>Again, why do you think others gained where they couldnt?
> lets fly our company jet to DC and beg for money
I was going to respond to the first comment and then I saw the second quoted comment and realized you are operating at a much lower level if you think the use of corporate jets is a symptom of a problem. That was a useful ploy by the government which distracted a lot of little folks from the real discussion. BTW, just how do you think toyota and Honda and Hyundai folks move to and from the US to make all those cars they sell in the US?
I don't think any manufacturer makes money on small cars in the USA. Some are just willing to lose more in order to build a loyal fan base, and then upsell them in to bigger more profitable cars when they come in for a trade.
The only exception might be Mini, but look how small their volumes are.
why do you think others gained where they couldnt?
That's not true, though, sales dipped for everyone.
TORRANCE, Calif., Jan. 5, 2008/PRNewswire/ -- Toyota Motor Sales (TMS), U.S.A., Inc., today reported year-end sales of 2,217,662 vehicles, a decrease of 15.7 percent from the same period in 2007, on a daily selling rate basis.
TORRANCE, Calif., Jan. 5, 2008/PRNewswire/ -- American Honda Motor Co., Inc., today reported 2008 annual vehicle sales of 1,428,765, a decrease of 8.2 percent compared to 2007 results on a daily selling-rate* basis. American Honda's December sales totaled 86,085, a decrease of 34.7 percent.
FRANKLIN, Tenn., Jan. 5, 2008 /PRNewswire/ -- Nissan North America, Inc. (NNA) today reported sales for December of 62,102 units versus 89,555 units a year ago, a decrease of 30.7 percent. Sales of Nissan Division vehicles decreased 30.0 percent, while sales of Infiniti vehicles decreased by 34.6 percent.
Yes they do. That's exactly how I look at it, and exactly how fair trade should work. We either level the playing field with punitive compensating economic measures, or we aid our own. No other options.
I wonder if, in this day and age, a 401k might actually be a better bet than a pension? With a pension, they might tell you what you're going to get when you retire, and make all sorts of empty promises, but that can always change, and you have no control over it.
Well I'm glad that I'm managing my own 401K. I don't trust big companies (or government for that matter) to handle my money effectively.
The market takes a nose dive and suddenly the auto market goes from 17M to 12M vehicles overnight, and it's not even GM's fault.
You are only partially correct on this. The banks did cause a huge meltdown and don't get me started about those institutions. Suffice to say that my funds have moved from a bailed out bank to a credit union.
Toyota, Ford, BMW, VW, Honda did not fail. They were all subject to the same economic conditions. GM failed because it was the most fragile and was dependent upon continued great economic conditions to survive. It was inevitable that on the path GM was on, it was going to fail at some point within a few years. The economic crisis only accelerated that.
GM is American and should mean something.
I agree - we just see different ways to solve it. One camp wants to praise GM and love it and buy its products. Another camp wants to hold their feet to the fire, give them tough love, and say they aren't doing enough. Both camps want good results, they just approach it differently.
Like the parents of the druggie teenagers - some pamper them, others kick them out of the house. Just a different view on how to make things better in the long run.
Oh now youre better than me or anyone else, what, you paid a ton of money for a piece of paper that says youre smart?
I have papers that say that also...................so please respond, I and many others think that was just dumb to beg for money, because we cant make a profit and speaking of not making a profit we just flew our company jet here to tell you how bad off we are.
Why couldnt gm sell a small car, and lots of em while others could?????????
In order to weather that brutal storm in its home market Ford sold Volvo, Aston Martin, Land Rover, and Jaguar. All at huge losses. Their share in Mazda also, now that I think about it. Like the parents of the druggie teenagers
I'm far from being an enabler. I'd rat them out to the cops, and force them in to a rehab situation. But I would *pay* for the rehab, yes.
Same for GM. Force a tough reorganization to create a leaner company that is now thriving since the auto market picked back up.
If you let the junkie go, kick 'em out of the house, I firmly believe some predator (Chery, JAG) would exploit them to the death.
I guess you're sort of dismissing the great increase in sales from 15M to 17M that occurred for 7 years? So why wasn't GM banking great profits during those years? If they did, they would have $ to survive the down period (along with layoffs and temporary plant closings for 1-2 years).
What was GM's market-share doing, and what was GM making for profits? were they giving out bonuses and dividends during those boom years? Whose fault is it that they didn't have a large nest-egg when the financial crisis hit?
Apparently GM is the corporate version of the type of people who - regardless if they make $150K/year or hit the lottery, who spend all they make or have, and are only a few weeks away from applying for government aid.
Our government should identify every "too Big to fail" entity, and break them up into smaller businesses.
Same for GM. Force a tough reorganization to create a leaner company that is now thriving since the auto market picked back up.
I would say the New GM is more like the Old GM, then something new and revolutionary. Why do I say that? Well they still try and make vehicles for every type of market- sports cars, family vehicles, economy vehicles, electric, SUV both small and large (and in 2 divisions!), semi- and luxury cars, ... that really hasn't changed, has it?
GM still sells cars the same way it did in the 60's, thru the same tired old dealer networks.
GM still must deal with the UAW, and is susceptible to their crippling strikes.
GM still has factories in Europe and labor agreements there, they can not easily shed.
GM and the global economy are only "thriving" (1.5% GDP growth in U.S., Europe in recession) until the markets come to the realizations that some Central bankers soothing-comments-for-the-markets = smoke-and-mirrors. Unemployment is growing, and there's no end to government debt increasing.
>GM still must deal with the UAW, and is susceptible to their crippling strikes.
Does anyone know if GM wanted to keep the UAW contracts in place during the administration's implementation of the "managed" bankruptcy? I don't recall if I've read that in any of the articles about GM during that time?
Or did GM realize it would have been better to be given a free rein on the labor front?
>they still try and make vehicles for every type of market-
Many people have hypothesized about what GM should have done before, during, and after the restructuring. What vehicles do you think they could have been more successful selling by narrowing their field?
Do you think the foreign competitors would have changed ( will change ) their focus to try to cut GM off if that were done?
I'm with you fintail - I'm tired of being stepped on. Our country has stood up and protected many countries, yet we seem to always be criticized and unappreciated. It's time for America to put its interests first. We don't owe any one anything. I try to buy American. But I don't see that as where the Hqs are, but rather where its manufactured. A Camry with heavy US domestic input is more American to my way of thinking than an Impala made in Canada or a Fusion made in Mexico.
The ownership is not really important in terms of who failed during the meltdown. They all had large exposure to the US market. They are all multinational car companies. They were all affected by the same economic conditions. Yet only GM and C failed.
Same for GM. Force a tough reorganization to create a leaner company that is now thriving since the auto market picked back up.
But not as lean as they should be, or would have been without the US government intervention. And thriving? I'd say doing 'ok'.
If you let the junkie go, kick 'em out of the house, I firmly believe some predator (Chery, JAG) would exploit them to the death.
Well, a lot of kids who are kicked out of the house get their $hit together, and a few overdose and die. There are no guarantees.
IMHO the jury is still out on whether GM has changed enough to be a viable long term company. We should know within 10 years or so.
Many people have hypothesized about what GM should have done before, during, and after the restructuring. What vehicles do you think they could have been more successful selling by narrowing their field?
I'll jump in here and say that I always felt GM would have been best about 1/3 the size they used to be. Keep ONLY the very best vehicles, and discard the other 2/3. Then start rebuilding from those more excellent vehicles. No real reason to look for volume or size over quality and profitability. They could have done that with a normal BK.
>This is absolutely correct. It's going to bite us again with the big banks, as the government didn't do what they should have there, either.
The banks have been allowed too much freedom over the last decades. And the DC establishment hasn't fixed it at all. Just put on shows. Except they didn't bother to ask if the top folk at the banks traveled by private jets, a red herring.
I'd rather see more taken from what banks are allowed to synthesize and sell/trade and instead give more money to the US-based auto companies, Ford and GM to insure their survival against the insurgents who put some production here but continue as foreign companies.
Failure can be a learning experience....the failures during over 30 years at GM sounds like no learning was happening....don't you agree? And C failed twice!
No one said it was easy. Problem is the entire US auto industry failed together...Ford was just smart enough to know the difference.
I agree about a normal bankruptcy in so far as that the UAW could have been put out to pasture. A normal bankruptcy would have allowed cherry picking of pieces by scavengers who would have done nothing helpful to the US economy.
I'll vote in November my disdain for UAW having been paid off in this. But since UAW is there, how can GM cut down on plants with contracts in place? Unions worldwide, even in the beloved Korea, have rung the bell when things weren't done the way they wanted. If GM can't just close plants when UAW contracts keep them paid and employed, which car lines do they cut?
Indeed, the US really owes nobody anything. Hell, we aid our competitors, we are our own enemy. We don't need to help others develop. Including the deceptive notion supplied by greedy pseudo-capitalists that we are helping others by sending work offshore.
I can see the production argument. I guess it comes down to this: does the value put into the economy via employing a factory full of workers exceed the value of employing offices full of exes, and the value investment returns?
I can't vote with my wallet though, no plans to buy new. I'm more willing to buy a new motorcycle than a new car, and none I like are American via brand or production.
I agree about a normal bankruptcy in so far as that the UAW could have been put out to pasture. A normal bankruptcy would have allowed cherry picking of pieces by scavengers who would have done nothing helpful to the US economy.
I'll vote in November my disdain for UAW having been paid off in this. But since UAW is there, how can GM cut down on plants with contracts in place? Unions worldwide, even in the beloved Korea, have rung the bell when things weren't done the way they wanted. If GM can't just close plants when UAW contracts keep them paid and employed, which car lines do they cut?
You've just highlighted why the "limited" and nonstandard BK wasn't a good idea. GM COULD have had all union AND dealer agreements nullified. This would have freed two huge shackles - the union employees and the dealer agreements. Without those, they could have had almost infinite flexibility to adjust staffing, plants, product lines, dealers, etc. That's what would have allowed them to truly modify their operations to the most sensible, efficient, and targeted products and services.
With the way they actually evolved, they are a better version of the "old" company, with an awful lot of the same problems which are reduced but not really eliminated. That will be their weakness and will make their long term survival and competitiveness more difficult.
Many people have hypothesized about what GM should have done before, during, and after the restructuring. What vehicles do you think they could have been more successful selling by narrowing their field?
GM could have kept many of their vehicles after a BK, and would have had to, as that is what the factories were tooled to do. The problem GM has isn't necessarily the vehicles, but how they get built, marketed, and sold.
There are HUGE inefficiencies in GM's corporate structure, UAW wages, benefits, rules and pensions, "pushing" vehicles to market and having vehicles lay on lots for 100-days, and just having this dealer network that no one likes, and adds another layer of cost. And GM could have trashed their MSRP - rebates and discount programs, and the MadMen, and put out some outstanding pricing. I'm talking changes that would have allowed GM to drop their MSRP's 30% or more. That would sell vehicles.
I guess no one saw the energy prices forecast during those high truck years. Their cars were junk for a long time while the competition made better products and they kept their head in the toilet. :confuse:
> GM COULD have had all union AND dealer agreements nullified.
Would the dictator, czar and commander-in-chief, have allowed a settlement of how to do the bankruptcy under controlled and quick conditions without the payback to the unions, UAW specifically in this case? I don't think so.
I don't picture the CEOs at GM saying, "We want to keep the extra high cost of the UAW so that we can't compete on cost with the invaders who are building some of their cars here with 40% part-time workers and no unions for the full-time workers like toyota in Georgetown, KY. We like the extra high pension costs and medical and other benefits which were negotiated to avoid devastating strikes in previous contract negotiations."
Certainly not. On the other hand, I picture the GM execs (and F and C) saying we need a leveling to the playing field by placing the unions outside the box.
>dealer agreements
I haven't given much thought to those beyond that there were too many in many areas. A major problem in reducing showed up, however, with the government's dictators being in charge in the Chrysler reductions where the political leanings of the dealership played a part in who got closed down.
That stance seems selfish and against our countries best economic interests to me. I believe every country needs an industrial base for both economic and military survival ans success. I just don't think America remains strong for our kids and grandkids if we don't take care of this area.
So if we have to subsidize business to compete in the world, why subsidize our lamest, poorest, most imcompetent failure prone businesses and industries?
Why not give billions and billions to our very best and most successful companies so that they can FURTHER dominate the world competition. Think companies like Apple and others.
The whole problem with helping certain industries and businesses is choosing winners and losers. Construction companies are losers, Car companies are winners. Who's choosing who gets to win and lose? Bank companies are big winners; DVD rental stores like Blockbuster are losers.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
As for the banks, if it was really that easy how come nobody took over Lehman?
Because the CEO of Lehman chose to not sell, not sell, not sell, not sell, and was counting on the Bear Stearns bailout treatment and then didn't get it. The chaos wasn't from the non-bailout of Lehman, but from the original bailout of Bear Stearns which caused them to think they were invincible and made them expect VIP golden parachute treatment (which everyone got after Lehman) My argument is that if Bear Stearns wouldn't have been bailed out then all would have been fine and chaos avoided completely. It is the uncertainty of gov't interference and bailouts themselves that caused panic. big reason for the industry support of a GM bailout - subs would start failing that others also relied upon.
If subs started failing just because GM failed, then they deserved to have failed. They weren't positioned or managed well if a GM failure caused them to go under. Sometimes the weak need their heads chopped off to make room for the healthy.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Hahahahhaahahhah! That's the biggest laugh I've had in a long time!!!! Hilarious.
Sure...... it had nothing to do with poor unreliable vehicles, high warranty costs and expenses, and poor customer service. It was all the Banks fault. Even the bank of GM (GMAC) couldn't help them out? LOL.
By that reasoning every car company should have failed.
GM's market share nose dive was occurring for years, decades even, had nothing to do with the market downturn in 2008. Markets are cyclical, what goes up must go down; it's predictable. GM should have prepared for it like Ford did.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The failure was temporary and primarily market driven.
Failure isn't temporary unless you get bailed out everytime it happens. The failure had nothing to do with the market, the market only expedited it a tad.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
GM's buyback program is a scam, fraud, and sham. They have about 100 excuses too many to deny a claim to buyback the vehicle including:
1) Your Eligible Vehicle must not have incurred damage or non-warranted repairs in excess of $300, regardless of whether such damage has been repaired.
So get into a fender bender in a parking lot and it's all over! (even if its not your fault and repairs are made? ridiculous).
2) You die.
That's harsh. This is just an example, there's at least several dozen other exclusions and "cop-outs" in the language of the deal that shouldn't be there. It's just plain dishonest and false advertising.
3) Your Eligible Vehicle must pass a purchase inspection conducted by GM or GM's agent.
Now there's a vague capture everything to deny your claim clause if there ever was one!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I haven't given much thought to those beyond that there were too many in many areas. A major problem in reducing showed up, however, with the government's dictators being in charge in the Chrysler reductions where the political leanings of the dealership played a part in who got closed down.
I don't begrudge the government from being a dictator, given that they were fronting the money. And I agree with you that it was the government's decisions that were suboptimal in those cases. At the point that GM failed, they were pretty much going along for the ride, as beggars can't be choosy.
You might call it whining or complaining, but as a car buying member of the public, I call it what it is.
And does GM really expect people to trust them? Why trust a failed, corrupt, bailout PRONE company?
I wouldn't trust GM with my money. If I'm doing a 60-day trial, I'm taking the keys and paying you 60 days later, OR returning the vehicle 60 days later. I hate rebates where you have to wait for a check (that often never comes), and I certainly don't want to wait for a "refund" from GM. Too much trust is involved.
Now; the first company that does a TRUE "free" 60 day trial on purchase, is going to have a winner of a marketing strategy there. I suppose putting like 5% down would be sufficient and acceptable so people don't move to Mexico with their new vehicle and disappear.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
General Motors Co. is ousting its global marketing chief, people familiar with the situation said Sunday, with the abrupt departure marking the latest shake-up in the auto maker's senior ranks.
GM and the marketing executive, Joel Ewanick, were expected to decide later Sunday whether he would resign or be removed from the company, people familiar with the matter said.
>I don't begrudge the government from being a dictator,
I think you mean that differently than I read it. My problem is that the czar chose democrat-donating groups to survive in the Chrysler dealer system and others were the ones cut. I have trouble with a government using its power thus.
>government's decisions that were suboptimal in those cases.
Definitely agree.
>point that GM failed, they were pretty much going along for the ride, as beggars can't be choosy.
They had been backed into a corner by UAW, their own failures to make changes in management and in vehicles, and other problems including that they were heavily selling lots of low gas mileage vehicles, which are what the customers wanted to buy. For the critics, not tlong, who say they should have been selling only Cobalts and cars getting 30 mpg and up, I say, "How?" They had to keep making as much money as they could so they delivered what their UAW contracts for plants mandated and what moved cash into their system. That was pickups.
Been reading blurbs that GM is going to start spending ad dollars on Facebook again. Maybe they'll buy just buy Facebook since the stock is heading for the dumpster. :shades:
Shift production to cheaper places (Mexico), spend the savings on a bunch of premium brands they can't manage, then sell them off and lose all the money they saved by moving production in the first place.
It's a matter of time before Suzuki folds, and Mitsubishi could be next.
I'm not saying GM didn't have problems, but their biggest problem was the pot going from 17M sales to 10 something M sales.
"Baseball, apple pie, Facebook, and Chevrolet" - I like it! Maybe you could then use the Onstar operator service, to access your Facebook account while driving, so you don't miss out on what your friends are making for dinner.
I haven't seen where it was brought up - that the head of GM Global Marketing was canned yesterday. Anyone hear why?
I haven't seen where it was brought up - that the head of GM Global Marketing was canned yesterday. Anyone hear why?
According to an inside source, it's because he failed to properly report financial details in Chevy's contract with Manchester United to become their main sponsor.
"I can tell you that he failed to meet the expectations the company has for its employees," said GM spokesman Greg Martin.
As for canned or quit: General Motors' global chief marketing officer, Joel Ewanick, has elected to resign effective immediately, the automaker says.
Comments
> lets fly our company jet to DC and beg for money
I was going to respond to the first comment and then I saw the second quoted comment and realized you are operating at a much lower level if you think the use of corporate jets is a symptom of a problem. That was a useful ploy by the government which distracted a lot of little folks from the real discussion. BTW, just how do you think toyota and Honda and Hyundai folks move to and from the US to make all those cars they sell in the US?
Slow freighter? ROF
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The only exception might be Mini, but look how small their volumes are.
why do you think others gained where they couldnt?
That's not true, though, sales dipped for everyone.
TORRANCE, Calif., Jan. 5, 2008/PRNewswire/ -- Toyota Motor Sales (TMS), U.S.A., Inc., today reported year-end sales of 2,217,662 vehicles, a decrease of 15.7 percent from the same period in 2007, on a daily selling rate basis.
TORRANCE, Calif., Jan. 5, 2008/PRNewswire/ -- American Honda Motor Co., Inc., today reported 2008 annual vehicle sales of 1,428,765, a decrease of 8.2 percent compared to 2007 results on a daily selling-rate* basis. American Honda's December sales totaled 86,085, a decrease of 34.7 percent.
FRANKLIN, Tenn., Jan. 5, 2008 /PRNewswire/ -- Nissan North America, Inc. (NNA) today reported sales for December of 62,102 units versus 89,555 units a year ago, a decrease of 30.7 percent. Sales of Nissan Division vehicles decreased 30.0 percent, while sales of Infiniti vehicles decreased by 34.6 percent.
The sky fell in GM's biggest market.
Well I'm glad that I'm managing my own 401K. I don't trust big companies (or government for that matter) to handle my money effectively.
Banks failed because banks took stupid risks.
GM failed because banks took stupid risks.
The market takes a nose dive and suddenly the auto market goes from 17M to 12M vehicles overnight, and it's not even GM's fault.
You are only partially correct on this.
The banks did cause a huge meltdown and don't get me started about those institutions. Suffice to say that my funds have moved from a bailed out bank to a credit union.
Toyota, Ford, BMW, VW, Honda did not fail. They were all subject to the same economic conditions. GM failed because it was the most fragile and was dependent upon continued great economic conditions to survive. It was inevitable that on the path GM was on, it was going to fail at some point within a few years. The economic crisis only accelerated that.
GM is American and should mean something.
I agree - we just see different ways to solve it. One camp wants to praise GM and love it and buy its products. Another camp wants to hold their feet to the fire, give them tough love, and say they aren't doing enough. Both camps want good results, they just approach it differently.
Like the parents of the druggie teenagers - some pamper them, others kick them out of the house. Just a different view on how to make things better in the long run.
I have papers that say that also...................so please respond, I and many others think that was just dumb to beg for money, because we cant make a profit and speaking of not making a profit we just flew our company jet here to tell you how bad off we are.
Why couldnt gm sell a small car, and lots of em while others could?????????
I dont mean the political bs.
On your own turf....really?
Of those only Ford was domestic.
In order to weather that brutal storm in its home market Ford sold Volvo, Aston Martin, Land Rover, and Jaguar. All at huge losses. Their share in Mazda also, now that I think about it.
Like the parents of the druggie teenagers
I'm far from being an enabler. I'd rat them out to the cops, and force them in to a rehab situation. But I would *pay* for the rehab, yes.
Same for GM. Force a tough reorganization to create a leaner company that is now thriving since the auto market picked back up.
If you let the junkie go, kick 'em out of the house, I firmly believe some predator (Chery, JAG) would exploit them to the death.
Literally, in both cases.
What was GM's market-share doing, and what was GM making for profits? were they giving out bonuses and dividends during those boom years? Whose fault is it that they didn't have a large nest-egg when the financial crisis hit?
Apparently GM is the corporate version of the type of people who - regardless if they make $150K/year or hit the lottery, who spend all they make or have, and are only a few weeks away from applying for government aid.
Our government should identify every "too Big to fail" entity, and break them up into smaller businesses.
I would say the New GM is more like the Old GM, then something new and revolutionary. Why do I say that? Well they still try and make vehicles for every type of market- sports cars, family vehicles, economy vehicles, electric, SUV both small and large (and in 2 divisions!), semi- and luxury cars, ... that really hasn't changed, has it?
GM still sells cars the same way it did in the 60's, thru the same tired old dealer networks.
GM still must deal with the UAW, and is susceptible to their crippling strikes.
GM still has factories in Europe and labor agreements there, they can not easily shed.
GM and the global economy are only "thriving" (1.5% GDP growth in U.S., Europe in recession) until the markets come to the realizations that some Central bankers soothing-comments-for-the-markets = smoke-and-mirrors. Unemployment is growing, and there's no end to government debt increasing.
It dropped into the 10s. No one saw that coming.
Does anyone know if GM wanted to keep the UAW contracts in place during the administration's implementation of the "managed" bankruptcy? I don't recall if I've read that in any of the articles about GM during that time?
Or did GM realize it would have been better to be given a free rein on the labor front?
>they still try and make vehicles for every type of market-
Many people have hypothesized about what GM should have done before, during, and after the restructuring. What vehicles do you think they could have been more successful selling by narrowing their field?
Do you think the foreign competitors would have changed ( will change ) their focus to try to cut GM off if that were done?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The ownership is not really important in terms of who failed during the meltdown. They all had large exposure to the US market. They are all multinational car companies. They were all affected by the same economic conditions. Yet only GM and C failed.
Same for GM. Force a tough reorganization to create a leaner company that is now thriving since the auto market picked back up.
But not as lean as they should be, or would have been without the US government intervention. And thriving? I'd say doing 'ok'.
If you let the junkie go, kick 'em out of the house, I firmly believe some predator (Chery, JAG) would exploit them to the death.
Well, a lot of kids who are kicked out of the house get their $hit together, and a few overdose and die. There are no guarantees.
IMHO the jury is still out on whether GM has changed enough to be a viable long term company. We should know within 10 years or so.
This is absolutely correct. It's going to bite us again with the big banks, as the government didn't do what they should have there, either.
Here's an American company moving back production of their pottery portion of their basket business to the Central Ohio area. Good for them.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/07/27/longaberger-to-move-- pottery-making-to-dresden.html
>It's time for America to put its interests first.
The only way to do that is to put manufacturing by American companies first.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'll jump in here and say that I always felt GM would have been best about 1/3 the size they used to be. Keep ONLY the very best vehicles, and discard the other 2/3. Then start rebuilding from those more excellent vehicles. No real reason to look for volume or size over quality and profitability. They could have done that with a normal BK.
The banks have been allowed too much freedom over the last decades. And the DC establishment hasn't fixed it at all. Just put on shows. Except they didn't bother to ask if the top folk at the banks traveled by private jets, a red herring.
I'd rather see more taken from what banks are allowed to synthesize and sell/trade and instead give more money to the US-based auto companies, Ford and GM to insure their survival against the insurgents who put some production here but continue as foreign companies.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
No one said it was easy. Problem is the entire US auto industry failed together...Ford was just smart enough to know the difference.
Regards,
OW
GM has some of the poison left in it as well. Admit it or repeat it. That's the choice.
Regards,
OW
I'll vote in November my disdain for UAW having been paid off in this. But since UAW is there, how can GM cut down on plants with contracts in place? Unions worldwide, even in the beloved Korea, have rung the bell when things weren't done the way they wanted. If GM can't just close plants when UAW contracts keep them paid and employed, which car lines do they cut?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I can see the production argument. I guess it comes down to this: does the value put into the economy via employing a factory full of workers exceed the value of employing offices full of exes, and the value investment returns?
I can't vote with my wallet though, no plans to buy new. I'm more willing to buy a new motorcycle than a new car, and none I like are American via brand or production.
I remember a huge outpouring of support after 9/11 from the world community.
(To everyone, let's watch the profanity please (even "masked"). This isn't prime time TV and not everyone wants to read it. Thanks.)
I'll vote in November my disdain for UAW having been paid off in this. But since UAW is there, how can GM cut down on plants with contracts in place? Unions worldwide, even in the beloved Korea, have rung the bell when things weren't done the way they wanted. If GM can't just close plants when UAW contracts keep them paid and employed, which car lines do they cut?
You've just highlighted why the "limited" and nonstandard BK wasn't a good idea. GM COULD have had all union AND dealer agreements nullified. This would have freed two huge shackles - the union employees and the dealer agreements. Without those, they could have had almost infinite flexibility to adjust staffing, plants, product lines, dealers, etc. That's what would have allowed them to truly modify their operations to the most sensible, efficient, and targeted products and services.
With the way they actually evolved, they are a better version of the "old" company, with an awful lot of the same problems which are reduced but not really eliminated. That will be their weakness and will make their long term survival and competitiveness more difficult.
GM could have kept many of their vehicles after a BK, and would have had to, as that is what the factories were tooled to do. The problem GM has isn't necessarily the vehicles, but how they get built, marketed, and sold.
There are HUGE inefficiencies in GM's corporate structure, UAW wages, benefits, rules and pensions, "pushing" vehicles to market and having vehicles lay on lots for 100-days, and just having this dealer network that no one likes, and adds another layer of cost. And GM could have trashed their MSRP - rebates and discount programs, and the MadMen, and put out some outstanding pricing. I'm talking changes that would have allowed GM to drop their MSRP's 30% or more. That would sell vehicles.
It dropped into the 10s. No one saw that coming.
I guess no one saw the energy prices forecast during those high truck years. Their cars were junk for a long time while the competition made better products and they kept their head in the toilet. :confuse:
Regards,
OW
Time for the US to make the best products. That will make take them "First Place".
Regards,
OW
Just giving money to anything doesn't guarantee it's fixed when greed rears it's ugly head, not to mention mismanagement. :mad:
Regards,
OW
Would the dictator, czar and commander-in-chief, have allowed a settlement of how to do the bankruptcy under controlled and quick conditions without the payback to the unions, UAW specifically in this case? I don't think so.
I don't picture the CEOs at GM saying, "We want to keep the extra high cost of the UAW so that we can't compete on cost with the invaders who are building some of their cars here with 40% part-time workers and no unions for the full-time workers like toyota in Georgetown, KY. We like the extra high pension costs and medical and other benefits which were negotiated to avoid devastating strikes in previous contract negotiations."
Certainly not. On the other hand, I picture the GM execs (and F and C) saying we need a leveling to the playing field by placing the unions outside the box.
>dealer agreements
I haven't given much thought to those beyond that there were too many in many areas. A major problem in reducing showed up, however, with the government's dictators being in charge in the Chrysler reductions where the political leanings of the dealership played a part in who got closed down.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
So if we have to subsidize business to compete in the world, why subsidize our lamest, poorest, most imcompetent failure prone businesses and industries?
Why not give billions and billions to our very best and most successful companies so that they can FURTHER dominate the world competition. Think companies like Apple and others.
The whole problem with helping certain industries and businesses is choosing winners and losers. Construction companies are losers, Car companies are winners. Who's choosing who gets to win and lose? Bank companies are big winners; DVD rental stores like Blockbuster are losers.
Because the CEO of Lehman chose to not sell, not sell, not sell, not sell, and was counting on the Bear Stearns bailout treatment and then didn't get it. The chaos wasn't from the non-bailout of Lehman, but from the original bailout of Bear Stearns which caused them to think they were invincible and made them expect VIP golden parachute treatment (which everyone got after Lehman) My argument is that if Bear Stearns wouldn't have been bailed out then all would have been fine and chaos avoided completely. It is the uncertainty of gov't interference and bailouts themselves that caused panic.
big reason for the industry support of a GM bailout - subs would start failing that others also relied upon.
If subs started failing just because GM failed, then they deserved to have failed. They weren't positioned or managed well if a GM failure caused them to go under. Sometimes the weak need their heads chopped off to make room for the healthy.
Hahahahhaahahhah! That's the biggest laugh I've had in a long time!!!! Hilarious.
Sure...... it had nothing to do with poor unreliable vehicles, high warranty costs and expenses, and poor customer service. It was all the Banks fault. Even the bank of GM (GMAC) couldn't help them out? LOL.
By that reasoning every car company should have failed.
GM's market share nose dive was occurring for years, decades even, had nothing to do with the market downturn in 2008. Markets are cyclical, what goes up must go down; it's predictable. GM should have prepared for it like Ford did.
Failure isn't temporary unless you get bailed out everytime it happens. The failure had nothing to do with the market, the market only expedited it a tad.
Huge losses are far preferrable to failure; unless of course you have the gov't bailout in your back pocket.
Why don't we ait our own new startups then. At least then there's a chance of competency, rather than aiding proven failures.
1) Your Eligible Vehicle must not have incurred damage or non-warranted repairs in excess of $300, regardless of whether such damage has been repaired.
So get into a fender bender in a parking lot and it's all over! (even if its not your fault and repairs are made? ridiculous).
2) You die.
That's harsh. This is just an example, there's at least several dozen other exclusions and "cop-outs" in the language of the deal that shouldn't be there. It's just plain dishonest and false advertising.
3) Your Eligible Vehicle must pass a purchase inspection conducted by GM or GM's agent.
Now there's a vague capture everything to deny your claim clause if there ever was one!
Either we aid on par with the competition or we penalize them to the value of the aid they receive.
AAAAGH!!! Change it, Butthead! Change It!
I don't begrudge the government from being a dictator, given that they were fronting the money. And I agree with you that it was the government's decisions that were suboptimal in those cases. At the point that GM failed, they were pretty much going along for the ride, as beggars can't be choosy.
And does GM really expect people to trust them? Why trust a failed, corrupt, bailout PRONE company?
I wouldn't trust GM with my money. If I'm doing a 60-day trial, I'm taking the keys and paying you 60 days later, OR returning the vehicle 60 days later. I hate rebates where you have to wait for a check (that often never comes), and I certainly don't want to wait for a "refund" from GM. Too much trust is involved.
Now; the first company that does a TRUE "free" 60 day trial on purchase, is going to have a winner of a marketing strategy there. I suppose putting like 5% down would be sufficient and acceptable so people don't move to Mexico with their new vehicle and disappear.
General Motors Co. is ousting its global marketing chief, people familiar with the situation said Sunday, with the abrupt departure marking the latest shake-up in the auto maker's senior ranks.
GM and the marketing executive, Joel Ewanick, were expected to decide later Sunday whether he would resign or be removed from the company, people familiar with the matter said.
I think you mean that differently than I read it. My problem is that the czar chose democrat-donating groups to survive in the Chrysler dealer system and others were the ones cut. I have trouble with a government using its power thus.
>government's decisions that were suboptimal in those cases.
Definitely agree.
>point that GM failed, they were pretty much going along for the ride, as beggars can't be choosy.
They had been backed into a corner by UAW, their own failures to make changes in management and in vehicles, and other problems including that they were heavily selling lots of low gas mileage vehicles, which are what the customers wanted to buy. For the critics, not tlong, who say they should have been selling only Cobalts and cars getting 30 mpg and up, I say, "How?" They had to keep making as much money as they could so they delivered what their UAW contracts for plants mandated and what moved cash into their system. That was pickups.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Shift production to cheaper places (Mexico), spend the savings on a bunch of premium brands they can't manage, then sell them off and lose all the money they saved by moving production in the first place.
It's a matter of time before Suzuki folds, and Mitsubishi could be next.
I'm not saying GM didn't have problems, but their biggest problem was the pot going from 17M sales to 10 something M sales.
This could be the price of all those joint ventures GM does there.
I haven't seen where it was brought up - that the head of GM Global Marketing was canned yesterday. Anyone hear why?
Either way we'll never really know, as they'll spin it.
According to an inside source, it's because he failed to properly report financial details in Chevy's contract with Manchester United to become their main sponsor.
"I can tell you that he failed to meet the expectations the company has for its employees," said GM spokesman Greg Martin.
As for canned or quit: General Motors' global chief marketing officer, Joel Ewanick, has elected to resign effective immediately, the automaker says.