over 100 yrs. Just the sales taxes on selling $250 billion a year in vehicles amounts to $45 billion since the bailout. 3 yrs at 6%.

    Perspective!!
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498

    The price of a stock is a measure of the market's belief in the successful prospects for the company. How is that new GM stock doing these days?


    How about the Hundred billion dollars in taxes generated by GM since the bailout? $45 Billion in sales tax alone in the last 3 years. 145 million of their cars on the road consuming maintenance and repairs. And you are worried about their stock price as the determinant of whether 100,000 Americans should lose their jobs.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    How about the Hundred billion dollars in taxes generated by GM since the bailout? $45 Billion in sales tax alone in the last 3 years. 145 million of their cars on the road consuming maintenance and repairs

    And you don't think that the same number of cars would be bought regardless of whether GM was still making cars?
    And you don't think the best pieces of GM would not be bought and used by other companies?

    Apples to oranges arguments.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    Click me!

    I'm frankly not surprised by the higher percentage of coupe models being V-series models, but 10% of wagons? Compared to 6% of Sedans?
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    How about the Hundred billion dollars in taxes generated by GM since the bailout?

    I'd like to see how that is figured. GM grossed $135 billion in sales in 2010, and 104 billion in 2009. I have a hard time believing $100 billion in tax revenue can be generated from 239 billion in gross revenue. GM likely will not be paying any income tax for a while, they have several state tax incentives as well. Sure they are paying payroll taxes etc, but i don't see where they are generating a lot of tax revenue based on business activities.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    I'd like to see how that is figured. GM grossed $135 billion in sales in 2010, and 104 billion in 2009. I have a hard time believing $100 billion in tax revenue can be generated from 239 billion in gross revenue.

    Maybe if you factor in voodoo economics or trickle-down or whatever they call it? In Maryland it costs 6% of the sales price of a car to title it. I dunno what the national average is, but, if it's about that, and say they sold $239B worth of cars, just the titling process would generate around $14.3B in taxes. Of course, that would go to the states where the car is titled, and not to the Feds.

    Then, if you figure all the companies and individuals that GM employs who pay taxes, and so on, maybe if you trickle down far enough, it comes to $100B? For instance, if I'm a GM employee and I grab lunch at McDonald's, I'm paying sales tax on that lunch, McDonald's is making money off that lunch, and their employees that made my lunch are earning wages that are being taxed, and so forth.

    I'm sure there are some creative accounting tricks they use to come up with that $100B.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited April 2011
    In Maryland it costs 6% of the sales price of a car to title it.

    I wonder how much of GM's revenue is from the sale of replacement parts? ;)

    I'm sure there are some creative accounting tricks they use to come up with that $100B.

    For sure, but GM is no different from any other business in that regard. Just being in operation will lead to tax generating activities.

    No doubt GM's operations generate tax revenue beyond income and property taxes, but it's hard to imagine just being in business means 40% of revenue is going to taxes when little to no income taxes are being paid.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Hot rod Caddys.

    I convoyed with a BMW owner one time from Memphis up to Cape Girardeau MO on the Interstate. I led the way in a Datsun wagon.

    He got a speeding ticket. Wagons are sleepers. ;)
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Your arguments about "GM is needed" because of the jobs, taxes or other reasons fails because you don't want to admit as has just been pointed out by others - that GM could have been sold off, and replaced with new owners and management producing that same number of jobs and taxes.

    The bailout of GM and many other firms is nothing but "legal-thievery" that our government has now made the norm - to protect the wealth and power of those individuals and groups which provide them with political power. Thus the government protected their wealthy donors and union members, at the cost of the rest of the unorganized and relatively powerless populace. Our democracy is a slightly less corrupt version of government, than you see being protested in the Middle East.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,934
    I should cry if the gov. loses 20% on an investment that saved jobs? Sorry but I have to keep perspective.

    Yes you should. Those saved jobs are unsustainable jobs for mostly incompetent undeserving underperforming workers. So we saved unsustainable jobs, how long will that last?

    That money could of been used to pay an awful lot of Unemployment claims!

    LOL
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,934
    Other car companies would have had MORE revenues if GM had disappeared and therefore no taxation monies would have been lost. The net result is the same, we simply wasted about 60 billion dollars bailing out a no good company for no good reason.
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    I believe it.

    If I was shopping for a V, I'd pick a wagon too.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited April 2011
    If I was shopping for a V, I'd pick a wagon too.

    I think I would also. The kids would never be late to school, well that's if I didn't take the long way;)

    I wonder what the break down is for the CTS sedan, wagon, and coupe. I've seen a coupe here and there, and one wagon. I can't remember the last time I've run across a V series.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Your arguments about "GM is needed" because of the jobs, taxes or other reasons fails because you don't want to admit as has just been pointed out by others - that GM could have been sold off, and replaced with new owners and management producing that same number of jobs and taxes.

    This is unfortunately, wrong. While it seems like it should be a simple numbers game, the reality is that it takes time and years to re-tool and deal with a major company failing and the rest of the industry picking up the pieces. In the meantime, the workers and economy take a hit. Eventually it will recover - in a decade or so - but we just don't have that luxury right now. Where are the poor workers in all of this? Right. Unemployed and costing the government billions anyways.

    Look, the rest of the entire PLANET wastes money like this to protect their infrastructure and heavy industries. There are many good reasons to do so and only one not to. Greed. Multi-national corporations as a rule don't care at all about their workforce and only see them as expendable labor for the most part. This worshiping of corporate creed under the false guise of "capitalism" is amazing. Common sense should tell most people that running our country like that would only result in it being eaten by the predators around the world. (and you know where the poor workers end up in this equation where money is everything and ethics is nowhere to be found)

    If America is for sale and nothing is protected/money is everything, then we might as well just bend over and let China take over completely.

    Other car companies would have had MORE revenues if GM had disappeared and therefore no taxation monies would have been lost. The net result is the same, we simply wasted about 60 billion dollars bailing out a no good company for no good reason.

    We're only "wasting" a bit over a day's worth of war funding and interest. At least we've got some still functioning industry and some employed workers to show for it. People keep asking and expecting Obama and Congress to fix the problem and create jobs. What does a day in Iraq and Afghanistan get us?

    To repeat this point, since 90% of America doesn't seem to get it:
    Everyone wants the Government to "fix" the economy. The only way that the government can create jobs is to either create a jobs program to create busy-work, OR to bail out companies.

    Aside from that, they can't do anything, really. You might as well be expecting Obama to find a cure for cancer. Creating jobs isn't something our Governemnt can actually do. But they can keep them from going overseas.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    This is unfortunately, wrong. While it seems like it should be a simple numbers game, the reality is that it takes time and years to re-tool and deal with a major company failing and the rest of the industry picking up the pieces. In the meantime, the workers and economy take a hit.

    The process is called "creative destruction" and is one of the greatest strengths of capitalism. Sort of like pruning diseased branches off a tree.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    I see a current style V sedan now and then, but hard to tell if it is actually new as the shape is a few years old now. I think I've seen one V wagon and no V coupes. The coupes and wagons are very uncommon even in normal form, probably because the design is still kind of way out there.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    In reality the percentages are likely misleading. There are probably 10 CTS sedans for every wagon being built, so a higher percentage of wagons may be a V series, but GM will still be selling more CTS-V sedans versus wagons or coupes.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    You have just provided one way but there are far better approaches than to "bail out" failures. After all, did we learn anything from Chrysler? Did their products get better?

    No. GM will die again if the industry out-sells them. They are really a Chinese company after all. Take a look at their market share and make sure you understand GM will never regain preeminence they lost forever...unless the entire industry all of a sudden gets the GM arrogance we all knew so very well.

    I do not want the Gov't to fix anything except the tax system let alone an industry they know little about. Do you think they fixed GM???

    Wait and see.

    Regards,
    OW
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    Yeah, that's exactly right. I'd wager actual production has sedans outnumbering wagons by 10:1 or more.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    Yeah, he seems to be telling us that the then solvent Chrysler Corporation didn't pick up the dead AMC and run with it....
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    This is unfortunately, wrong. While it seems like it should be a simple numbers game, the reality is that it takes time and years to re-tool and deal with a major company failing and the rest of the industry picking up the pieces. In the meantime, the workers and economy take a hit.

    What you're describing is a long, drawn out by-the-rules, non-emergency. Just like Lehman brothers was "sold" in a deal over the weekend, GM could have been declared bankrupt, and auctioned off within a weekend. GM could have been dissolved, pension obligations - null and void, all employees pink-slipped and offered new deals for any who wanted on Mon. morning, and anyassets of the sale used to pay the suppliers. GM could have been sold off to various companies, to be restarted on a Mon. morning.

    Yes they would have been making the same models on Mon. morning under a new name, but without the high legacy costs of pensions, unions, and other debt. That new auto company probably could have cut $3,000 off each vehicle without those costs, and their market-share would have increased.

    You should expand your thoughts of how things can go in a grave or "emergency" situation. The rule-book is out the window! If the generation who fought WWII followed normal procedures, the Yorktown which was nearly sunk would have spent 3 months in Pearl Harbor, rather than 24 hours and then participated in the battle of Midway. Bureaucracy and its associated procedures and rules are killing this country through a) inefficienies and b) "playing" the system.

    The non-shutdown and emergency reorganization/sale of GM probably fits both a) and b).
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    The process is called "creative destruction" and is one of the greatest strengths of capitalism. Sort of like pruning diseased branches off a tree.

    Unfortunately every person that I hear talking on the news and online about capitalism is thinking as if it was 1900. That is, that the U.S. is largely its own closed system. That there is time and space and capacity to make such a thing work. That market forces will work properly. That the theories in the textbooks are correct.

    In today's world, though, it's all about global companies. What this tactic means is that foreign companies buy up our companies at fire-sale prices immediately. Like a pack of Hyenas waiting for an easy kill. In fact, the economic theories all have a critical flaw in them in that they don't factor in greed, corruption, and willful abuse of the economic system.

    There is no restructuring, there is no time for the local economy to regrow. It's simply gone overseas. And we have no legal way to enforce any rules, either. "Pruning" like this has to be done extremely carefully in light of a global economy. At least until the world is one nation. Then classic capitalism "works" again. Though by then, we 'll probably have humans living on other moons and planets, which will cause the same problems of exploitation without any penalty.

    While local capitalism is a good thing, it is diametrically opposed to global capitalism. Because the workers at best under such a model will all be brought down to the same third-world living standard over time.

    GM wouldn't have been "saved" by some benefactor willing to bail it out and re-employ everyone. Toyota or some other (overseas) company simply would have bought them for their patents and IP and tossed the entire rest of it aside and sold off the actual plants and infrastructure to other companies. Mercedes now has an extra plant. And VW takes one. And so on. But most rot.

    Look up Vulture Capitalism to see how this process works. It's incredibly easy to abuse classical economic theories to make huge profits and get away with it when the courts can't touch you. As such, all of the old theories and schools of thought need to be re-written.

    Q: Why would any company buy GM to "save" if they hate their cars? They have to sell the same cars to keep from bleeding out during the restructuring and re-tooling to make "better" cars, right?
    A: Right - they simply wouldn't have. Toyota's not going to pay money to have workers sit around until the plant is finished, either. What you'd have gotten is a total shut-down of every model that they felt was junk.

    That means... They keep Europe, Australia, and Asia running (they make profit). And cut out the entire U.S. like a diseased boil (where the bleeding was coming from). GM simply vanishes from the U.S. market and that's that - everyone wins except for the workers who get shafted like they always do in global capitalism.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    edited April 2011
    You might want to tone it down, some of the more sensitive people here will brand you as an anti-American socialist pinko commie malcontent for not completely bending over for unsustainable irresponsible casino capitalism and the massive two-tiered societal devolution it is making :shades:

    Maybe GM should just move its HQ to the Caymans or Zug and get it over with. It's all free markets and goodness, right? Maybe even to China, as some here would love to emulate them. These globalist manipulators need to vanish in the night, never to be seen again.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    Yours is a 'what have you done for me lately?' argument.

    You can ignore the vast benefit of GM to this country. Tithing at church is meant for when a member falls on it's face and needs help. If one paid in more tithe than any other member, you would single them out for not getting help if they ever needed it? That's my analogy of how you wanted GM treated.

    18% of all personal income in the US in 2010 came as gov hand-outs.
    51% from wages at jobs.
    The worst this ratio has been since 1929. Lets not wish it was even worse.

    You seem upset that foreign companies were not able to feast on the remains of GM.
Sign In or Register to comment.