Maybe we should get away from Capitalism and move towards Socialism.
That would suit some here at Edmund's. At least until they found that toilet paper is in short supply and the only car the US Socialist Republic could build resembles a Yugo. But we own the banks now. Why not all of industry. The Left has wanted that for 80 years. Let them see how they like the Gulag when they speak out of turn. Maybe Putin will show Obama how to set up the secret police.
Sounds like you are doing much better than the dealers in San Diego. One of the largest Ford dealers went from 500 sales in October 2007 to 120 this October.
Don't look for a bailout to help you sell cars no one wants. My friend was a mechanic with 17 years seniority at another large Ford agency. They laid off 8 mechanics him included. The bailout will mean nothing to him.
If you want to strengthen our manufacturing base, then you should favor bankruptcy. GM's current corporate structure might have made sense in 1965, when the company's market share was over 50%, but it makes absolutely no sense today.
A drastically slimmed-down GM led by a new management team & with down-to-earth labor costs would thrive. But GM won't become a 21st century company if it's hooked on taxpayer dollars.
my focus easily got 36-37 mpg average on the highway and could get close to 40 keeping the cruise on 70. it was rated 33 highway under the ratings in effect until this year.
A Focus is also an enormous improvement over something like a 1982 Escort! It's bigger, roomier, heavier, more powerful, better-equipped, yet still gets comparable mileage.
I dunno if Ford really has a directly comparable descendant for 1982. The Fairmont was Ford's "compact" car, but that platform was technically midsized, and also served as the basis for their intermediate Granada, and the small LTD that followed. Those would probably be better compared to the Fusion.
Maybe a 1984 Tempo would roughly equate to a Focus? Roughly the same size, and more of a "true" compact car of that time. It was rated 25/34 with the 5-speed, and 25/29 with the automatic, which was only a 3-speed. My stepdad had one of those sorry beasts. 0-60 came up in about 16 seconds. I don't think we really want to go back there. :sick:
Even the Crown Vic has made gains, all things considered. I don't know much about the 1982 model, which was still carbureted, but the 1985 V-8, which had a 4-speed automatic, was fuel injected and rated at 16/23. If you got the performance package (yes, there was such a thing!) that gave you the quicker axle ratio and dual exhaust, you got 0-60 in about 10.5 seconds. The current model was rated something like 17/25 before they went to those revised ratings. Still just has a 4-speed automatic, but has a lot more hp. I don't know what 0-60 would be these days...maybe around 9 seconds? The car's also about 300-400 pounds heavier these days. So, it's heavier, more powerful, and STILL returns slightly better fuel economy.
Just looked at the headlines at Ed's site and link to US News headline, someone predicts DOW to hit 5000. Remember when they wanted all your money (including ss) in the fabulous market. Gee - some people still don't think and they still believe the fear mongerers who should've been tried a few years back for collusion with a terrorist state and a drug user who got millions in a prize for talking and continuing the ranting. A few billion - chump change and it is only a loan just like your mortgage and your car payments not like the financials gift from their friends.
The bottom line is that the Big Three are supporting an army of retirees, and the transplants are not, and that impacts costs. And the transplants won't ever have those costs, because they offer employees a 401(k) with a company contribution, not pensions, and they haven't put themselves on the hook for retiree health care benefits.
And saying that current workers don't get those benefits is more than a bit disingenuous. Under the current contract, blue-collar workers are entitled to those benefits when they retire, so the domestics must account for those costs in some way.
The companies can reduce that burden in two ways - renegotiate the contract, or declare bankruptcy.
"A few billion - chump change and it is only a loan just like your mortgage and your car payments not like the financials gift from their friends."
34 billion. And the thing is, loans also need to be paid back. There is no way this one will be. Garauntee, this time next year, they'll be back looking for more. :sick:
tired_old_dave: A few billion - chump change and it is only a loan just like your mortgage and your car payments not like the financials gift from their friends.
For GM and Chrysler, it will be a loan in name only. The plans that both companies unveiled this week will not make them viable over the long haul. They will begging for more money within 1-2 years.
Ford is a different case. It just needs help to continue implementing its turnaround plan, which appears viable, although it carries some risk.
But any "loan" given to GM and Chrysler at this point is as likely to be repaid as the "loan" one gives to the unemployed, alcoholic brother-in-law who hasn't worked at a steady job for the past year....
blue-collar workers are entitled to those benefits when they retire
I haven't looked at the contract talk much but my understanding was that the new hires were "tier 2" and that their pension and retiree health benefits would be less (along with their starting salaries), as compared to the "tier 1" hires.
Given their current dire condition, I doubt that the automakers are hiring many new workers. And under the current contract, the blue-collar workers who are employed now at the higher wages basically have a job until they retire (with the Jobs Bank), so those costs don't go away, even if new, lower-cost workers are hired. The auto makers really can't cut costs by replacing old workers with new ones.
I know this isnt going to go over, but....Give them the money to save them, but they have had it to good to long. Get rid of all of the CEO a-holes that just spend money. The UAW workers have had it too good too long. How can someone go right out of high school and make $60 -80 a year working on the line with no education and why do we need salesman?? When I am spending my hard earned money (at only about $30 a yr w/ 4 yrs of college) why do I need a salesman to tell me what options and color I need? We are now paying soo much for cars to comp for the insurance of the elders of the UAW who are living high on the hog, while other who dont have the nice UAW insurance have to decide between meds or heat for their house. Bottom line is these workers brought it on themselves. They are to greedy and should have been happy to have a good job instead of always asking for more, more and more. :sick: :sick:
GM saw this coming, the only reason I would help save them would that it would affect other company's like Honda, etc AND it affects many family's income. Otherwise I would say , my opinion let them fall flat on their face. Why do you think they are suffering the most? Chrysler is a Joke now? Just a frame with wheels.
I know, I sound harsh... I really do, but bail em out to keep jobs for us people! But, only for that reason. When GM/Chrysler can focus on quality, rather than money in the bank, then I'll change my opinion. I drive an 08 GM car(not by choice), I'll be leaving GM soon, the first chance I get, Ironically, a service rep via GM dealer said they plan to lose GM and get a Honda product. They feel the same way. lol. I know some are fans on GM, we all have our favorites, but going from a Honda to a GM, uh WOW! Luckily my car is a lease. Don't get me wrong I am impressed with the features on the car! I do love that, but I certainly don't have the pride I had in the Honda which was an 06 in this GM car. I work in a public place where I meet other people all the time, and many have said they are leaving GM. I hope no one is mad at me for saying all of this. Its just my opinion. Based on experiences with GM versus other cars. I mean nothing personal if you happen to like GM alot. Thats cool with me. Bail em out! save the jobs.
"It's a relationship that strained as the big automakers, Chrysler Corp., Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. became bigger credit risks. It then became tougher and more expensive to sell car-maker debt, even amid the orgy of lending that marked the last few years before the credit crisis shut down the party."
"Now, of course, the Big Three can't get any financing. And their suppliers, if they can get it, are paying through the teeth. Lending to the industry is down 70%. It doesn't take an engineer to figure out why: Wall Street thinks Detroit is dead."
Maybe we should get away from Capitalism and move towards Socialism.
What do you call giving billions of dollars to banks and auto companies, and buying ownership stakes in both? Not that I mind...personally, I bought Ford stock. But with all this bailout stuff the line is definitely getting fuzzier.
Still, if there has to be a move like this, I think equity stakes are the best way to do it. Make the taxpayers a shareholder just like any other.
Oh don't worry, I read about half-way through it before I realized that it was an old article! The part that really tipped me off was when it mentioned the Chrysler Sebring being a strong seller, with sales up 57% over the previous year. I KNEW that part couldn't be right!
There's still a bit of grilling going on of the folks testifying in from of the Senate, but it sure sounds like money is going to be forthcoming.
One interesting idea I heard from a Senator was to have the banks that got TARP money make the loans to Detroit. Kind of an out-of-the-box idea. Use the same money for two different purposes.
Does that make too much sense to actually work? :surprise: U.S. senators raised the possibility today of getting bailout loans to the Detroit 3 by having the federal government guarantee loans that would be made by private banks and financial institutions.
Sens. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, and Tom Carper, D-Del., injected the new scenario during hearings this morning in the Senate exploring the need for an automaker bailout. The senators said the proposal would get money to the carmakers quickly while avoiding the need to set up a government oversight board to manage direct federal loans to the Detroit 3.
Well... there ARE cars being bought. I think that's one of the things that bothers me the most, the perception that NO cars are selling.
Yeah, some cars are selling, but it's still awfully rough out there. I read on either MSN Money or Yahoo News that they're predicting about 10 million vehicles sold this year, down from about 16 million last year. That's an awful huge drop, and at the rate things are going, 2008 will be the bleakest year since 1982. Once you take into account the population of the United States, you actually have to go way back to 1958 to find a worse year.
One thing that's odd about 1982 was that the Chevy Caprice was actually a pretty hot seller. Showrooms were selling every one they got their hands on, and they were going out for sticker price, sometimes more. Now part of that could have been less competition. In 1982, the big Pontiacs were gone. So were the big Mopars. And Ford was on treacherous ground, so people were reluctant to buy Crown Vics and Grand Marquises. Another factor might have been that GM simply cut production, thereby driving up demand for the cars. In 1977-79, they probably sold about 650-700K full-sized Chevies each year. By 1982, I doubt if they moved 250K.
Meanwhile though, GM was having to rely on hefty incentives to move the 1982 Celebrity and Cavalier, new cars that were supposed to be the wave of the future.
A friend of mine bought a beautiful new two tone turquoise 1982 Chevrolet Caprice Classic from money he got from an inheritance. He was only 17! Of course that wasn't nearly as awesome as the new 1982 Cadillac Seville my then-girlfriend got for her high school graduation present! (We did live on opposite sides of the track - I was lucky to have my 1968 Buick Special Deluxe I bought for $650 the previous year!)
>Yeah, some cars are selling, but it's still awfully rough out there. I read on either MSN Money or Yahoo News that they're predicting about 10 million vehicles sold this year, down from about 16 million last year. That's an awful huge drop, and at the rate things are going, 2008 will be the bleakest year since 1982
Some factors. Cars are much better built and last longer than in earlier years. Therefore cars are more of a want item than a need item for some folks.
Everyone has become uberaware of the lending problems in the economy because of the speculative housing market pushed by politicians years ago to benefit themselves. Then they tried to exploit the economy to the benefit of one of the candidates who was the expert on the economy. I think the overemphasis backfired somewhat when one candidate went back to DC to go to work. But the stimulus bill was meant to scare everyone that a depression was a week away.
Now we're reaping the fruits of that publicity binge. Many people didn't realize we were probably in a recession for much of this year until yesterday when a committee decided we had been in one. People are _scared_ to spend. The usual pattern of layoffs during a strong recession are appearing. Cities, counties, states are talking major cutbacks. People are afraid they will lose their jobs. So they're not spending on anything. But oddly many people went out and spent well on Black Friday which wasn't supposed to be a day of spending. So I conclude that there are people who would have bought a car in the last 30 or next 30 days who are being held off by the constant drumbeats about how bad it is and how the automakers will go out of business.
I think when the attitude lightens a little, some people will start to buy more cars. I suspect March is what we're looking at.
I don't profess to understand all that is at stake here, it depends to whom you listen. But, this is the start of the end. Corporations have outsourced our jobs so that CEOs and management can stuff more money into their pockets. Two-thirds of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Well, if no one has money coming in and their credit is maxed out, how long can that keep going? The OIL companies and speculators drove up the cost of oil and gouged the US public. Health care is in disarray. Insurance companies and lawyers, (lobbyists) are ruining what's left. Let's not forget the banks and lenders that precipitated this whole mess. It was going to happen anyway, but they just sped it up stuffing the commissions and bonuses in their pockets. The common denominator... GREED. Oh, I forgot the politicians that are for sale. We don't need terrorists to bring us down! We have met the enemy and it is US!
Some factors. Cars are much better built and last longer than in earlier years. Therefore cars are more of a want item than a need item for some folks.
Not just that, but they just don't change the styles that much these days. Back in the day, they had a knack for making a car look old after just a couple years...even if under the skin, it was the SAME CAR! I remember when my grandparents bought a 1982 Malibu Classic wagon, I thought it made my Mom's '80 Malibu coupe look old. Even if all they did was replace the single headlights with quads, change the hubcaps, and swap out the vertical grille for an eggcrate.
A big problem is that there is no definite "trend" or direction with styling.
In the 1950s, cars were getting longer, lower and wider, with more glass area and flatter hoods, roofs and trunks. Even people who didn't care about cars understood this.
Park 1953, 1956 and 1959 Fords beside each other, and, 50 years later, even people who don't know much about cars will be able to rank them from oldest to newest.
In the 1960s, the trend was to remove excessive chrome and body sculpturing, and eliminate the "break" between the C pillar and the rear quarter panel. Brand-new cars made even 2-3-year-old models look "old."
In the 1980s, we had the trend to "aero" styling, started by the 1983 Thunderbird/Cougar. Square-cut cars influenced by the 1975 Cadillac Seville and downsized 1977 GM cars looked "old" next to the rounded aero-look cars.
But park a 2008 Accord next to a 2003 model, or a brand-new Malibu next to a 2004 model...most people would be hard-pressed to tell which one is newer. New cars don't necessarily make the old ones look out-of-date anymore, and that has to depress sales to some extent.
Styling has gotten very much the "same" across the board. Look what happens to a vehicle that takes a risk. The Aztek comes to mind.
And it might be that we're past that marketing "trick" with the domestics. Back in the day you COULD tell a '61 from a '62, and that new '62 was something that you could be enticed into wanting.
Now it seems that nobody wants to take a risk like that, even if it was just a sheet metal difference. It's more like, "Ooo... loook at what they're buying from THEM. We need one of those too." Get out in front of the sheep and stay there.
Maybe the costs of retooling even just body work from year to year is just too much. Then again, that might lead to people trading too often and the "upside down" problem which is part of the whole mess to begin with.
I got a kick out of Sen Dodd asking Wagoner to verify that he drove a Volt to the hearing. When the answer was yes, he remarked that everyone could go outside and see what the new Volt looked like... which would be interesting if it was going to look like a Volt. It may have been the skeleton of a Volt, but it was wrapped up as a Cruze.
Those DTS numbers really show just how much the automotive landscape has changed. At 1287 per month, that comes out to around 15,500 per year. The DTS has essentially taken over for the old DeVille/Fleetwood, and back in their heyday, I imagine they could have run off an easy 200K+ per year.
Well at least GM was discrete enough not to bring car-carriers full of Escalades for the Congressmen, to DC.
So our tax $ could be spent to lobby for more tax $'s. For those who disagree with the bailouts, we'd be funding the exact thing we don't want.
Does anyone here think that this $34B will be the last "loan"? With this money they can surely higher more lobbyists, spend more per Congressmen, and continue to get more "loans" year after year. :sick: :mad:
That's the key to these CEOs who supposedly create millions - what are the negative externalities and longterm consequences of these short term profits? Do the monies they create even come close to the problems that eventually come about? None have the courage to simply answer, not to mention take accountability.
The most damaging terrorists in society are economic terrorists, and they are indeed domestic, or at least pretend to be so.
If the market does go up due to this bailout, I guess it will be some temporary good news, and a good time to bailout the 401K into a cash position.
This downturn is just starting, with thousands of public employees to be laid off in each state, credit card defaults going higher, and commercial real estate going bust, as retail chain after chain closes (Tweeter went out of business today). Hint: if you want to give a Gift Card this year, it better be Walmart; or write a check to the person instead.
For me, the answer is NO. However, someone came up with the idea of a 10% federal tax writeoff for the buyer off the sales price (b4 TTL) for any American manufactured (not badged) vehicle, and I think that's a great idea, although I'd probably buy a Sequoia.
America spends, America works, and America benefits.
A big obstacle is that each car maker is selling more models.
Even by the late 1950s, most marques sold one type of car. The exceptions were AMC (Rambler American and standard Rambler), Ford (Thunderbird and standard Ford), Chevrolet (Corvette and standard Chevrolet) and Studebaker (Hawk and Lark).
Various models were distinguished primarily through interior and exterior trim levels.
When the compacts first appeared on the scene, GM, Ford and Chrysler still only restyled their big cars annually. The compacts were usually left unchanged for 2-3 years.
Now, the mainstream marques usually sell three types of family sedan (Focus, Fusion and Taurus, for example), maybe a sporty car, plus two pickups (small and full size), two or three sizes of SUVs and at least two crossovers. All of those models have to be kept reasonably fresh.
But customers expect more than sheetmetal surgery to get them excited - which is more difficult to perform on today's more aerodynamic vehicles anyway.
Plus, the lack of chrome trim and other ornamentation along the sides means that car makers can't change the appearance by revising the trim.
So, when a vehicle changes, it really does have to be a pretty major revamp to attract press and customer attention in today's crowded market. But this costs money, and, at this point, even Toyota probably couldn't afford to revamp even a big seller like the Camry every year.
There's also been a change in attitudes regarding car ownership. Among my friends, I've noticed that most people subtly brag about how LONG they've kept their car, and how many miles were on the odometer when they traded it. When I was a kid in the 1970s, those who could afford to trade the most often were the most envied.
This sends two messages. One, they are thrifty with their money. Two, they were smart enough to buy a quality product and got their money's worth.
Trading a car with less than 100,000 miles on the odometer is almost looked down upon, unless there was an external factor (you are driving a Mustang and your wife is expecting a baby, and you need a more practical car).
"#70 of 75 The Big Three by tired_old_dave Nov 20, 2008 (7:28 am) As much as I believe society has gone down the wrong path with suburbia and sprawl, and while it is not nice to threaten congress or anybody, maybe the big little three should shut their doors at 8 am tomorrow, send employees home, send supplier trucks back, take an extended holiday season. No payroll, no paper pushing, just wish the employees and America a very Happy long holiday season until New Year's or later if the feel good feeling still lingers."
If that many want the new world order, fascism, well like he said "bring it on".
have we forgotten that America is supposed to be "by the people, for THE PEOPLE"? All this huge bailout money is (to echo what others have said below) purely political, and quite outrageous. Our car companies are making tons of money, and they are giving it to their C-level execs, and to their politicians. So, someone today told me that the reason for the bailout is to help the car companies not have to layoff the 2mm+ people who work for them and their suppliers. Cool. I can accept that. What about a "Federal Coupon", where the government helps EVERYBODY?? Buy a new car, get a $5,000 coupon from the government - that helps: the person who NEEDS the new car; the sales rep at the dealership; the owner of the dealership; the car company; the suppliers to the car company, and get this... even the government (from taxes). Otherwise, let's face it - when the refrigerator was invented, who "bailed out" the milkman? When the computer came into focus, who "bailed out" the typewriter ribbon manufacturers? No one. They shifted gears and adjusted accordingly. :sick:
Yes Dingell should not be allowed to vote on the bailout. I thought there were laws against this kind of stuff.
But nobody's been a bigger advocate for Motor City interests than Dingell. And for him, the stakes aren't just political, they're personal.
"There's an actual conflict," said Ryan Alexander of the nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "His personal financial health, you know, the wealth of his family is tied up in the car industry."
Dingell's wife Debbie once worked as a lobbyist for GM.
When she married the congressman, she became a senior GM executive at an undisclosed salary. And we found the couple has extensive GM assets.
Dingell's current financial disclosure filed in May lists GM stock worth up to $350,000, options worth up to $1 million more, and a GM pension fund. In 2000, among the Dingells' GM assets were stock options worth up to $5 million.
And in 1998, the congressman reported selling GM stock options worth up to $1 million dollars.
Dingell wouldn't agree to an interview.
Will Dingell's wife take a big cut along with Wagnoer. Bet not..
Welcome to the Forum. You make good common sense remarks. I was thinking more along the lines of $10k for each USA made vehicle bought. Most of it would go to Toyota and Honda. It would also let Congress know that at least GM has hit the ropes and is DEAD.
"The Detroit Three are struggling to stay afloat during the longest economic downturn in at least a quarter century, a steep decline in sales and a tight credit market. The three burned through nearly $18 billion in cash reserves during the last quarter."
So how does $34B get them thru next year, and many of the cost savings don't kick in until 2011?
Also why is Chrysler trying to get taxpayer money? They have parents with money.
"Look, you guys are in asking us for public money today," he told Nardelli. Corker said Cerberus "has lots of cash" but appears "unwilling to invest that money in your company...I have a little trouble with that."
Maybe because Cerberus, already suing Daimler because of buyer's remorse, knows they will lose more money by putting it in Chrysler. What does that say if Cerberus has $20B in cash, and they have Chrysler playing a handout-or-die game? To me it says they have already written off the viability of flipping Chrysler like they had planned. Cerberus has analyzed that Chrysler will never make any profit. To Cerberus, Chrysler is like a used-car that they didn't check out and overpaid for - it needs more in repairs and maintenance then they paid, and they can't sell it as everyone sees the engine and transmission have fallen out.
Comments
That would suit some here at Edmund's. At least until they found that toilet paper is in short supply and the only car the US Socialist Republic could build resembles a Yugo. But we own the banks now. Why not all of industry. The Left has wanted that for 80 years. Let them see how they like the Gulag when they speak out of turn. Maybe Putin will show Obama how to set up the secret police.
Don't look for a bailout to help you sell cars no one wants. My friend was a mechanic with 17 years seniority at another large Ford agency. They laid off 8 mechanics him included. The bailout will mean nothing to him.
A drastically slimmed-down GM led by a new management team & with down-to-earth labor costs would thrive. But GM won't become a 21st century company if it's hooked on taxpayer dollars.
A Focus is also an enormous improvement over something like a 1982 Escort! It's bigger, roomier, heavier, more powerful, better-equipped, yet still gets comparable mileage.
I dunno if Ford really has a directly comparable descendant for 1982. The Fairmont was Ford's "compact" car, but that platform was technically midsized, and also served as the basis for their intermediate Granada, and the small LTD that followed. Those would probably be better compared to the Fusion.
Maybe a 1984 Tempo would roughly equate to a Focus? Roughly the same size, and more of a "true" compact car of that time. It was rated 25/34 with the 5-speed, and 25/29 with the automatic, which was only a 3-speed. My stepdad had one of those sorry beasts. 0-60 came up in about 16 seconds. I don't think we really want to go back there. :sick:
Even the Crown Vic has made gains, all things considered. I don't know much about the 1982 model, which was still carbureted, but the 1985 V-8, which had a 4-speed automatic, was fuel injected and rated at 16/23. If you got the performance package (yes, there was such a thing!) that gave you the quicker axle ratio and dual exhaust, you got 0-60 in about 10.5 seconds. The current model was rated something like 17/25 before they went to those revised ratings. Still just has a 4-speed automatic, but has a lot more hp. I don't know what 0-60 would be these days...maybe around 9 seconds? The car's also about 300-400 pounds heavier these days. So, it's heavier, more powerful, and STILL returns slightly better fuel economy.
And saying that current workers don't get those benefits is more than a bit disingenuous. Under the current contract, blue-collar workers are entitled to those benefits when they retire, so the domestics must account for those costs in some way.
The companies can reduce that burden in two ways - renegotiate the contract, or declare bankruptcy.
34 billion. And the thing is, loans also need to be paid back. There is no way this one will be. Garauntee, this time next year, they'll be back looking for more. :sick:
Right now it looks like no one wants any of them regardless of the brand.
For GM and Chrysler, it will be a loan in name only. The plans that both companies unveiled this week will not make them viable over the long haul. They will begging for more money within 1-2 years.
Ford is a different case. It just needs help to continue implementing its turnaround plan, which appears viable, although it carries some risk.
But any "loan" given to GM and Chrysler at this point is as likely to be repaid as the "loan" one gives to the unemployed, alcoholic brother-in-law who hasn't worked at a steady job for the past year....
I haven't looked at the contract talk much but my understanding was that the new hires were "tier 2" and that their pension and retiree health benefits would be less (along with their starting salaries), as compared to the "tier 1" hires.
And Sympathy May Be Rising for Beleaguered Detroit Automakers
There's a summary of the Chrysler plan at AutoObserver today, along with several other bailout stories.
I know, I sound harsh... I really do, but bail em out to keep jobs for us people! But, only for that reason. When GM/Chrysler can focus on quality, rather than money in the bank, then I'll change my opinion. I drive an 08 GM car(not by choice), I'll be leaving GM soon, the first chance I get, Ironically, a service rep via GM dealer said they plan to lose GM and get a Honda product. They feel the same way. lol.
I know some are fans on GM, we all have our favorites, but going from a Honda to a GM, uh WOW! Luckily my car is a lease. Don't get me wrong I am impressed with the features on the car! I do love that, but I certainly don't have the pride I had in the Honda which was an 06 in this GM car. I work in a public place where I meet other people all the time, and many have said they are leaving GM. I hope no one is mad at me for saying all of this. Its just my opinion. Based on experiences with GM versus other cars. I mean nothing personal if you happen to like GM alot. Thats cool with me. Bail em out! save the jobs.
"Now, of course, the Big Three can't get any financing. And their suppliers, if they can get it, are paying through the teeth. Lending to the industry is down 70%.
It doesn't take an engineer to figure out why: Wall Street thinks Detroit is dead."
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Wall-Street-Detroits-messy-divorce/story.a- - spx?guid=%7B46D387BC%2D76DC%2D41F9%2DBF20%2D6EDFCD14F0B9%7D
What do you call giving billions of dollars to banks and auto companies, and buying ownership stakes in both?
Still, if there has to be a move like this, I think equity stakes are the best way to do it. Make the taxpayers a shareholder just like any other.
One observation... I saw a car carrier delivering a load to the local Ford dealer yesterday, First one I've seen in a while.
At some point incentives like "buy one get one free" are going to start to pry open our wallets. Changing the mood out there is the real challenge.
One interesting idea I heard from a Senator was to have the banks that got TARP money make the loans to Detroit. Kind of an out-of-the-box idea. Use the same money for two different purposes.
Does that make too much sense to actually work? :surprise:
U.S. senators raised the possibility today of getting bailout loans to the Detroit 3 by having the federal government guarantee loans that would be made by private banks and financial institutions.
Sens. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, and Tom Carper, D-Del., injected the new scenario during hearings this morning in the Senate exploring the need for an automaker bailout. The senators said the proposal would get money to the carmakers quickly while avoiding the need to set up a government oversight board to manage direct federal loans to the Detroit 3.
The proposal could help break a congressional logjam over whether the Detroit 3 should have access to about $700 billion of federal aid to financial institutions.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20081204/ANA02/812049968/1128
Yeah, some cars are selling, but it's still awfully rough out there. I read on either MSN Money or Yahoo News that they're predicting about 10 million vehicles sold this year, down from about 16 million last year. That's an awful huge drop, and at the rate things are going, 2008 will be the bleakest year since 1982. Once you take into account the population of the United States, you actually have to go way back to 1958 to find a worse year.
One thing that's odd about 1982 was that the Chevy Caprice was actually a pretty hot seller. Showrooms were selling every one they got their hands on, and they were going out for sticker price, sometimes more. Now part of that could have been less competition. In 1982, the big Pontiacs were gone. So were the big Mopars. And Ford was on treacherous ground, so people were reluctant to buy Crown Vics and Grand Marquises. Another factor might have been that GM simply cut production, thereby driving up demand for the cars. In 1977-79, they probably sold about 650-700K full-sized Chevies each year. By 1982, I doubt if they moved 250K.
Meanwhile though, GM was having to rely on hefty incentives to move the 1982 Celebrity and Cavalier, new cars that were supposed to be the wave of the future.
Some factors. Cars are much better built and last longer than in earlier years. Therefore cars are more of a want item than a need item for some folks.
Everyone has become uberaware of the lending problems in the economy because of the speculative housing market pushed by politicians years ago to benefit themselves. Then they tried to exploit the economy to the benefit of one of the candidates who was the expert on the economy. I think the overemphasis backfired somewhat when one candidate went back to DC to go to work. But the stimulus bill was meant to scare everyone that a depression was a week away.
Now we're reaping the fruits of that publicity binge. Many people didn't realize we were probably in a recession for much of this year until yesterday when a committee decided we had been in one. People are _scared_ to spend. The usual pattern of layoffs during a strong recession are appearing. Cities, counties, states are talking major cutbacks. People are afraid they will lose their jobs. So they're not spending on anything. But oddly many people went out and spent well on Black Friday which wasn't supposed to be a day of spending. So I conclude that there are people who would have bought a car in the last 30 or next 30 days who are being held off by the constant drumbeats about how bad it is and how the automakers will go out of business.
I think when the attitude lightens a little, some people will start to buy more cars. I suspect March is what we're looking at.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Good choices! I see a Buick Lucerne followed by a Malibu.
Not just that, but they just don't change the styles that much these days. Back in the day, they had a knack for making a car look old after just a couple years...even if under the skin, it was the SAME CAR! I remember when my grandparents bought a 1982 Malibu Classic wagon, I thought it made my Mom's '80 Malibu coupe look old. Even if all they did was replace the single headlights with quads, change the hubcaps, and swap out the vertical grille for an eggcrate.
Speaking of, well, money perhaps more than greed:
Big Three Spending Millions On Lobbying. (CBS).
Dingell is in GM's coffers up to his neck.
In the 1950s, cars were getting longer, lower and wider, with more glass area and flatter hoods, roofs and trunks. Even people who didn't care about cars understood this.
Park 1953, 1956 and 1959 Fords beside each other, and, 50 years later, even people who don't know much about cars will be able to rank them from oldest to newest.
In the 1960s, the trend was to remove excessive chrome and body sculpturing, and eliminate the "break" between the C pillar and the rear quarter panel. Brand-new cars made even 2-3-year-old models look "old."
In the 1980s, we had the trend to "aero" styling, started by the 1983 Thunderbird/Cougar. Square-cut cars influenced by the 1975 Cadillac Seville and downsized 1977 GM cars looked "old" next to the rounded aero-look cars.
But park a 2008 Accord next to a 2003 model, or a brand-new Malibu next to a 2004 model...most people would be hard-pressed to tell which one is newer. New cars don't necessarily make the old ones look out-of-date anymore, and that has to depress sales to some extent.
CTS 2,902 5,586
DTS 1,287 3,751
STS 630 1,928
XLR 60 97
Escalade 1,870 2,525
Escalade ESV 752 1,202
Escalade EXT 338 507
SRX 976 1,445
The CTS is the only Cadillac that has outsold the smart in the last two months. :surprise: :P
And it might be that we're past that marketing "trick" with the domestics. Back in the day you COULD tell a '61 from a '62, and that new '62 was something that you could be enticed into wanting.
Now it seems that nobody wants to take a risk like that, even if it was just a sheet metal difference. It's more like, "Ooo... loook at what they're buying from THEM. We need one of those too." Get out in front of the sheep and stay there.
Maybe the costs of retooling even just body work from year to year is just too much. Then again, that might lead to people trading too often and the "upside down" problem which is part of the whole mess to begin with.
I got a kick out of Sen Dodd asking Wagoner to verify that he drove a Volt to the hearing. When the answer was yes, he remarked that everyone could go outside and see what the new Volt looked like... which would be interesting if it was going to look like a Volt. It may have been the skeleton of a Volt, but it was wrapped up as a Cruze.
So our tax $ could be spent to lobby for more tax $'s. For those who disagree with the bailouts, we'd be funding the exact thing we don't want.
Does anyone here think that this $34B will be the last "loan"? With this money they can surely higher more lobbyists, spend more per Congressmen, and continue to get more "loans" year after year. :sick: :mad:
The most damaging terrorists in society are economic terrorists, and they are indeed domestic, or at least pretend to be so.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Congress-set-save-Christmas-markets/story.- aspx?guid=%7B87410521%2D3825%2D4DB6%2DB437%2D5CA19C3796C5%7D
If the market does go up due to this bailout, I guess it will be some temporary good news, and a good time to bailout the 401K into a cash position.
This downturn is just starting, with thousands of public employees to be laid off in each state, credit card defaults going higher, and commercial real estate going bust, as retail chain after chain closes (Tweeter went out of business today). Hint: if you want to give a Gift Card this year, it better be Walmart; or write a check to the person instead.
For me, the answer is NO. However, someone came up with the idea of a 10% federal tax writeoff for the buyer off the sales price (b4 TTL) for any American manufactured (not badged) vehicle, and I think that's a great idea, although I'd probably buy a Sequoia.
America spends, America works, and America benefits.
Even by the late 1950s, most marques sold one type of car. The exceptions were AMC (Rambler American and standard Rambler), Ford (Thunderbird and standard Ford), Chevrolet (Corvette and standard Chevrolet) and Studebaker (Hawk and Lark).
Various models were distinguished primarily through interior and exterior trim levels.
When the compacts first appeared on the scene, GM, Ford and Chrysler still only restyled their big cars annually. The compacts were usually left unchanged for 2-3 years.
Now, the mainstream marques usually sell three types of family sedan (Focus, Fusion and Taurus, for example), maybe a sporty car, plus two pickups (small and full size), two or three sizes of SUVs and at least two crossovers. All of those models have to be kept reasonably fresh.
But customers expect more than sheetmetal surgery to get them excited - which is more difficult to perform on today's more aerodynamic vehicles anyway.
Plus, the lack of chrome trim and other ornamentation along the sides means that car makers can't change the appearance by revising the trim.
So, when a vehicle changes, it really does have to be a pretty major revamp to attract press and customer attention in today's crowded market. But this costs money, and, at this point, even Toyota probably couldn't afford to revamp even a big seller like the Camry every year.
There's also been a change in attitudes regarding car ownership. Among my friends, I've noticed that most people subtly brag about how LONG they've kept their car, and how many miles were on the odometer when they traded it. When I was a kid in the 1970s, those who could afford to trade the most often were the most envied.
This sends two messages. One, they are thrifty with their money. Two, they were smart enough to buy a quality product and got their money's worth.
Trading a car with less than 100,000 miles on the odometer is almost looked down upon, unless there was an external factor (you are driving a Mustang and your wife is expecting a baby, and you need a more practical car).
"#70 of 75 The Big Three by tired_old_dave Nov 20, 2008 (7:28 am)
As much as I believe society has gone down the wrong path with suburbia and sprawl, and while it is not nice to threaten congress or anybody, maybe the big little three should shut their doors at 8 am tomorrow, send employees home, send supplier trucks back, take an extended holiday season. No payroll, no paper pushing, just wish the employees and America a very Happy long holiday season until New Year's or later if the feel good feeling still lingers."
If that many want the new world order, fascism, well like he said "bring it on".
Car Audio & Electronics Center
But nobody's been a bigger advocate for Motor City interests than Dingell. And for him, the stakes aren't just political, they're personal.
"There's an actual conflict," said Ryan Alexander of the nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "His personal financial health, you know, the wealth of his family is tied up in the car industry."
Dingell's wife Debbie once worked as a lobbyist for GM.
When she married the congressman, she became a senior GM executive at an undisclosed salary. And we found the couple has extensive GM assets.
Dingell's current financial disclosure filed in May lists GM stock worth up to $350,000, options worth up to $1 million more, and a GM pension fund. In 2000, among the Dingells' GM assets were stock options worth up to $5 million.
And in 1998, the congressman reported selling GM stock options worth up to $1 million dollars.
Dingell wouldn't agree to an interview.
Will Dingell's wife take a big cut along with Wagnoer. Bet not..
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-12-04-auto-hearing_N.htm
So how does $34B get them thru next year, and many of the cost savings don't kick in until 2011?
Also why is Chrysler trying to get taxpayer money? They have parents with money.
"Look, you guys are in asking us for public money today," he told Nardelli. Corker said Cerberus "has lots of cash" but appears "unwilling to invest that money in your company...I have a little trouble with that."
Maybe because Cerberus, already suing Daimler because of buyer's remorse, knows they will lose more money by putting it in Chrysler. What does that say if Cerberus has $20B in cash, and they have Chrysler playing a handout-or-die game? To me it says they have already written off the viability of flipping Chrysler like they had planned. Cerberus has analyzed that Chrysler will never make any profit. To Cerberus, Chrysler is like a used-car that they didn't check out and overpaid for - it needs more in repairs and maintenance then they paid, and they can't sell it as everyone sees the engine and transmission have fallen out.