Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Poll: Should the US Government Fund the GM-Chrysler Merger?

October 29th, 2008 | Posted in: Financial

Clearly we are at more than one crossroad in automotive history. This site was started to encourage GM to build the Volt and help propel a future of petroleum-free driving. Since then great strides have been made.

Unfortunately along the way, GM, the Volt, and in fact the whole world has been sideswiped by financial crisis. Due to an unprecedented plummeting of US and global auto sales, the drumbeat of GM financial collapse and bankruptcy for has been steadily beating louder.

But, GM and even their vice-chairman Bob Lutz has said “bankruptcy is not an option.”

The solution GM has come up with has been a proposed merger with Chrysler, who as well has been experiencing record sales drops, but has an $11 billion cash coffer, and an owner named Cerberus that wouldn’t mind an ownership stake in a combined GM-Chrysler when the auto recovery takes place.

However, lacking capital, the expensive merger proposition cannot be financed.

Enter Uncle Sam.

Reports indicate that GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner has been in private meetings in Washington trying to secure a $10 billion rescue package, $3 Billion of which would go to a preferred merged automaker stock purchase. This money would be in addition to the combined company’s share of the $25 billion in low cost government loans that have been approved for use in building more fuel efficient vehicles. These could potentially be rigged for a more generalized bailout purpose.

The US Treasury Department is now considering Mr. Wagoner’s request, and a decision and even money could come this week. All parties reportedly would like this resolved prior to the election, although ever-outspoken Bob Lutz has said there is no urgent timeline, and Cerberus may need until mid-November.

GM/Chrysler because of significant ownership in GMAC and Chrysler Financial has also be approved to access part of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout since these entities have been exposed to the bad mortgage debt too.

The loss of GM, Chrysler, or both would lead to a potentially catastrophic loss of jobs including 350,000 direct American workers and up to an additional 4.5 million workers in related fields.

In the end we must decide if a tax payer bailout is the right thing to do. It seems like it will be needed if we want to see the Volt on the roads and in our garages in 2010.

What’s your opinion?

Source (Reuters)

Loading ...

Posted by: Lyle

187 Responses to “Poll: Should the US Government Fund the GM-Chrysler Merger?”

nuclearboy Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:05 am

Funding our industry in times like this is a necessary evil. Our competition around the world gets government assistance when needed. We need to be in a position to compete.

One concern is the Union demands that the merger will not result in job losses. Sorry guys but job losses are needed at this time. These companies need to shrink to a much leaner size that is more consistent with their market share going forward.

(Quote)
J Man Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:21 am

What I do not understand is why someone (GM) would borrow money ($10 million) to buy something (Chrysler) and get some money in the deal ($11 million).

Also I would like to know exactly what a merger consists of. Is GM buying Chrysler or is this going to be a joint venture deal where there share things like the NUMMI (GM/Toyota) venture.

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:21 am

NO! Chrysler has cash. Cerberus has cash. GMAC has value in the billions if sold from GM. GM and Chryslers finance arms are entitled to bailout money. GM and Chrysler are in line for billions in alternative fuel vehicle development money, union buyouts and dealer consolidations will yield billions in tax credits going forward and hybrids, Volts plus any other electric or alt fuel cars will be worth up to $7500.00 in credits each. What more can we expect the Govt to do, build the cars, finance them and hand deliver them to the customers?

(Quote)
Exp_EngTech Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:22 am

I’m for it ONLY if GM will accept the logo you show above.

A GM Pentastar with an Uncle Sam hat.

A New Logo / A New Name: Grysler Motor Corporation

(Quote)
FME III Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:25 am

The United States has a strategic interest in keeping the auto industry viable in this country — as well as viable aviation, shipbuilding and electronics industries. It’s a matter of having our own industrial base to call upon in times of need, as we did in World War II.

Unfortunately, except for Navy ships ,shipbuilding here is dead. Electronics? Made in Asia.

I’m not philosophically comfortable with government funding mergers, but this is a case where practical necessity trumps philosophy.

And besides, someday, I want to drive a Volt.

(Quote)
Bruce Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:42 am

No question about it. If we supported a bank bailout then why not GM. Concessions needed from unions to make GM more competitive and a plan for Gm’s future profitability. Do what the Japanese do but better. Just imagine no US car makers. You want to talk about security and job issues.

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:43 am

If this has to happen, then ALL parties need to take a hit. You can hardly expect the workers to be asked to accept lower wages and benefit packages, while top managment takes millions of dollars per year per person. Those days are over. It is time we get back to earning the compensation received. And this comes from a person that owns a small business……..

This is a very dangerous cycle that has begun. So everytime a business screws up, they just go to D.C. and beg for cash, which really does not exist, using the excuse of “we are too big to fail”? I have a real problem with that. If they want public money, they had better have major restructuring plans in hand, and serious penalties in place for any misuse of that money.

IMHO, that was the public’s bad reaction to the Wall Street corporate welfare we just gave to them. They screwed up, got 3/4 of a trillion dollars, and it is business as usual for them. What pain did they feel for their mistakes? I don’t see any, and that is the problem.

Handing over $10 billion in less than a week does not seem to me to be enough time to work out the details of doing it properly. And it is the details that always come back to bite us down the road.

Sorry for the rant.

(Quote)
Jay Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:49 am

Why not, what’s a few more Billion and can’t we just print more? Are you people NUTS! The dollar is headed south like a flock of homesick geese. If We the People don’t stop the current trend (And I call it that with tongue in cheek) US autos will be all you can afford to buy because the foreign made ones will cost you ten-times what they are today dummies. We have long since pass the point of good sense and if you read something other than the auto news you will see the World is wanting to get off the dollar and if you don’t know what that will do to the US economy then we are in a sad state of affairs!

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:51 am

We have the government owning banks now. Why not GM too?
Better yet, let’s let the government buy up all private industry.
We can rename our country the UCSA. United Communist States of America and then laugh at all the people who died fighting to keep this country free.

I find my above comments to be offensive along with the government bailing out everyone. GM should stand on their own feet or fail because of bad practices.

At the same time, we need to Volt very badly.

I think I will go to the top of this forum and vote Undecided as I am clearly confused on which way to turn.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:53 am

Today, we will find who really cares about General Motors survival.

(Quote)
Scottie Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:54 am

I saw this coming. I have mentioned the use of the volt to secure government bail out before. Having said that I believe someone needs to step in so that GM doesn’t go under. But on the other hand the US government funding a merger that would be border-line monopolistic?… umm I don’t know.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:58 am

Unfortunately, I vote “Yes” on this one. It’s sad that the American Auto industry has to come to this. By voting yes, we are probably marking the end of Chrysler–but then again, one can argue that Chrysler will die on its own anyway if its parent Cerberus doesn’t want to continue feeding it money until the day an economic recovery comes.

I like both GM and Chrysler, but want to see the electrification of the automobile. Therefore, GM has the stronger of the electric car programs of the two companies, (at least in what has been revealed to the public in the Volt vs. the ENVI vehicles). If the above is a vote to keep the electric car alive, then I have to vote “Yes”.

(Quote)
Sean O'Brien Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:05 am

I was at a town hall forum last week put on by the Alliance of American Manufacturers. Congressman Tim Murphy and the Democrat vying for his seat both spoke. A constant theme of the evening was the evils of China’s trade policy; how they manipulate their currency, erect protectionist barriers, and subsidize industries. Later, calls were made for our government to “invest in American manufacturing”, protect it from “unfair competition”, and “Keep our financial system sound”. It’s one or the other. Either we become an example of what we expect the world to live up to or abandon the empty rhetoric of free trade and stop trying to make others look like the bad guy.

Furthermore, the bailout was bad enough, especially in the way in which it was ultimately carried out; the government buying stock in banks instead of just purchasing securities. The government has wormed its way deeper yet into the structure of private industry in a new and scary way. Instead of just ordering them around from the outside, they are now in the boardroom.

So far, the damage is limited to just the financial sector, but if automakers use the same arguments of being too important to be allowed to fail in order to receive similar help, other industries will jump on the bandwagon and we could see a complete erasing of the line between the government and the private sector in this country, to the detriment of both.

(Quote)
Gsned57 Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:07 am

I voted undecided because I don’t think a straight bailout is the way to go. Instead of a “BAILOUT” why doesn’t the government who buys tens of thousands of cars a year put out a requisition for 100,000 EREV vehicles over the next 5 years. This is how it works in defense. The government (taxpayers) will pay a premium on those first 100,000 vehicles which will ensure a volt build, prop up the auto industry, and make the car cheaper for us.

I don’t think we can let the auto industry fail but at the same time they need to struggle to make it out as a better company otherwise what do they learn?

I gotta agree with J Man up top and hopefully someone can explain this. How can GM need $10 Billion to buy Chryslers $11 billion cash reserves?

Sounds to me like Cerebus should be the one ponying up most of the capitol as they’ll end up in control of the largest automaker the world has ever seen. There are a lot of smart people out there and I feel there’s gotta be a better way to “HELP” than just throwing taxpayer money at corporate executives.

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:26 am

We don’t need to pour OUR tax money into the hands of rich people. We need less war. This will free up OUR tax money to not only assist in building efficient electric cars through tax rebates, but will prevent future oil wars. More MPG = less dead and dismembered soldiers. If we destroy our budget we will be right back to the war senerio for gain.

Let’s get back to reality before we forget what it looks like.

=D~

(Quote)
Joe Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:35 am

We have the government owning banks now. Why not GM too?
Better yet, let’s let the government buy up all private industry.

*****************************************************************

Isn’t it a low interest loan rather than a handout that GM is looking for?

Isn’t the auto industry vital to our defense?

When Toyota came to this country building assembly lines, GM had hundreds of thousands of retirees. That means GM had to pay all of those workers pensions and health care while Toyota didn’t have to pay for any….. and still don’t have to pay for any. Does that that mean the GM workers should give up their pensions and health care? If yes, is that fair?

The bottom line is, can you call that fair competition? Hardly!!
Reverse the same with the Japanese. Their government would surely help, like they have to monopolizes lots of other industries. Plus, the fact that the auto industry import is basically closed in Japan. Wake up Americans…….your job and your kids job may depend on it!!!

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:39 am

Can’t GM just shrink to a profitable level? Close every bad plant and consolidate the good ones. It may result in a loss of 50% (or more) of all GM jobs, but may be that’s what’s needed. I dont necessarily feel that “bigger is better”.

(Quote)
George B. Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:39 am

We may be crossing a significant line here. If we are talking about a low interest loan program from the government, I guess I’m OK with that. However, I have a problem with the government owning the means of production so I don’t want the government having anything like a controlling interest in GM/Chrysler. Smacks of Communism…

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:39 am

This is OUTRAGEOUS. Where is my low-interest loan on my small business? I didn’t get one of those when I was in trouble. What country is this, anyhow?–We need to reclassify ourselves as capitalists and flat out say it: we are SOCIALISTS. Once Emperor Barak is elected, we may as well call our selves SCREWED. The debt that Roosevelt started and Reagan quadrupled is going to send us the way of the Soviet Union–BROKE.

I’m disappointed more people do not see it this way. Just say NO.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:41 am

_____________________________________________________
I’m a big fan of the GM-VOLT program but why should the government take my or your money and give it to GM with the threat to put us in jail if we don’t comply?

Does it in the long run benefit America or GM to have a large section of America’s automotive manufacturing base as a single conglomerate that is partly nationalized?

I thought the government was in the business of discouraging monopolies and encouraging free market competition….are we truly entering into an era of single source government determined and provided industry?

If GM becomes another government managed program (which is what this loan would morph into over time), GM will over time loose their younger innovative talent pool which they need for projects such as the VOLT Program.

Keep in mind that GM is not simply asking for a bridge commercial loan, they are asking the Government to be their long-term primary equity business partner.

Just my opinion…I hope to be proved wrong on this one.
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:42 am

Naturally, I voted no.

Why did I vote like that?
—Well, I for one believe in a post-bankruptcy GM, free from incumberances….this only shackles them further

Why are they doing this? What value is Chrysler?
—Chrysler is worth nothing…so why ‘borrow’ 10 billion to merge? Probably just to grab some more cash…and make the whole company just too darn big to fold.

What do you mean Chrysler is worth nothing? They have lots of…
—Ok, just stop there. They are worthless. Mercedes tried to ’sell’ back that last 21% to Cerberus for a $1…and now Cerberus is trying to add 3 billion to sweeten the pot to get GM to take it off their hands.

This is probably one of the most obvious and blatant attempts at government manipulation by a corporation…and it will be the one that costs the government the most money in history if they choose to be sucked in.

Let them both go bankrupt, then give them all the protection in the world in Chapter 11. Shoot them some cash then, when the money isn’t going to just turn around and service their monsterous debt pile like it would be now.

Even right now, GM has shut down how many lines? How many projects? They don’t even run the escalators in HQ anymore. There is a virtual freeze on all product lines and developments for 2009 and 2010, other than the Volt:

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN2945046820081029?rpc=44

You have to look at something reasonably. Can GM reasonably be expected to improve their situation in this environment? Can GM make more money by shutting down and delaying all their future lines? Can GM have a future when the whole industry is rushing out new ‘thrifty’ hybrid lineups all now GM has canned R&D for the next two years?

By prolonging its death, it is actually rendering the future, ‘post-bankruptcy’ company more and more impotant.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:43 am

If you truly voted ‘yes,’ there is a solution to both make this merger and GM a success again…more money, alot more.

Don’t give GM ‘just’ enough to get by, give them what they need. Give them 250 billion dollars.

—200 billion to wipe both their balance sheets spotless
—10 billion to merge with Chrysler
—20 billion to cover GM’s VEBA payments
—10 billion to cover Chrysler’s VEBA payments
—10 billion to get Delphi out of Chapter 11

That is what they need. You give them that and the new GM/Chrysler is a monster that can compete with anyone. Basically, the same thing you’d get if you let them both go bankrupt today and restructured them…but on the cheap, about 230 billion less.

Additionally, for that 20 billion into the ‘bankrupt GM/Chrysler’ the government could take a small stake, say 20%…and probably recoup all its money within a few years. A NA automaker with no debts, streamlined systems, majority share of the market and competitive labor would be a thing of beauty.

(Quote)
jabroni Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:48 am

No and then Hell No.

Why should we bail out Chrysler three times?

Let them both die. The marketing void will be filled, I assure you.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:49 am

From statik@22

—200 billion to wipe both their balance sheets spotless
—10 billion to merge with Chrysler
—20 billion to cover GM’s VEBA payments
—10 billion to cover Chrysler’s VEBA payments
—10 billion to get Delphi out of Chapter 11

*******************************************************

to Statik

Instead of making fun of General Motors ordeal, you should be thankful GM is providing all of those jobs in Canada.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:50 am

#17 kdawg

Can’t GM just shrink to a profitable level? Close every bad plant and consolidate the good ones. It may result in a loss of 50% (or more) of all GM jobs, but may be that’s what’s needed. I dont necessarily feel that “bigger is better”.
——————————————–
Nope, and that is the problem.

Every time they shrink, they increase the relative weight of their debt per car produced. Meaning that the less cars they build, the more money they have to make on each car…which is a total contrarian to the market right now.

For years GM has been dead in the water. However, as long as the market continued to grow and they could sell more and more cars at higher prices (still for a loss mind you), they could ‘kite’ their finances.

In other words, they could borrow more and more money because it appeared that their revenue would continue to increase and therefore they could continue to be able to service that debt under that scenario, so companies lent away.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:53 am

Wait…did’nt we already give them $25 billion?
http://gm-volt.com/2008/09/24/house-approves-25-billion-loan-for-chrysler-ford-and-gm/

Now they need $10 billion more?
I’m confused, have they spent the $25 billion we already gave them?
These days, its so hard to keep track of all the hundreds of billions of public money thats being thrown around.

(Quote)
Zach Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:57 am

Why is Ford so quiet? I don’t get it… lol.

(Quote)
Murray Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:02 am

I voted NO…I dont like the merger part of this wherein these huge companies shouldnt be trying to get bigger…companies should NEVER get “too big to fail”…aka… all your eggs in one basket…it doesnt make sense in my simple mind, companies should always be able to be divided and/or downsized as needed…maybe that is a utopian way of thinking?

Furthermore… if the Big 3 suddenly become the Big 1 (GM/Chrysler) and the ‘other guy’ (Ford) how long would it really take before the smaller 1 gets runover too? Then what do you have? …. you’ve got all your eggs in one basket !

I understand that the governement does need to provide support in economic times such as these but I just dont believe in their support for helping these large corporations get even larger through mergers and how that is the only way they can survive…

(Quote)
D'Artagnon Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:03 am

NO!

Some people seem to assume that the government is the daddy of big business; whenever there is trouble, they (big business) run to him, and he bails them out.

Some people would call this “socialism,” but ironically, what we are really doing is taking money from the “have-nots” (i.e. the American tax-payers) and redistributing it to the “haves” (i.e. the millionaire owners, directors, and executives of big corporations). This isn’t even socialism: it is downright robbery!

Last I checked, GM was still slightly ahead of Toyota in worldwide vehicle sales (IIRC, 9.7 million vehicles versus 9.67 million). Why is it that Toyota can make money at 9.67 million vehicles and GM cannot at 9.7?

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:03 am

Joe, #16

The Volt is the only reason why I care about GM. Otherwise, they could fold for all I care. For two long, they have been living on past glory and making pure crap for cars (at least perceived by 66% of Americans).
While top management was doing their best to kill the company, they were also taking millions in salary. The UAW is no better. Workers have rights but those rights should not be strong enough to bring a company to its knees.

You love GM. Good for you. We all have to be loyal to something I suppose. I choose my country, my family, and myself. Not GM and certainly not the UAW.

Instead of my tax money going to GM, I would rather my tax money go towards a Manhattan Project for battery research and electric vehicles.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:07 am

#24 Joe

Statik says,
—200 billion to wipe both their balance sheets spotless
—10 billion to merge with Chrysler
—20 billion to cover GM’s VEBA payments
—10 billion to cover Chrysler’s VEBA payments
—10 billion to get Delphi out of Chapter 11

*******************************************************
#24 Joe, (to Statik)

Instead of making fun of General Motors ordeal, you should be thankful GM is providing all of those jobs in Canada.
——————————————–

What fun is that? I’m saying it is a mistake to bail them out…that there is a way to make them successful in the long run, alot cheaper.

Personally, I don’t care GM is providing ‘all those jobs in Canada,’ and I’m not thankful…if GM wasn’t here the last 90 years (1918, they bought out McLaughlin Motor Company), some other automaker would have been.

GM wasn’t ‘providing jobs’ because they are nice guys or care about Canada, they provided jobs because they wanted to make money, they could careless about Canadians…or Americans.

Now that the world has changed, they are leaving Canada as fast as they can to build cars somehere else cheaper…and that is fine, thats life. It was a fair trade, they made money and we had jobs (and their pollution)…now it is coming to a close.

(Quote)
carcus Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:12 am

Once voters and politicians buy into the “too big to fail” we have effectively crossed into socialism.

I contend that GM has become “too big to live” in a new economy that can’t rely on unlimited supplies of cheap oil.

Companies fail every day. It’s the natural order of things in a free market economy. I personally have had to jump ship twice. (and move to another city). There’s always another job if you look hard enough.

Bankruptcy and reorganization is the answer here.

/ It’s hard to believe this is even debatable. It’s hard to believe we’ve become this weak.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:13 am

Can I just say for the record, I love these financial threads?

Other random, GM financial news hitting the wire now:

GM global sales plunge
—No. 1 U.S. automaker sees weakness in U.S. demand spreading to overseas markets where sales had been strong.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/29/news/companies/gm_global_sales/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — General Motors reported sharply lower global sales as weakness in the nation’s leading automaker’s domestic sales spread to overseas markets.

GM reported that overall sales were down 11.4% worldwide in the third quarter compared to the same period a year earlier.

That was a much steeper decline than the 2.9% drop seen in first half of the year.

European sales, which had been up 2.8% in the first half of the year, plunged 12% in the quarter, while the Asian Pacific region saw sales slow to a 2.6% growth rate from nearly 10% growth in the first half of the year

(Quote)
John S. Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:13 am

To answer the poll question, I think you need to look at similar situations in the past. If we had not injected billions over decades to help the US steel industry and protected that industry from foreign competition every chance we got, we would not have a dominate US steel industry and the millions of jobs that go with it.

Unfortunately you cannot change the future, only delay it. There will always be vehicle manufacturing in the US because we are a big market. However, ever more parts will be made overseas where labor is 75% cheaper. Our auto industry is destined to be part of a foreign manufacturer who can make the parts in India and we can assemble them here. I don’t like it, but that’s the way it is.

The good news however, after just coming back from a trip to Pittsburgh, is that we will also be shifting the pollution overseas as well and maybe we will finally be able to breath cleaner air in our manufacturing cities, or what’s left of them anyway after millions move away to find jobs.

Anyway, until then………… NPNS.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:14 am

statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:50 am
#17 kdawg

Can’t GM just shrink to a profitable level? Close every bad plant and consolidate the good ones. It may result in a loss of 50% (or more) of all GM jobs, but may be that’s what’s needed. I dont necessarily feel that “bigger is better”.
——————————————–
Nope, and that is the problem.

Every time they shrink, they increase the relative weight of their debt per car produced. Meaning that the less cars they build, the more money they have to make on each car…which is a total contrarian to the market right now.

For years GM has been dead in the water. However, as long as the market continued to grow and they could sell more and more cars at higher prices (still for a loss mind you), they could ‘kite’ their finances.

In other words, they could borrow more and more money because it appeared that their revenue would continue to increase and therefore they could continue to be able to service that debt under that scenario, so companies lent away.
———————–

Possibly, but producing less cars at a profit still makes more sense then builiding more cars with checks on them. Any way to prevent incurring further unwarranted debt, and also turn a profit, would chip into the current debt. Closing (and attempting to sell) 1/2 of the plants may result in some sales cash, but i’m sure most of the equity would get bulldozed.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:15 am

Why is it that Toyota can make money at 9.67 million vehicles and GM cannot at 9.7?
_______________________________________

GM disregarded a basic business rule… they put all their eggs in one basket. Not only did they take that risk, they actually mocked the competition about it (search for “stop gap”). Toyota introduced several models of hybrid, Yaris, and Scion in the meantime.

So when the guzzler market fell apart for entire industry, Toyota still had something else appealing to sell. GM has what?

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:17 am

Chrysler only has the Jeep line and Mini-vans as lucrative product lines, so it is better to shut down the rest and place the viable products within a stronger organization – GM.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:18 am

The global information is coming out of GM now, on it’s “Q3 2008 Global Sales Conference Call”, runs from 9AM to 10PM, pretty dry stuff…but their might be some new info come out at some point.

Here is the press ditty to go along with it:

http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/sales_prod/

(Quote)
dbK Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:23 am

No, nope.

Seriously, is Starbucks going to get a bailout next because it’s also in trouble? People need their coffee..

I’m with Statik. Chapter 11 and a restructuring is the most effective way to go about this.

Bankruptcy doesn’t always mean “company goes away” — look at the airline industry. It’ll screw a few debtholders, but anybody who bought GM debt not considering the possibility of bankruptcy is absurd.

After they both declare Chapter 11, maybe that is when a merger could happen, though it would likely make it unnecessary, as the merger would be taking place to avoid such an event.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:32 am

dbK,

Startbucks is not a wealth creating / essential industry like the auto industry. Transportation is essential, and GM’s current efforts with the Volt are key to future energy independence.

(Quote)
Chris Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:42 am

No, no, no, and no! If private businesses want to merge, fine. As long as they don’t break any laws (monopoly, anti-trust, etc). But asking the government to pay for it? Are you kidding me? My wife and I want to move, we should just ask the government to pay for our moving expenses. Where does it end?

At best, this should be a loan. That they pay back. The government does not exist to insure that businesses can continue operating, only that there is a level playing field and that everyone is playing by the rules. If you can’t stay in business, then fail. Someone will replace you and they will be able to make a profit and not be dependent on the government for handouts.

(Quote)
FLASH Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:50 am

I HATE to say it gentlemen, (and ladies) but this is a sign of the times-When NOBAMA is the president elect, and IF he makes it to innauguration, we will truly then be a 100% socialist country. So this is the way it will play out–under an Obama administration, we will all be PENALIZED for our successes. Conversely, if you are UNsuccessful, you will be REWARDED.
Yet, everyone that has been paying their mortgages, as well as credit card debt, gets no help–Isn’t that just a little backwards??? Who wouldn’t want to be White collar JOE/JOE business owner/JOE CEO/JOE politician/JOE stock broker in DC, Detroit, NY, or LA?????????????? Why aspire to be JOE the plumber or Bill the engineer????????????? The things that make you go hmmmmmm

(Quote)
RB Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:53 am

It may be helpful to think about what happened in previous cases of bankruptcy by major corporations.

When the Penn Central railroad went bankrupt (and like GM it was complex and enormous), most of the lines kept operating. All the routes with profitable traffic were purchased and operated by other railroads. The losers were the stockholders and bondholders, some people with contracts with Penn Central, and some employees. Some routes were operated by a quasi-government entity, Conrail, for a while, but then that was sold off also.

A similar set of events occurred with Delta Airlines, except that a reorganized Delta emerged from bankruptcy as an independent airline. In the case of Delta, once labor contracts were renegotiated and a lot of the overhanging debt was gone, the residual core attracted investment with the goal of being once again profitable.

If GM were to go into bankruptcy, there likely would be a similar sequence of events. There is no doubt that many stockholders and bondholders would be hurt, and probably many others, but if a reorganized corporation emerged as was the case with Delta it would be financially a much stronger organization.

There is not a way out of this situation that does not involve a lot of people being hurt. The core problem is that GM has borrowed so much money from so many people that there is now no way they can pay it all back. The question is who will take the hit — stockholders, bondholders, employees, taxpayers — but also how to get back to an automotive operation that produces products that enough people want to buy to keep income and expenses in balance.

(Quote)
Aspherical Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:54 am

Bankruptcy is the only option. Jobs will be devastating either way if GM declares bankruptcy or merges with Chrysler. Will GM still produce cars after bankruptcy? Yes. Look at the restructuring the airlines went through this decade after the 2001 recession. It was necessary because the major airlines operated on an outdated business model, and GM is in the same situation. The current business model of GM CANNOT survive today and they are delaying the inevitable….

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:54 am

Maybe our money would be better spent mentoring/raising Tesla Motors.

(Quote)
dbK Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:00 am

Jason M. Hendler Says:

dbK,

Startbucks is not a wealth creating / essential industry like the auto industry. Transportation is essential, and GM’s current efforts with the Volt are key to future energy independence.
———

Try to tell that to the Starbucks addicts that would come in 3 times a day when I was working at one during school

(Quote)
Joe Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:15 am

from Rashiid Amul

You love GM. Good for you. We all have to be loyal to something I suppose. I choose my country, my family, and myself.

*******************************************************

to Rashiid Amul

I love my family and America with all it’s great companies.

I don’t know how old you are, but I remember some of the old news of decades ago about how Japan were using unfair trade practices (dumping is only one of them). Our government grumble a little but nothing concrete ever came out it.

GM is part of America so if you love your country, you should try to understand what has happened with such a great American icon. GM got where they are at today basically because of their legacy costs. These great benefits the workers are getting or were getting, were in place when Toyota came to this country. Toyota had no legacy costs. None!! At such time, what is a company like GM to do? With such a large disadvantages, cutting corners was an option, and that is exactly what GM did…. look where it got them. I’m not saying they are no other factors, but I would say these are the major factors. Does that make them a bad company? I don’t think so. Should the GM workers have given up their pensions and health benefits back then? I don’t think so. Does that make the GM bad? I don’t think so. Should the GM workers stopped getting raises? Yes, I think so. But, we all know how human nature is. Does that make union workers bad? I don’t think so.

About 3 years ago GM woke up and slash the GM workers wages in half. You could say the workers had no choice. Also, the new GM products are just as good and in many case are better than it’s foreign competitors. I believe if given a chance, GM can go back to it’s glory days because of it’s new contract and it’s engineering expertise which is second to none. I know because I am proud to haven beeen part of the team, now retired.

Read from the link below if you are interested in finding how such a small country like Japan, got so strong industrially.

http://www.uwsa.com/issues/trade/japanyes.html

(Quote)
Dean Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:19 am

NO NO NO NO NO (that’s what I voted…)

You know how I will fund them?? How about this–THEY BUILD A GOOD CAR THAT I WILL DRIVE, and I will PAY THEM FOR IT!!

Amazing concept huh?

Put the Volt on the floor, have it under 30k (after the rebate), and I will pay for it. There’s their FUNDING.

(Quote)
Ray Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:25 am

All I can say is enough with the bail outs… as stated above… the government (either Canadian or the US) should not be in business of saving big business…. A strong financial and management team may not have forseen all of the big plunges going on right now but they SHOULD have been preparing for just an event a couple of years ago..
The Canadian government is not going to bail out my company ( around a million $ revenue per year )… When times got tough here….upper management took the first dollar cut.. They were not happy but it was either that or they were gone.. Next any redundances were eliminated…or merged into one area..Again upper and middle management took the hit,
Next all and I mean all of the employees were informed as to what was going on…. job security was on the line. efficeincy had to be improved…
Within a couple of months.. restructured… “all the fat trimmed”.. we are still in business… no front line workers were let go..(they are the bread and butter of any industry).. and we are actually going to show a small profit on this quarter..

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:26 am

Rashiid @ 30: Exactly, amen, dittos!

(Quote)
Joe Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:38 am

Statik says,
—200 billion to wipe both their balance sheets spotless
—10 billion to merge with Chrysler
—20 billion to cover GM’s VEBA payments
—10 billion to cover Chrysler’s VEBA payments
—10 billion to get Delphi out of Chapter 11

*******************************************************
#24 Joe, (to Statik)

Instead of making fun of General Motors ordeal, you should be thankful GM is providing all of those jobs in Canada.
——————————————–
from statik

What fun is that? I’m saying it is a mistake to bail them out…that there is a way to make them successful in the long run, alot cheaper.

********************************************************

sarcasm if if not fun…same

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:45 am

ThombDbhomb Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Maybe our money would be better spent mentoring/raising Tesla Motors.

That is a good point – perhaps GM should be putting money towards future products, and not past products, like Jeeps and Mini-vans.

At this point, it seems apparent that Chrysler is toast, and its viable product lines need a new home. It would be great if a domestic automaker bought those product lines, but a foreign competitor would be an acceptible suitor – Nissan perhaps?

I think Fisker Automotive is a better bet than Tesla Motors, as hybrids are a more immediate opportunity. I would give Tesla Motors a few more years to see how they progress.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:49 am

J Man #2

“What I do not understand is why someone (GM) would borrow money ($10 million) to buy something (Chrysler) and get some money in the deal ($11 million). ”

*** *** ***

Two words….”Going Concern”. GM could not be hit at a worse time. A massive restructuring to concentrate on automobiles and a terrible economy. The former is a fundamental change in GM that was absolutely necessary the latter part of a cycle that like it or not happens and like always we’ll get through it. The merger addresses the overcapacity in the automobile industry.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:49 am

#51 Joe
Say it ain’t so Joe. I don’t think Statik was making fun or being sarcastic. I think he offered a detached analysis and meant what he said. Statik seems to make sense from a financial perspective. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt since he has gone on record a long time ago (and taken some criticism) for his warnings of an impending, dire financial situation.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:52 am

Statik @ 21:
If you allow GM to go bankrupt chapter 11, whose to say it would survive even a re-structuring? It seems your putting a lot of faith on GM and Chrysler surviving bankruptcy re-structuring. It is difficult for me to be as seemingly cavalier about bankruptcy as the best option as you outlined in your post. I’m not completely disagreeing here with you, but I venture to say that if we allow these 2 great companies to fail, then they may do just exactly that–FAIL. Yes, they have made mistakes and plenty of bad calls in the past, but don’t we owe them (and ourselves) something by saving them?

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:00 am

Rashiid Amul #9

We have the government owning banks now. Why not GM too?

*** *** ***

Actually the govt loaned (gave?) money to these banks w/o stipulations. The govt also received no shares and no voting rights in these companies, so actually it doesn’t own them. Unfortunately they are actually free to blow the funds on company parties and executive bonuses if they want.

(Quote)
ug Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:00 am

No, GM has to suffer from its flawed business model of the pursuit of short-term profits and failing to have any freaking petroleum geologists on the payroll to tll them that the party was going to be over soon. If the Volt doesn’t come out, something else will take its place. GM should not be seen as the sole salvation of personal transportation.

(Quote)
J Man Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:02 am

#17 kdawg
Can’t GM just shrink to a profitable level? Close every bad plant and consolidate the good ones. It may result in a loss of 50% (or more) of all GM jobs, but may be that’s what’s needed. I dont necessarily feel that “bigger is better”.
______________________________________________________

GM has shrunk over 50% in the last 10 or so years. They let American Axle go, spun off Delphi, closed many plants(Pittsburgh, Baltimore, one in Jersey to name a couple). As well as all the buyouts and retirement incintives.

Now Hummer is for sale so that will lead to more layoffs. Delco is now up for grabs, that will include about 600 people and 7 or so plants.

=====================================================
#34 John S

The good news however, after just coming back from a trip to Pittsburgh, is that we will also be shifting the pollution overseas as well and maybe we will finally be able to breath cleaner air in our manufacturing cities, or what’s left of them anyway after millions move away to find jobs.
____________________________________________________

Did you really get a good look at Pittsburgh? If so you would see that they still have not recovered from when the steel industry left. Now with the housing market and economy it is getting worse. I know from experience.

====================================================

I would also like to say that I am tired of everyone blaming the UAW and the workforce. As a GM employee we are getting screwed in the deal. In the 11 years (in january ‘09) I have worked with the company I am now at my 4th plant. I have been through a spin off (Delphi) and a plant closing (Pittsburgh). I still have a house in Pittsburgh that I have not been able to sell (housing market is crap) in the year and 10 months I have been gone. Now at my 4th plant I do not know if I will have to go through this again or not, just like everyone else that works for the company. When I left Pittsburgh I had enough cash to pay for a Volt, it is now all gone.

In the last two contracts (last and current) we have had one raise. That was the first year of the last contract. The raise that we were supposed to get the second year was given up so that we would not have to pay out of pocket health care. The last 2 years of the last contract we received what they call a performance bonus, what a joke that is. By the time they add it in with your regular 40 hour pay check and tax it it is like you had to pay them to let you work there that week. This contract we get the same bonus and trust me the extra money is nice but I would be much happier with a 1% raise or even 1/2%. The top 3 at GM will make more money this year, even after giving up their bonuses, than I will have the chance to make in 30. GM can change our health care pretty much as they wish. When I started with the company I had GREAT healthcare, now it is just something nice to have. I could be on a better plan through my wife’s employer but she has to pay for hers.

For those of you that say we make too much and should take a pay cut. To Hell with you. Why don’t you take a pay cut. I come home everyday with aching hands and elbow fro doing my job. I have split my finger open once, down to the bone and gone through all the stuff I mentioned above. I worked with one guy that had the muscle ripped from his bone. There also have been many people to die at the plants throughout the history or the company. All this and we are still on average the lowest paid employees within the company.

The last contract the UAW gave away a lot of jobs. Jobs that we would do as union employees are now being contracted out to other companies. There was also an agreement to allow the usually “easier” jobs to new lower paid workers. So you spend 30 years in a place with the dream of having this really nice job and then all of a sudden it is gone. All this was done to help the company save money. So the UAW has tried to work with GM to help them. The UAW is even taking over the health care of all retirees to help the company out. Thats right. the biggest cost to GM is being taken over by the union to same GM money.

The next time you decide that J Man the auto worker needs to take a pay cut keep it to yourself. Think of how you would feel if some stranger decided you should loose some of your wages or loose your health benefits.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:03 am

This kind of thing just pisses me off!

The US “Government” doesn’t fund ANYTHING! It’s the US TAXPAYER who pays the bills and the headline is misleading and in-fact A LIE!

Business who make poor decisions should go OUT of business and make room for those who make SOUND decisions. It’s called FREE MARKET COMPETITION!

When nobody is allowed to fail, NOBODY will be allowed to succeed either. The socialists and fascists will see to that.

Goodbye American dream!

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:08 am

Jason M. Hendler Says: #52

“I think Fisker Automotive is a better bet than Tesla Motors, as hybrids are a more immediate opportunity.”

*** *** ***

The problem with Fisker is that Henrik and co are being sued by Telsa over pilfered technology. Additionally if my info is correct the Karma is going to rely heavily on GM technology. Where do you think that Fisker is going to get a 4-banger ICE? Who do you think is going to stamp out their parts? The Karma is also not a car for the masses, but rather a high end Volt. GM could essentially E-rev a SKY or Solstice, or even a Corvette and you’d have a Karma at a much better price.

(Quote)
Dr.Science Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:19 am

Sort of like when Studebaker aquired Packard

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am

One very large factor, which none of the “experts” seem to be even aware of , is the gigantic expense that would fall on the Feds if
the companies fail – namely the very extensive auto retirement funds, which our govt has stupidly decided to guarantee. So not only have the UAW Alice in Wonderland wages forced the US automakers into bankruptcy, now the country is on the hook to pay those pirate/extortionists for the rest of their misrerable lives, which I’m sure will be spent in sunny Florida.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:24 am

#60 Grizzly
Jason M. Hendler responded to my suggestion that we should use taxpayer money to develop up and coming US automakers instead of propping up failed auto giants. Both Fisker and Tesla have growing pains and are starting their lineup by producng high-end cars first. Eventually, if they can get their act together, they may produce the people’s car. Maybe we’d be better off if the young, innovative auto companies emerged from this financial miasma (Warning: creationists look away now) – like when the mammals emerged from the dinosaurs’ catastrophe.

(Quote)
dbK Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am

J Man:

What about the GM “job banks”? Or the pensions that are the first thing to go for everybody else?

Unions had their place. Workers now have rights, but holding companies hostage in the manner that the UAW historically has is counterproductive. UAW didn’t cause all of the problems for GM, but they sure haven’t helped.

(Quote)
Tony Gray Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:30 am

I only see data that concerns GM as a whole. I suppose there is data that is broken down by Division, and that may be telling.

I would float that Chevrolet and Cadillac are probably the only profit centers within GM, at least domestically. The old “car for every purse and purpose” worked for all GM divisions when each of them only produced several versions of one or two basic models. However, with the proliferation of models since the 1960s, comes much overlap and duplication of effort. (Some say economy of scale, but there are limits to what you can sell, and too many variations only result in stealing sales from sister divisions.)

As much as I hate to say it, GM should pare down to just Chevy and Caddy, selling Hummer and Saab and shutting down Pontiac, Buick (domestically) and GMC truck. I have no opinion on Saturn, but think they can still exist as a US badged Opel captive import brand.

This would reduce the parasitic overlap, the fewer dealerships would sell many more units per site, cut overhead and allow them to spend scare R&D on a more reasonable number of models.

The new Saturn-Chevy-Cadillac would favorably line up with Scion-Toyota-Lexus, etc.

Fun playing Titan of Industry here for a few minutes. All I really want is a Volt in my garage in 2010.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:46 am

If we can dish up hundreds of billions to the likes of Bear Stearns, AIG, and numerous other such enterprises, $10 billion to try to save GM/Chrysler seems like chicken feed. I mean, hedge funds??? Would I gamble 1 month’s cost of the Iraq fiasco to try to save GM/Chrysler? Yes I would.

#42 FLASH:

Note that all of this “socialist” activity to date has taken place under the stewardship of those great de-regulators and free enterprisers George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It’s a bit premature to start blaming it on Barack Obama, IMHO.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:05 am

ThombDbhomb #63

I understand what was said, my point was that neither company and especially Fisker can produce vehicles w/o all the subcontracting to comanies like GM. They are not a standalone company, and they possess nothing that GM doesn’t, GM doesn’t need growing pains they’ve got economies of scale. Investing in Fisker to prop up a company that possesses little technology and no scale would be risky. Restructuring an existing company with scale and know how is a safer bet. Just take a look at Tesla, it’s even money maybe even less that they’ll make it.

(Quote)
Grant Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:11 am

If we, as taxpayers, have to fiance a company, merged or otherwise (the government’s money is OURS, keep in mind) I think we should also have considerable kickbacks, I.E., lower cost Volts or the like released in large numbers here in the U.S. as a condition to get the funding in stages. otherwise, we will just be funding someone else’s break from oil. Our economy can’t handle it. Fix this country with this country’s tax dollars first, then help the rest of the world as we can. Otherwise, we just have many drown at once with no one to help.

(Quote)
Jonathan Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:12 am

Look- GM, Ford and Chrysler had the opportunity to read the tea-leaves years ago along with the rest of them. The only way GM can move forward would be to shed a few of the name brands and become a slimmer company, like what Tony Gray said above.
I don’t care for Chrysler and I think they are continually missing the trends as far as design, quality etc. It doesn’t appear that they have a vehicle that can reverse their misfortunes. The Challenger is bloated and the trucks are NOT flying off of the lots. I think retro is also overused. Can we not be original and create a new design philosophy? They did it once with Cab-Forward engineering and it made money, how about something new and original.
GM has the Volt and I think the car is a game changer. I think they should declare bankruptcy and move on. I hate the idea of job losses as much as everyone but as technology and economics change it will happen, regardless. I want to get my wife a Volt and I hope that this still happens given the current situation.

(Quote)
Kyle Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:16 am

I do think they should fund these companies. It is not in US long term interest to loose its auto industry plus the impact in the short term to the economy would be massive. That said, I am not sure why it is in the government interest to fund a merger. Is it not in the government interest to keep both companies going at least in the short term? GM has shown that it has a solid plan (except it is a bit too heavy in crossovers). Why not offer GM funding in return for an equity stake so that tax payers get a return later on (this is much better for tax payers than a low interest loan). Then offer Chrysler separately financing if warranted but contingent on a detailed turn a round plan that is vetted by an expert panel. Why is a merger the only option?

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:19 am

I voted yes although I do have misgivings about a deal that is not a straight loan. I hope it will be a loan and not an investment. I can see and understand the logic of Chapter 11 restructuring although that step will also cost a lot of jobs. The loan route will cost jobs especially if the merger or purchase of Chrysler does become part of it.

I also agree with Statik that the best solution for GM is the $250 billion bail-out/low interest loan/equity stake. I do not really want to see a true bail-out deal and certainly don’t want to see an equity stake. Government does not need to be part owner in American enterprises.

The situation, as I see it, is that the intent of the congress is to become an equity player in American business. The congress we have at this time is primarily a socialistic congress. They just have that intent in their policies they have been proposing and passing into legislation. The new proposals being discussed by many in congress this week will move us more into that realm. There is a very good chance that we will elect a president that is a proclaimed socialist. Not proclaimed directly, but by what he says and is proposing to do once he takes office. His past writings and speeches, some of which is just now becoming public, has shown him to be a true socialist. Granted, he is an American socialist tainted with some capitalist blood, but even so a socialist.

So, my conclusion is that no matter what we think on this site, we will see more and more moves that will place our way of life squarely in the realm of “Real Change We Can Believe In”. It is not that we can’t believe in this real change. It is whether we can afford it. We all have some socialist feelings or else we would not want any government programs for the poor, the sick, etc and etc. Those are all social programs run for very good, sound reasons. But, yet we don’t view them as harmful to our lives. Socialism will not be harmful to our lives either, but it will definitely change our lives. Some of us will say those changes will be for the better while others will lament the loss of their freedom and the capitalistic ideals. Who is right is for the future historians to decide. We are all too close to the action to really understand what is happening to us in America. We don’t see the rope that is being wound around us to bind us to socialism. It has been coming in bits and pieces for decades. Now, some in congress believe the time has come to make the great move they have been waiting for. The conditions are right and the people are ripe for change. They see their opportunity has arrived on the double edged sword of war and economic disaster and they intend to strike while the opportunity exists and the people are willing to accept great change to “satisfy” their fears.

We are at the early stages of the passing of a great civilization. One the world has never known the equal of. One that may never be able to rise to those heights again. The cause of “fairness” demands that we not spend money for achieving greater and greater heights, but we must lift up those and care for those who do not want to take care of themselves. We must expend most of our capital resources administering to those vast multitudes that do not strive to succeed in the world and will only look for others to do for them what they should do for themselves.

I am sure I have stepped on someone’s toes and I accept your dislike of what I say. But stop and consider what I am saying against what is happening now and what has happen in the last few decades. Thank you, if you took the time to read this, and May God Bless you, your family and America.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:39 am

#71 N RIley

Sorry, too long for me to read, I left at the ‘I also agree with Statik part.’ I can say that it was fabulous right up to there…I can only assume it continues.
—–
No, I read it all. You took some time writing that one out, so I figured I should acknowledge it.

I confess my own personal ‘glasses of scope’ may not be large enough to conceive how this new added socialism will shake out in the world’s largest economy, but there can be no arguing that it certainly is being integrated to a much larger extent every day.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:40 am

$7,000 tax rebate on new vehicles, $25,000,000,000 loan/bailout, $10,000,000,000 in new loans/buyouts, when does it end. When is it too much? When do we stop this madness? At some point, it’s too expensive. There are far far cheaper ways to support the economy. This is becoming a bunch of piranha’s in a feeding frenzy around my money.

Can anyone imagine the bribes that are getting thrown Paulson’s way right. He has $750,000,000,000 at his fingertips and congressional authority to spend it. Do you trust him to act in your interest? Can you imagine the pressure he’s under to compromise. I consider myself to be an ethical person, but there’s not way I’d stand up under that, and I’m not a politician.

(Quote)
chevonly Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:40 am

Dear Comrades, what do you expect, with globalization shoved down our throats, if most of the world is socialistic how can you even think the U.S. can compete without ending up the same way. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST GLOBILIZATION IT WILL NOT WORK. If you dont belive me yet just wait, we will all be living in cardboard condos before the end game plays out. WHY NOT BAILOUT GM THE US DOLLAR ISNT WORTH MUCH ANYWAY AND A FEW MORE AMERICANS GET TO KEEP THERE JOBS A LITTLE LONGER. Look at it this way GM deserves a share of the bailout at least they create something where the financial market just moves money around and has screwed the whole world over inclucing you and me. Good luck and enjoy the ride on the republicanator the drop is going to be steep and deep.

(Quote)
Gord Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:41 am

Ok, for the last time people “alot” is not a word. It’s two words ” a lot”.

(Quote)
Kyle Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:43 am

#60 Grizzly

If You want to gamble tax payer money on highly risky start up auto companies that is one thing. But if you want to do that instead of funding the established auto industry it really makes no sense. I would suggest you take a more historical view of the auto industry. The odds of any of these new companies surviving let alone thriving in the future is very very low. It is not like most other industries. The barriers caused by capital intensity, coordination, technical skills, and technical investment are extremely daunting. The odds of success are in the single digits literally. Please take a look at this very famous study Hannan et. al “Organizational Evolution in a Multinational Context: Entries of Automobile Manufacturers in Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 60, No. 4. (Aug., 1995), pp. 509-528. It documents the extreme reduction in the auto industry over the last 100 years in Europe. Please also consider that the established auto industry is extremely interconnected with a large portion of the economy. If these companies fail the impact is considered to be well over 100 billion dollars. There really is no comparison between the established auto industry and these new startups.

(Quote)
JN2 Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:49 am

#71 N Riley: *May God Bless you, your family and America.*

I agree with that sentiment, but why not bless the whole world while you are at it? Think big!

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am

#72 Statik

It did take a while to write. I thank you for reading it. I had more to say, but knew I had better not say too much. I was not trying to make a political statement. I was trying to express an analysis of what was happening to our little world we enjoy here in the U.S. and Canada. But, just like everything else, it is just my opinion. And like, noses, most of us have opinions and they are each different in their own way.

In a little over a week, the world will change and things will look brighter and better. We will all have a new strength to our step and will be able to leap tall mountains. The mountains are very real and very, very tall.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:54 am

#71 N Riley

I’m genuinely frightened for our future in the U.S. We have a long and healthy history of checks & balances, but looking forward that system will become less effective. I don’t care republican or democrat, complete control of the gov’t, including a filibuster proof senate is not a recipe for success. I too feel the socialism noose tightening. But then again, maybe I’m just giving in to the election hype.

If my memory is correct, you have espoused socialistic policies as well with supporting tax credits and such. In my humble opinion, once you cross the line, it’s difficult to justify why others shouldn’t for their pet projects as well, even if they’re pet project costs orders of magnitude more.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:54 am

#77 JN2

You are correct. So, God Bless the Whole World, each and everyone of us.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am

@#58 J Man
GM needs to shrink 50%+ more from where they are now, not 10years ago.

Dont get me started on the UAW. If my company was downsizing and losing billions, and they offered me $75k-$150K to quit, you would see a dust trail as I shot out of the building. Maybe the UAW workers dont because I know lots of them in the job banks who have pig roasts & play mini golf all day long collecting 95% of their salary with benifits, which is still more than I make with a college degree (oh BTW, my salary has been REDUCED several times let alone wage freezes, 401K match, benefits, not paying for health insurance.. yeah right). If screw up at my job, I’ll get fired. You can screw up 10 times+ as a UAW worker and still be employed. There’s a lot of bitching here about Socialism. I think the UAW is another form of it. In a union such as the UAW, where is the motivation to work hard an excel when you have union protection?

In the words of Drew Carey; “What’s the matter, don’t like your job? Don’t worry, there’s a support group for that. It’s called EVERYBODY. We meet at the bar.”

(Quote)
Tom H Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

We are in danger of walking away from our free enterprise system of the course of a few weeks this fall. The financials had to be bailed out by the government, but it was done the wrong way. There was too much rewarding of bad behavior. And with the government as part owner, every business decision or activity conducted by any of these companies becomes a matter of public debate and a political football.

With the auto companies, the best outcome is that they find a way to keep going using their own resources. But failing that, the next best option is bankruptcy. Bankruptcy does not work for failing financial companies, but can work well for manufacturing companies.

Advantages of a GM bankruptcy (as a last resort)

1. No reward for failure. Stock holders lose their investments, bankruptcy judge can void excessive compensation, especially golden parachutes
2. Business can continue to operate. Buy materials, employ workers, build and sell cars, and even continue a properly sized research program.
3. Labor contracts can be repudiated. The GM workers and retirees should get a deal typical for US unskilled and skilled workers. Why should the guy who sweeps the floor at Lordstown make 5 times as much as the guy who sweeps the floor at McDonalds. Why should GM retirees and widows get gold plated health care when there is no money to pay for it. Those over 65 should depend on Medicare like any other older American, and those under 65 can go to work if they need benefits.

4. GM can be excused from paying on long term debt until it is able to work through its structural issues. They would still pay workers and suppliers, and keep building cars.

5. The resulting GM would be smaller, but best of all it would have a cost structure comparable to foreign mfgrs with plants in the US, and not too much worse than mfgrs in Japan, Germany ,etc.

6. If no public money is used, we do not have to agonize over who took a business trip, what they ordered for dinner, and what it cost.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

#79 Cautious Fan

You are correct. I have supported tax credits for purchasing alternate fuel vehicles such as the Volt. I so stated in my “commentary” that we all have socialistic feelings. I did not exclude myself from that statement. There are certain degrees we each feel comfortable with and at some point that level of comfort evaporates. I feel the evaporation to a high degree on comfortableness at this time. We approach a turning point now that once we advance on the chosen path, we will find it near impossible to return to our earlier path. Some in congress are very aware of this turning point and they have been waiting for just the right time. They now feel that time is here. They are going to force us onto that path because, like lambs to the slaughter, we are each in our own way willing to accept change for the sake of change.

I am not saying that we shouldn’t cross that line. I am saying we have already crossed that line and we just don’t know it yet.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

#76 Kyle
Grizzly didn’t suggesst that gamble tax payer money on highly risky start up auto companies. I threw that out there. From what I read, Grizzly seems to agree with you.

Yes, a startup’s chances for success are low. But, some startups make it big. There seems to be a lot of demand for E-REVs and EVs. If a startup can fill that demand, they will be rewarded.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Must be a slow day today. Everyone is writing novels. I like hearing all the different versions of chicken little & the sky is falling. Its not bad enough the media jams it down my throat, but now its permanently camped out in this Chevy Volt site.

Maybe the financial/future of GM/socialism threads should be spun off on some other site. Or hopefully Lyle can get us some technical info to digest SOON.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

#82 Tom H

Good sentiments. I, too, believe GM and Chrysler would be better off with Chapter 11. I would prefer to keep government at arms length. Some investment in future technology by the government can be a good thing if the resulting developments are shared by American companies. But downright ownership by government is not desirable.

(Quote)
D'Artagnon Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Rather than bailing out GM, how about if the government write every taxpayer a $25,000 check to go buy a car? It would be cheaper and more effective.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Anyone see the Colbert Report last night? His guest was Brian Moore, the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate. He said Obama wasn’t a socialist. It seems like he should know. Many people are saying Obama is a socialist. I’m confused.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

#85 kdawg

Count you as one of the ones that I knew would not like what I said. Good. Sorry, but you can just skip any comment that starts out saying what you don’t want to read. But, I agree it is a shame we have to have it pushed down our throats by the media and the politician and now one of the people on this site is trying to do the same to you. I apologize for that.

(Quote)
FLASH Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

noel park said: Note that all of this “socialist” activity to date has taken place under the stewardship of those great de-regulators and free enterprisers George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It’s a bit premature to start blaming it on Barack Obama, IMHO.

I would respectfully agree to disagree, sir!!! I think there’s PLENTY of blame to go ALL the way around, even going back to the 1970’s, IMHO…….

Just think about REED, FRANK, PELOSI, etc. working with President Obama–you think we’ve got it bad now???????????? Look at their records……JMHO!!!

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

The biggest problem has is that it’s still being led by the man who got GM into this situation in the 1st place! The board and the shareholders should oust Wagoner… but the problem is that boards are no longer independent as these CEO’s sit on each other’s boards, or are in bed with their boards (part of the problem that also got all these companies into the mess they are in). And of course you are going to hear the same drum beat that got Bush 43 another 4 years… “don’t change course in a time of war (in this case economic turmoil)”.

If the Feds give GM more money for this merger, they should put the same strings on it as other bail out money coming from tax payers (I should say future tax payers as none of these bail outs are funded and are just going straight to the National debt).. ie. no golden parachutes for the managements of either company. Of course they are likely to find a loophole or way around such strings.

And unlike Lyle’s post trying to scare folks that bankruptcy would mean the loss of 350,000 jobs in the industry (we’ve already lost many more jobs than that during the Bush years, my job included that got off shored)… bankruptcy does NOT mean the end of a company… bankruptcy gives a company time to reorganize while keeping creditors off their backs. Lots of companies have come out of bankruptcy to become much stronger companies by removing fat, layers of overpaid middle management, and becoming more competitive.

Gotta love (or hate) the hypocrisy of the so called fiscal conservative Republicans labeling the Dems as “socialists” while they socialize the financial system and now Detroit. The Republicans haven’t been fiscal conservatives since Nixon… bring back the fiscal conservatives, write in “Ron Paul” for President!

(Quote)
John S. Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

#58 Jman
The movement of people from where the jobs were to where the jobs are sucks. The displacement of people from everything they have known and the inevitable economic loss of the people involved as they work for lower wages cannot be overstated. The future on this however cannot be changed, it is going to continue to occur and probably speed up.

As to my short visit to your home city (Pittsburgh), no I did not get a good look at it. I was however trying to be a little comical (obviously I failed) in noting that you can actually see Pittsburgh where as in days gone by, there was such a hovering haze over the area that on most days you had no view at all. Good luck to your Steelers next monday as they play my Redskins.

NPNS

(Quote)
Kyle Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Thanks ThombDbhomb. You caught me. I am guilty of not reading through all the posts. Thanks for the clarification.

Just one more thing. The E-REV and EVs are promising technologies. But there is no reason to assume from a historical perspective that these start ups have a real chance of out-competing the established companies. The barriers are massive. Also, it really is to early to say what form all of this will take. The current period is much like the late 1890s early 1900s when the best form and structure of the car was only beginning to emerge.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

#74 Chevonly

Dear Comrades, what do you expect, with globalization shoved down our throats, if most of the world is socialistic how can you even think the U.S. can compete without ending up the same way. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST GLOBILIZATION IT WILL NOT WORK. If you dont belive me yet just wait, we will all be living in cardboard condos before the end game plays out. WHY NOT BAILOUT GM THE US DOLLAR ISNT WORTH MUCH ANYWAY AND A FEW MORE AMERICANS GET TO KEEP THERE JOBS A LITTLE LONGER. Look at it this way GM deserves a share of the bailout at least they create something where the financial market just moves money around and has screwed the whole world over inclucing you and me. Good luck and enjoy the ride on the republicanator the drop is going to be steep and deep
——————————–

Chev, there is no ‘choice against globalization,’ it is a fact of life. As for it ‘not working,’ it is working just the way the name would indicate.

Unfortunately for us (’first world’ countries), globalization means that we have to take a couple steps back for the good of ‘the world’. So yes, the US/Canada loses jobs…that go to Mexico, then they lose jobs…to China or India…or Bangladesh.

I myself don’t have a problem with people in the US (or Canada) losing their jobs and being forced to sell one of their cars or move into a smaller house, if it allows 2-3 people elsewhere in the world to move up a notch. For the first time in our histories we may not be able to provide a higher standard of living to our children, that is just the way it goes.

At the end of the day, you have to realize what really makes a country great, and perserve that. So why is America great? Why is Canada great? What made us that way? Is it some kind of special ‘know-how’ or ‘heart’? Is it great corporate citizens like GM keeping us high on the horse? Nope, it is land. We got it, the world wants it. I wish we could point to something in our past and take personal pride how we developed a special human characteristic that the rest of the world doesn’t have, but it is just not true.

America (and Canada) is only greater than any other nation because of its land and resources. We exploited what we have to leap frog the rest of humanity, now our greed as taken us a step too far and we need to be put back into our place.

Take heart if you are worried about what is happening ‘in your own backyard’. At the end of the day, America (Canada) will still be there on top. We have all kinds of land and resources and relatively speaking, not many people.

These other countries that are taking these jobs only do so because of their terrible standard of living…which was caused by having too many friggin’ people on too little land. They have nothing, all they have is what we offer them through either charity or greed. Even with globalization in full swing, North America is the place to be…and it always will be.

If you want to keep the good times rolling–long term, just defend the land…and keep the population stable. Everything else is just a sidebar.

/how is THAT for off track N Riley? hehe

(Quote)
Beef Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Why not let GM fail? From a capitalist perspective, if GM goes bankrupt, much of the high legacy costs can removed so they can turn the corner to become a streamlined, quality automaker. Think about it:
1) the union contracts can be re-negotiated to provide a decent wage, yet not be so rigid in job descriptions so employees can cover multiple tasks;
2) the inability to trim dealer goes away; GM can reduce the number of dealers in line to what they sell (Toyota has half the dealers GM does)
3) GM can shutter the brands that eat capital … keep Cadillac, Chevrolet – the global brands and pick 1 – 2 more in each region … all others – sell them off.
4) GM can shutter factories more quickly while re-organizing
5) GM can reduce the health care costs of retirees … another albatross around the neck
6) Why not honor warranty commitments in reorg under bankruptcy to keep the public buying cars?

(Quote)
Todd Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Bailout NO

Loan Yes

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

#81 D’Artagnon Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Rather than bailing out GM, how about if the government write every taxpayer a $25,000 check to go buy a car? It would be cheaper and more effective.
—————————————-

so there are only 10 million tax payers in the US?

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Oh no…can this be true?

Wagoner survives…to become the CEO of the merged GM/Chrysler?
Geesh…armageddon is upon us!

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081029/business_us_chrysler_gm.html

“General Motors Corp (NYSE:GM – News) and Cerberus Capital Management (CBS.UL) have resolved the major issues in a proposed GM-Chrysler merger but the final form of any deal will depend on the financing and government support available, sources familiar with the talks said on Wednesday.

Both sides have agreed that GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner would lead the combined automaker, the sources said. A merged GM/Chrysler would be the largest automaker by global sales.”

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

94 Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
America (and Canada) is only greater than any other nation because of its land and resources.

—————————-

Not really. There are many other countries out there with the same or more “resources” than us, and they have much, much worse standards of living. China, Brazil, Russia, Saudia Arabia… etc. Politics, culture, work ethic, religion.. all come into play when determining success and quality of life.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:47 pm

#95 Beef Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

5) GM can reduce the health care costs of retirees … another albatross around the neck

—————————

That’s already gone, (well Jan 2009 it is)

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

58 J Man:

Family business closed, New job and I have already taken a pay cut and I guarantee I make less than you.

Sorry about your luck but…well, I don’t know what to say other than YES the UAW is part of the problem. Not all of it but yes, they are a part. I remember how many people my dad had to lay off during the strike in 92. I remember how the American Axle strike just last year put about 5 companies out of business permanently.

So, don’t wag your finger. Those folks are out of a job directly because of your Union. Period. Do I feel for your plight? yes I do. Personally for you alone, I wish nothing but the best, as I do for all individuals. I do have nothing but contempt for the UAW organization however and that will simply not change.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Kyle #76

If you re read my comments I think we’re on the same page.

(Quote)
frankyB Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

For once I agree with Statik…

Let the market regulate itself… isn’t that what made the success of the US… the stronger survive, the weaker die.

I also read Renault/Nissan also have their hands in this deal…

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

#94 Statik

You expressed it very well. I see nothing wrong with anything you said. America and Canada are two of the greatest nations to have ever existed on this planet. We do owe much of it to our land. But, it takes people with vision and a work ethic to make something of the land. We have had that in abundance in the past. We are failing in that today. Vision is limited to “what can government do for me today” and our work ethic is fast becoming “if you are not willing to do for yourself what is necessary for you to survive, government will do it for you”.

This is not to say that we do not still have plenty of people in North America with vision and a strong work ethic. We do. But, reliance on government erodes both slowly but surely. Now, the proper ingredients are in place for government to take a much larger role in our daily lives and those in power recognize that and are finally seeing that they are in place to act. They will most surely will act if the election goes according to plan.

GM should have taken chapter 11 several years ago, but sales of the gas guzzlers was just too strong for them to take the plunge. Think how things would be different today if they had.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Well, we have $700 billion to bail out the banking industry, so a few billion of GM/Chrysler doesn’t seem bad, especially when you consider the industrial base they provide.

Maybe this is off-topic, and I’m not sure of its validity, but this discussion seems to suggest that the US Government is directly to blame for the banking industry’s financial collapse:

————————————————————

“The following is a condensation of a series from the Investor’s Business Daily explaining ‘What Caused the Loan Crisis’:

1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.

Statistics bear out that it did not help.

How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?

1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IA) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.

1993: Pres. Bill Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.

1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.

1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin’s Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin’s Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.

1997 – 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor
communities, often ‘no doc’, ‘no income’, requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton
Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990’s Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and
shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.

Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.

1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie’s excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. ‘We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks,’ Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.

2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the ’special status’. Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO’s who knew how to reward and punish. ‘We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation’s housing and mortgage markets’ Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.

2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called ‘the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago ‘. Even after discovering a scheme by
Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.

2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: ‘We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk’. Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, ‘If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole’. Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP of trying to ‘cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership’ The bill went nowhere.

2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in ‘07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.

2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats’ talking points about this being a ‘Republican’ disaster. A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats, and protected by Democrats.

Could this be the main reason why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion?

Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/
Freddie’s slush funds. They are currently under indictment or
investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal
counsel, defending their activities for several years.

These links below have the lawmakers’ own words. They are condemning!

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&fe ature=related

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CSY4&feature=related

(Quote)
Len Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

If I thought the money would save GM and the Volt I would vote yes, but I think it would just prolong the demise. Joining with Chrysler is like chaining a lead weight to your feet and going for a swim.

I feel for all the folks that will loose a job, but I have no pension, and have worked at 6 jobs in thirty years, been awarded four patents and the odds of ever retiring are slim to none. I was even unemployed for six months. That is just the way it is.

In my opinion GMs only chance is chapter 11. It must come out lean and a world competitor.

Go GM! Go Volt!

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

94 Statik Says:

“America (and Canada) is only greater than any other nation because of its land and resources.”

#99 kdawg

Not really. There are many other countries out there with the same or more “resources” than us, and they have much, much worse standards of living. China, Brazil, Russia, Saudia Arabia… etc. Politics, culture, work ethic, religion.. all come into play when determining success and quality of life.

————————-

My point was physical size/resources relative to the number of people living in the country, not just the actual physical size. You control the populations in the US and Canada and we will always be on top…or close to it.

I don’t care what America/Canada’s politics, culture, work ethic or religion is…if the population triples to a billion people, the standard of living goes WAY down. If the population stays at 340 million the standard will continue to rise with human advancement.

That was my point, that the greatest economic factor is the amount of land and natural resources per person. China, India, Bangladesh, (in fact 99% of the world’s other countries) can only usurpe our standard of living to a certain degree…they can only improve their standard to a certain level.

It is true that a good work ethic/culture/political system/religion can be asset of one country over another in some situations, but that added improvement or efficiency is based off of a starting point of resource.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Beef #95

“Why not let GM fail? From a capitalist perspective, if GM goes bankrupt, much of the high legacy costs can removed so they can turn the corner to become a streamlined, quality automaker”

*** *** ***

You have a point about the unions, but the fallout of a Chapter 11 would mean a lot of suppliers wouldn’t be paid. This would have a rippling effect on the economy because of all the other companies associated with them.
This is essentially what is meant when people say that GM is (could be?) too big to fail.

(Quote)
Kyle Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Grizzly 102

Yes we are on the same page. Thanks.

(Quote)
Gsned57 Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

N Riley #71 and Statik (all the financial bits)

Thanks for the good read and dont feel you’ve said too much, let it all out . If anyone from the next administration is reading these threads, look at a few here on this site as policy advisers.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

#105 BillR

Thank you. But let’s be clear about one thing. Some here will damn you for this. Be ready to understand that you have very clearly shown the extent of the lies that have been spread about the root cause of this financial crisis. Thank you, again for doing this. To bad the rest of the country will never see this report. The media will not allow the truth anymore. Journalism died in 2008. It may never rise again.

(Quote)
Greg Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Sorry, I have to vote no. This is like throwing money down a rat hole. Someone will pick up the pieces and it will be a better company in the end. They have become like the federal government, bloated and unwieldly.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Wow, lots of absurd comments here.

First of all folks, we’re talking about a LOAN here, not a gift. Not the same as “a $25,000 check to go buy a car”. More like a $25K car loan … not at all unusual.

From a national security and national pride perspective, the US government cannot allow (as was allowed with consumer electronics) the US auto industry to disappear. Sure GM managementhas done a lot of stupid things to destroy their reputation and brand value, but this economic meltdown (mostly the government’s fault) should not be the cause of their demise. And a bankruptcy label sure as hell ain’t gonna help … good luck selling cars made by a (hugely publicized) bankrupt company.

For the above reasons, I voted YES to the LOAN.

As for the politics, the financial meltdown (in the USA at least) was mainly caused by unregulated greedy people (deregulated in 1999 under Bill Clinton, democrat) abusing socialist policies (mostly backed by democrats) that started back with Jimmy Carter (democrat). Fortunately for Obama (democrat), all this socialist sh*t hit the fan just in time for him to blame it all on the republicans and Bush, and that’s now the basis of his (brilliantly run, but deceptive) campaign. And the general public is buying this deception hook, line, and sinker. Truly ironic.

You couldn’t write such irony into a movie … if you did, nobody would believe it. It would be like a combination of “Idiocracy” (funny movie) and “Atlas Shrugged” (great book).

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

#107 Statik

We are positioned to see very strong population growth over the next 25 years. Why such a surge, one may ask. You only have to look at our open border policy to see the root cause of the problem. We are being flooded with young, poor and hard working illegals. These illegals will become citizens soon and will stay while building families and on and on. Much of this growth will spread to Canada because of the richness of its land and the generosity of its people. You, like America, will be taken advantage of and eventually will be taken over. It is just the way of things today. What you can’t do with armies, you do with low income workers. Somebody has to give them jobs, house, cloth and feed them. They can’t do it for themselves in our costly society. They must be given a helping hand from the hand that never stops giving and never forgets that you owe it something. It will ask for its collection at the ballot box every election cycle. And our democracy will suffer the effect.

(Quote)
Gsned57 Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Statik #94 I have to disagree with you. There is something that makes our people super human. We are a collection of people from around the world. The people that have and continue to emigrate to North America have done so for a better life. They struggled to get here and that has made them stronger than those they left behind just trying to eek out a day to day existence. They got here and they had the freedom to break away from their current financial and social standings.

We have invented more, produced more, and consumed more than any other nation not because of our resources but because of the struggle and work ethic of those coming here. They believed that in the US and Canada they can do anything and for the most part they are right.

If you know that you can work hard and attain more isnt’ that more incentive than working hard knowing the government is just going to take it away and give it to someone else?

(Quote)
carcus Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Where would GM (USA) be now if they’d (we’d) taken

1. electric car technology
2. battery technology
3. hybrid technology

and ran with it when they (we) had the chance?

Unleaded for $2.15/gallon today. Champagne and Hummers for everybody! We can still borrow and spend our way out of this!

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Although I voted yes for a “loan” to GM, I believe Chapter 11 would have been better for GM. Probably not the best solution for the suppliers and the ones GM owes money to. But the suppliers should be able to continue supplying GM under Chapter 11 and the money borrowed could still be collected in some cases. I don’t pretend to know all the where ins and the where ats of Chapter 11 law. One thing for sure, congress is going to do what they want no matter what you and I say here or in public. They are controlled by forces too great for the common citizen to have any chance of penetrating. That possibility disappeared many, many years ago.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

#94 N Riley

…This is not to say that we do not still have plenty of people in North America with vision and a strong work ethic. We do. But, reliance on government erodes both slowly but surely. Now, the proper ingredients are in place for government to take a much larger role in our daily lives and those in power recognize that and are finally seeing that they are in place to act. They will most surely will act if the election goes according to plan.

GM should have taken chapter 11 several years ago, but sales of the gas guzzlers was just too strong for them to take the plunge. Think how things would be different today if they had.
——————————

You know, I am a pretty cold guy, most of my thoughts come from a deep, dark place that believes in a completely free market economy. I believe that it is my right to make decisions…and I accept that with that right, comes the consequences of my actions.

ie) horrible failure means I am penniless on the street and I am left to freeze to death in the winter…or with great success, I vacation on my summer island in the Pacific where I pronounce myself King and dance naked on the beach

Either way, in my mind there is no safety net, no socialistic backdrop to cushion my fall or to curtail the excesses of my success.

However, I am also aware that my position is completely wrong, lol. I can’t help it…we are all wired with a basic instinct, which sometimes needs to be surpressed for reasoned thought…or the ‘greater good’

Which is why you may be right, the government may need to step in here, rather than letting GM go under…there may be other pieces to the puzzle that need to be accounted for.

Socialism to some extent is needed. How much? I really don’t know. The word itself makes me cringe. We have yet to see a system of order that can be pointed to and say, “yes, this is the way to go.”

Alot of democratic system have been great…for awhile. Alot of socialist systems have been great…for awhile. None have stood the test of time…maybe that, in and of itself, is the answer…adaptive government.

/honestly, I have no clue. It is too big for me to comprehend and I am too personally flawed to see a clean-cut answer. The best I can do is to navigate the parts I understand for the benefit of my family and friends, and let someone more balanced than myself run the country.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

#115 Gsned57

“If you know that you can work hard and attain more isnt’ that more incentive than working hard knowing the government is just going to take it away and give it to someone else?”

——————————–

Exactly the problem we are faced in our current election. One candidate says “work hard, earn more and keep more of what you earn” while another says “work hard, earn more and it is only ‘fair’ we take some of your earnings and give it to those who do not work harder and earn more”. This sums it up in a nutshell.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

#118 Statik

Well said, my friend.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

#107 Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
94 Statik Says:

“America (and Canada) is only greater than any other nation because of its land and resources.”

#99 kdawg

Not really. There are many other countries out there with the same or more “resources” than us, and they have much, much worse standards of living. China, Brazil, Russia, Saudia Arabia… etc. Politics, culture, work ethic, religion.. all come into play when determining success and quality of life.

————————-

My point was physical size/resources relative to the number of people living in the country, not just the actual physical size. You control the populations in the US and Canada and we will always be on top…or close to it.

I don’t care what America/Canada’s politics, culture, work ethic or religion is…if the population triples to a billion people, the standard of living goes WAY down. If the population stays at 340 million the standard will continue to rise with human advancement.

That was my point, that the greatest economic factor is the amount of land and natural resources per person. China, India, Bangladesh, (in fact 99% of the world’s other countries) can only usurpe our standard of living to a certain degree…they can only improve their standard to a certain level.

It is true that a good work ethic/culture/political system/religion can be asset of one country over another in some situations, but that added improvement or efficiency is based off of a starting point of resource.
——————–

I still disagree. One of the most population dense countries, Japan (339 people per sq km), has a very high standard of living. Same for Great Britain (246), and Germany (232). Regarding low standards: China is much less dense at 138. Mexico even less at 58. Central & South American countries are in the 20’s. The United States sits at 31 people per sq km. Russia is one of the least dense at 8.1 people per sq km.

All of these countries have resources: land, water, fossil fuels. But i see intelligence/education/work ethic etc.. as resources as well. And that’s what allows certain countries to exceed over others. If a society is not set up to merit those who advance it, there is no advancement, just survival.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

#115 Gsned57

Statik #94 I have to disagree with you. There is something that makes our people super human. We are a collection of people from around the world. The people that have and continue to emigrate to North America have done so for a better life. They struggled to get here and that has made them stronger than those they left behind just trying to eek out a day to day existence. They got here and they had the freedom to break away from their current financial and social standings.

We have invented more, produced more, and consumed more than any other nation not because of our resources but because of the struggle and work ethic of those coming here. They believed that in the US and Canada they can do anything and for the most part they are right.

If you know that you can work hard and attain more isnt’ that more incentive than working hard knowing the government is just going to take it away and give it to someone else?

———————

Is it possible to agree with a disagreement? Lol.

North America is a funny place. I think it deserves a (*) asterisk. I don’t think the people specifically are the difference, but I think there is a basic underlying fundamental difference… and that is why there has great success/invention here. Simply put, it is the fact it has been a clean slate here, free from convention and regulation.

I mean, North America is new. We are not new, we all came here from some place else (my ancestors were Europeon). Humanity is new here (mostly).

People have just recently come to North America, and when they got here, they found a place where they can stake off a piece of land and do just about whatever the heck they want to, and nobody cared, or wanted to harm them or interfer with them…which led to innovation and invention, free from persecution (justified or not). The main goal of the population was simply ‘a better life’ and they were free to embrace that goal 100%.

North America’s lack of convention and its isolation from the world has allowed it to develop uniquely, free from several millenia of generational living…almost in a vacuum. In most cases, the place where you live is the first time a person has ever subsided there.
—–
Already, I’m done with the ‘deep thinking’ today…where is some news about the shape of the Volt’s brakepedal or something! It better be brushed metal or no deal!

/peace

(Quote)
George Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

For everyone crying for a rebate on their volt, this is just another funding from the government to get the volt to you. If you want a government rebate, you should also want a government bailout. In the end, they are the same thing, redistribution of the wealth of the nation by a select few.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

#121 kdawg

I still disagree. One of the most population dense countries, Japan (339 people per sq km), has a very high standard of living. Same for Great Britain (246), and Germany (232). Regarding low standards: China is much less dense at 138. Mexico even less at 58. Central & South American countries are in the 20’s. The United States sits at 31 people per sq km. Russia is one of the least dense at 8.1 people per sq km.

All of these countries have resources: land, water, fossil fuels. But i see intelligence/education/work ethic etc.. as resources as well. And that’s what allows certain countries to exceed over others. If a society is not set up to merit those who advance it, there is no advancement, just survival.
—————————

I read your post, and I have a retort, but I fear this thread has gone way off course and I’m more than a little to blame for it, heeh.

We have different opinions to be sure. I’m ok with that if you are, we can agree to disagree on this one. Good discussion though.

/have a good one

(Quote)
noel park Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

#98 Statik:

Yeah, I saw that. I repent of my comment at #66.

(Quote)
Casey Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

No tax money to merge or buy another company, ok to make loan to save both GM and Chrysler as needed.

Its not too late to stop socialism, but it will be after nov. 4th.

Republicans get back to conservatism. (less gov.)

Democrats get back to the labor party. (less enviromentlist)

NO PLUG, NO SALE, NOBAMA, NO SOCIALISM, =D—-NO MORE BAILOUTS

(Quote)
StevePA Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

#42 Flash
You must be a Karl Rove acolyte…
I am no fan of Obama’s, but suggesting what is going on today in the financial markets and the economy, including government intervention, has been a result of his influence, is pure BS, Rovian misinformation at its best.
Whether McCain or Obama is elected, the new President will be cleaning this Republican and Democratic fueled mess for years.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

First off let me say there are alot of things about this proposed deal that I do not understand. But here are a few of my thoughts that may or maynot be right.

1. GM isn’t depending on this merger to save them. So why should we pay for this? Realize that those pushing for this will try to make it sound like it is absolutely needed.

2. Why would it cost anything (relatively speaking) to merge to companies that want to merge? What am I missing???

The mortgage industry was taken out of the hands of the free interprise system and basically forced to make bad loans… and now the collapse give the government more control over the banks all the while blaming it on capitalism!!! Is this going to be a mechanism for the government to get more of its hooks into the auto industry???

(Quote)
Arch Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D944BCJO3&show_article=1

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

#127 StevePA

You are correct in the “cleaning this Republican and Democratic fueled mess for years” statement. But, our current financial mess was helped along by the political parties and the media talking down our economy and everything else where anything good was happening unless it was happening in their favor. If the politicians and the news media had toned down their anti-business, anti-Bush and anti-everything else bilge, all of us would not be feeling so bad about our economy and possibly some of the bad things that happened might not have happened. We can talk ourselves into a economic downturn and it has happened before and probably will happen again.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

#105 BillR
So, it is the gubmint’s fault? More specifically, it is the democrats fault? I didn’t know the world was so black and white. Thanks for enlightening me. Obviously, the solution is to do away with the democratsThen the republicans and the free market will create our utopia.

#111 N Riley
Rotten media! Why can’t they get the truth out? Let’s do away with the democrats and the media – they aren’t American! We need one party and the “right” press.

LYLE: NEW TOPIC PLEASE!

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

#128 omegaman66

“Is this going to be a mechanism for the government to get more of its hooks into the auto industry???”

If you were to frame your question more as a statement, you would have your answer.

I wrote a more extensive answer to your question, but erased all of it except the above line. My analysis would not sit well with some on this posting, so I will let the future answer for me.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

In 2009 the “government” we elect will “own” most of the financial market, the party in power has “owned” the news media for the past 15 years and they may “own” a large part of the manufacturing base of America (and that includes suppliers indirectly because they exist only to supply the manufacturer). Do any of you remember what is described when these conditions exists?

We live in very interesting times. More interesting for some than for others. As always. What is so different about that?

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Yes, Lyle, please give us a new topic. This one is beginning to feel a little too uncomfortable. I like Statik’s call for a discussion of the brake pedal. I don’t want a metal pedal at all. Cover mine with some good rubberized material so I won’t feel what is underneath giving it support and strength. And, just what are we going to call the “gas pedal” with the Volt? Go pedal. Power application pedal? Dear me, such tough questions, today. Maybe we need help answering these questions. Now who can we call on to give us the answer?

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

I admit it, Statik. This has been a pisser of a day. No real good stuff to talk about, so I have drifted pretty badly into the no-no realm. Help me back, please.

(Quote)
JohnGalt Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Ayn, where are you when we really need you…

(Quote)
LeoK Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Here’s a little light . . . Despite a major cutback in R&D spending announced by GM, they claim the VOLT will not be affected (from Automotive News):

DETROIT — General Motors is postponing nearly all of its spending on product development in 2009 and 2010 — a cost-cutting move that could delay the introduction of key vehicles such as the Chevrolet Cruze.

The automaker also is cutting spending on engineering, design and r&d, say sources familiar with GM’s plans. So far, nothing has been officially canceled, but nearly everything is delayed, the sources say.

“The 2009 stuff that’s too late to cancel is coming out, then everything else gets pushed out anywhere between three months and up to a year,” said one of the sources. “It’s not just capital budget; it’s also engineering, design … everything that would cause money to flow out in 2009.”

General Motors is taking drastic action to avoid running out of money sometime next year. With its product delays, GM hopes to save as much as $1.5 billion, said the source.

GM spokesman Dee Allen declined to comment on plans for individual products. “There have been all kinds of speculation,” he said. “We’ve said we’re reviewing our portfolio, and we do that as a regular course of business.”

Two high-profile vehicles — the Chevrolet Camaro and the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid — are protected from the cutbacks, says one source close to GM. Likewise, the restyled Buick LaCrosse and possibly the Cadillac CTS wagon are still due to market as planned.

Since those products are ready for production, GM would not save much money by delaying them. In addition, the Volt is pivotal to GM’s plan to match Toyota Motor Corp. as a technology leader and environmentally conscious corporation.

The LaCrosse is due in spring. The CTS wagon is due for the 2010 model year, but the launch date has not been set.

But GM tentatively will push back the launch of the Chevrolet Cruze, which was supposed to debut in the 2011 model year. That launch will be delayed six months to a year, say sources familiar with GM’s plans.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Kyle Says: @76

You sound a very level headed person! Thanks for being so honest.

But, I can not believe the views of many others on this site. Of course, I’m just assuming they are Americans. I think, many are not even Americans citizens so why should they care? It’s the USA’s money that we are talking about here! It’s not Canadian or any other country’s money. It’s the USA’s money! For those who are not US citizens, I don’t think you should even be able to vote on this issue!!

(Quote)
Joe Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Kyle Says: @71

Thanks for those wise words and excellent insight on this subject. You point was communicated in an excellent manner.

Thanks for your blessing. May God bless you and your family, also.

Thanks, Joe

(Quote)
Casey Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

It sounds kinda stupid to me to keep making cars that won’t sell, GM why don’t you stop making cars that don’t sell and go fast forward with the Volt, do what you must do to get it out, you might save the company that way, the world is waiting for something to get us off oil!!

(Quote)
Joe OBrien Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Look at it from a numbers perspective. Chrysler has 11 billion. GM is burning through a billion a month.

Go through all this for what 11 more months?

Doesn’t make sense.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

#135 N Riley

I admit it, Statik. This has been a pisser of a day. No real good stuff to talk about, so I have drifted pretty badly into the no-no realm. Help me back, please.

——————–
I’ve decided to just kick back now, I must say you have been all over this thread.

I’m glad someone else is running wild on one of these threads rather than myself. I got going pretty good the other day on those first ‘merger’ threads, so I’m taking a breather.

I thought my link in #98 was pretty interesting, about how Wagoner would not only keep his job, but CEO the merged entity, that could be a discussion all itself. Between our endless blathering on, it was perhaps was lost for all time, hehe.

/time to just relax

I was going to watch a little mindless entertainment on the television to pass the time, but I can’t stomach the political paid programming or ‘dancing/realtiy shows’ so it is going to be family movie/pizza night instead. Journey to the Center of the Earth (w/3d glasses) and Dominoes pizza all around.

Have a good evening my friend.

(Quote)
Len Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

I think the brake pedal should be rubber coated. My wife’s rubber pads wore off her brake pedal and I have seen her foot slip off the brake pedal at stop lights.

The deregulation of the markets and relying on self regulation contributed highly to this mess. I think the big push in that direction started with Ray Guns. The effective repeal of the Glass Stegal act in 1999 with a bill introduced by Phil Grahm (McCain’s treasury secretary?) was the end of any oversight on the market.

(Quote)
Jon vandervelde Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

No freaking way. These clowns REFUSED to pursue high-mileage technology for 35 years becuase they “knew” it wasn’t profitable, while Toyota and east Asia ate their lunch. Some companies are just too large to have vision. Feeding this dinosaur is not going to get it through the ice-age, it’s just going to starve the rest of us. And making GM bigger is an absolutely ludicrous idea, clearly aimed at ensuring a Government bailout.
Take all the money called for in this proposal and give it to Tesla and other smaller, more flexible startups. GM has pissed on the intelligent for too long.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

A big fat NO. If we do (that’s us the taxpayer) we’ll be that much closer to the old USSR system where the workers pretended to work and the government pretended to pay the workers. American business has learned from its failures and if were willing to pay for GM and Chrysler failures who’s next on the dole.
GM and Chrysler wouldn’t make the quality cars Americans wanted for years, or their Unions wouldn’t let them, its time for them to learn the hard way just like you and me.
Department stores had to learn to compete with boutiques and the auto giants and their unions must learn to compete with Asia.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 5:41 pm

N Riley #71
“The congress we have at this time is primarily a socialistic congress. They just have that intent in their policies they have been proposing and passing into legislation.”

I would say that their a lot more than a socialistic congress. I would say they’re corrupt to the core. Reps and Sens used to go to Congress to represent the vision of their counties and states. Now they’re strictly in it for themselves. Just look at the larded out bill to save Wall Street that went from 3 pages to 103 pages of amendments such as a stock car racing track, arrows factory and rum purchases. If this isn’t corrupt I don’t know what is ? But I wouldn’t call it socialism, maybe more like communism.

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

GM and Chrysler clear major deal issues-sources
Wednesday October 29, 6:20 pm ET
+++++++++
GM burned through $1 billion a month in the second quarter and analysts have said its cash burn rate is expected to have increased in the third quarter when its global sales dropped 11 percent.

Chrysler, now in a dead heat with Honda Motor Co (Tokyo:7267.T – News) for the No. 3 spot in the U.S. market, has been hardest hit by the slump because of its dependence on the U.S. market for some 90 percent of sales.

Chrysler’s sales have fallen 25 percent through September, while GM’s sales are down 18 percent. Industry-wide sales are expected to drop near 30 percent in October.

GM and Chrysler have responded by slashing jobs and delaying vehicles in development.

________________________________________

It sure is getting cold in here. But I am warm. Why? Because the straw hat I am wearing has a single Christmas light paper clipped to the brim. And of course it’s powered by a postage stamp size solar collector with a LG Chem watch battery for storage.

=D~

(Quote)
Nixon Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm

This statement from Lyle’s original post bothers me:

“an owner named Cerberus that wouldn’t mind an ownership stake in a combined GM-Chrysler when the auto recovery takes place.”

How much of an ownership WOULD Cerberus end up having in GM-Chrysler (and GMAC, and Chrysler Fincancial)?

It’s been speculated before that Cerberus wanted completely out, but are they just getting in deeper than ever before?

If this whole merger is just so that Cerberus can use their equity in Chrysler to buy a majority share of GM, then there DEFINITELY shouldn’t be a single US taxpayer penny given to them. The US shouldn’t be funding an unregulated Hedge Fund like Cerberus buying up US companies.

(Quote)
Len Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

I think Plutocracy is more accurate. Rule of the rich for the rich.

Go GM! Go Volt! NPNS! =D-

(Quote)
RB Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

statik argued that the only important variable in “success” of a country is land per person. It is a position that is in conflict with data.

For example, the top countries in terms of land per person (lowest population density) are

Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
Greenland
Western Sahara
Namibia
Mongolia
French Guiana
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Botswana
Mauritania
Iceland
Guyana
Suriname
Canada
Australia/New Zealand
Australia

The top countries in terms of life expectancy, a fundamental measure of “success” of a country, are

Japan
China, Hong Kong SAR
Iceland
Switzerland
Australia
Sweden
China, Macao SAR
Italy
Australia/New Zealand
Canada
Israel
Spain
France
Norway
New Zealand

A remarkable fact is that China, Macao SAR has the highest number of people per square mile. Japan, which is notable for its economic success, also has a high population density.

There is a lot of data on these subjects, e.g. the UN population statistics at
“http://unstats.un.org/pop/dVariables/DRetrieval.aspx”

Statik is terrific at pointing us to data on financial matters.
He might wish to check some demographic data before speaking ex cathedra on success of countries.

(Quote)
RB Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

#114 N. Riley says “We (US and Canada) are positioned to see very strong population growth over the next 25 years.”
============================================

Over the next years, it is projected to be about 20% growth, which is significant but not enormous.

In this regard both the US an Canada are much better off than, say, Russia, which is losing population at a rate of about 1% per year.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

RB,

I don’t want to really go down this road again, but when I said ‘land/resources’ I meant usuable, valuable land and resources. I don’t count deserts, tundra, mountains, marshs etc into that calculation.

You can see that the first list you have furnished us with does not take that into consideration. Obviously I do not purport that the Antartica offers a great standard of living based soley on its persons per square mile, in the same way the Western Sahara also does not.

While I conceed I do not speak with any great knowledge or background on matters of world demographics…I certainly was not using as simplistic system as this. Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been with my use of ‘land and resources’ but that is what I meant to infer.
——–
Basically, my point is this. If I, as a mid/upper class citizen of the US/Canada own a 1,000 acres of usable, valuable land…and my counterpart in Country XXX only can own 1/2 a acre at his same station in life…he may have currently have a greater short term perspectus, he may live longer than me, he may currently have a better lifestyle…but the outlook going forward for me maintaining and improving my lifestyle, and the future standard of living for future generations of mine is far greater on my side than his.

It is true I get this opinion from my background in finance. There is a old saying, “they ain’t printing anymore land” and a country and its lifestyle can literally fall apart overnight (ask Iceland about that one), but land…it lasts forever.

/just my opinion…as flawed as I conceed it may be, take it for whatever it is worth

//have a good evening

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Dang, I got back into it again didn’t I?

Sorry about that…I thought about it, and was just going to EDIT it out, forgot that I have lost the ability to edit on this platform for some reason.

Not to worry, here is a good piece on the Volt. Another interview with Bob Boniface and a good video…lots of closeups of the car.

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/oct2008/id20081029_095165.htm

(Quote)
RB Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

#152 statik on land per person
===============================

statik, I think I understand the idea of what you are saying. The problem is that the idea that prosperity comes from land (or land per person) is not consistent with the data about countries, their population, and the amount of land available.

It is certainly true that land varies a lot in its value or usefulness for many purposes. I agree that gross numbers of acres may not be a good indicator, but what about land is? It just is not a good metric for health, economic prosperity, or other indicators of success. Consider, for example, Japan — too many mountains, earthquake prone, lots of intervening waterways — yet a strong country, limited in the future (if it is) by too few people (not too many).. Consider Canada — population is crowded along the southern border, much of land is very cold and barely habitable if at all, and yet it has a great future by most projections.

If one looks at countries from an economic perspective, the core question is not land but when that country comes to have a largely free-market economy (within a stable social order). Whenever that happens, the country expands rapidly economically and reaches a sustained growth rate of about 3% a year in steady state.

I don’t write to be argumentative (much less beat a dead thread) but rather because I respect your views and know that you respect having data to support an argument, or to persuade one to see things differently.

(Quote)
J Man Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

#64 dbK
J Man:
What about the GM “job banks”? Or the pensions that are the first thing to go for everybody else?
______________________________________________________

I don’t understand that one myself. I thought as well as most people I know that the job bank would be gone with this contract. The first 3 plants I was at they never used it. Where I am at now thy have used it a couple times when it got a little slow. The put the the lowest seniority people in it. They used them for vacation replacement rather than giving people overtime
=====================================================
#81 kdawg
If my company was downsizing and losing billions, and they offered me $75k-$150K to quit, you would see a dust trail as I shot out of the building.
____________________________________________________
Everyones situation is different. For me it did not make sense to stay in a place i was not from nor did I like (Pittsburgh) to pay most of my house off (after taxes you get no where near $70-$140k) and stay somewhere that I can not find a job. For me it made sense to move to another plant closer to where I was from.
++++++++++
Maybe the UAW workers dont because I know lots of them in the job banks who have pig roasts & play mini golf all day long collecting 95% of their salary with benifits, which is still more than I make with a college degree (oh BTW, my salary has been REDUCED several times let alone wage freezes, 401K match, benefits, not paying for health insurance.. yeah right).
_________________________________________________
I can not vouch for every plant but that is not what they did at the one plant I have been at that has used the job bank. There is a specific task for the job bank, how the local union and management decide to use those people is up to them. Also if you are in the job bank and at the plant you get 100% of your pay, at my plant you actually do something. If you decide to stay at home you get 85% of your pay, what you do at home is up to you. The 95% is when you are laid off, you get what your states unemployment gives you plus sub pay (a union negotiated benefit). This is something I have used more in the last year than in the previous 10 years.
++++++++++++++++++++
If screw up at my job, I’ll get fired. You can screw up 10 times+ as a UAW worker and still be employed.
____________________________________
I have a problem with that myself

====================================================
#92 John S

As to my short visit to your home city (Pittsburgh), no I did not get a good look at it.
__________________________________________________
I am not from Pittsburgh, that was plant #3. I spent just under 5 years there. There are no jobs in that area so it made sense to move from the area. Shortly after getting my transfer we found out that my wife was going to loose her job at the hospital she was working at so it made sense to move.

I have to go to work now, I will reply to the rest of you in the morning.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

#154 RB

statik, I think I understand the idea of what you are saying. The problem is that the idea that prosperity comes from land (or land per person) is not consistent with the data about countries, their population, and the amount of land available.

It is certainly true that land varies a lot in its value or usefulness for many purposes. I agree that gross numbers of acres may not be a good indicator, but what about land is? It just is not a good metric for health, economic prosperity, or other indicators of success. Consider, for example, Japan — too many mountains, earthquake prone, lots of intervening waterways — yet a strong country, limited in the future (if it is) by too few people (not too many).. Consider Canada — population is crowded along the southern border, much of land is very cold and barely habitable if at all, and yet it has a great future by most projections.

If one looks at countries from an economic perspective, the core question is not land but when that country comes to have a largely free-market economy (within a stable social order). Whenever that happens, the country expands rapidly economically and reaches a sustained growth rate of about 3% a year in steady state.

I don’t write to be argumentative (much less beat a dead thread) but rather because I respect your views and know that you respect having data to support an argument, or to persuade one to see things differently.

————————-
I know your not being argumentative, and I value input on the subject (although we are still way off the original thread, heeh). In my opinion a person can never have too much information…and a person can always be wrong in his stance.

I admit I was being a little obtuse/opaque…or blunt in form if you will in my generalizations.
—-
Side note…about cars: New shot/specs of the Ford Fusion are out.

Interesting tidbits, Ford says the hybrid Fusion can operate ‘all electric’ up to 47 MPH. The city range per tank is in excess of 700 miles and it will get at least 5 MPG more than the Camry hyrbid (currently rated at 34 MPG).

A 40 MPG sedan from Ford is a very significant automobile…and if priced right a sure fire winner.

Article:
http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/29102008/31/link-f-prnewswire-2010-ford-fusion-fusion-hybrid-offer-leading-fuel.html

Pics (well, 1 pic):
http://jalopnik.com/5070563/2010-ford-fusion-revealed-with-new-face-engine-and-six+speed-transmission

(Quote)
JEC Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Nope.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Unbelievable! 44% say a WE should fund this merger. WHY?

I think we need a little history lesson on economics. Please point me to one case where the taxpayers funded a merger of any company, and what the outcome was….Anyone?

(Quote)
JonP Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

I’m not big on Government low interest loans (bailouts for the less informed), but GM & Chrysler represent a huge amount of workers. Who do you think is going to be picking up those pensions, or paying the wages of the unemployed workers(unemployment insurance)? The US GOV will be. I believe that GM can once again be a profitable company without chapter 11, so if the Feds want to give them low interest loans to avoid having to pay much more, if they failed, then so be it. I would much rather they give the US auto industry 50 Billion, than Wall ST. 700 billion!!!

Statik,
“Can I just say for the record, I love these financial threads?

Other random, GM financial news hitting the wire now:”
——————————————————————————–
I noticed you failed to mention that GM’s stock is up almost $1.50 in 2 days. Obviously alot of people think the merger is a good idea, and one that can be profitable.

My GM shares are up 7.8% in the 2 short weeks I’ve owned them, so obviously i voted yes to the low interest loans.

On the point of the thread hijacking you did about land and population. Why do you keep grouping the US & Canada together? Why did you fail to mention that Canada’s largest reason for success is it’s proximity to the US? No mention that Canada is #16 in defense spending a few million in front of the Netherlands? It’s easy to succeed when your government never has to defend itself, or project its military strength. Living under the US security blanket has allowed Canada to save billions annually……………..

Personally i think the US is so dominant because of 3 things.

1. When this country was started it was a sponge for energized, eager, educated, hard working, individuals looking for less religious/government regulation and more opportunity.
2. Our dominant industrialization during WW2, and the superior defense industry that is the child of that.
3. Our ability to grow enough food to feed our population and not needing to import such a basic necessity.

Honestly i don’t even understand the logic behind your point. Are you saying that the huge amount of mankind changing things that have been invented in the US during the last 200 years are because of our land and it’s population density?
The fact that we have surpassed cultures that have been in existence for thousands of years in our short history is because of our land quantity, and how many people there are per mile?

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

#142 Statik

Yeah, I was all over this posting. Must have been on something. Too much coffee, maybe. All I can say is that what I said and what you said was completely true and truly without bias.

It is hard to stay off the site making comments, isn’t it. See you on the “net” tomorrow.

(Quote)
curtis Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

Absolutely!

There is so much more to gain from saving these companies in terms of jobs, stability and and balance of trade with other countries. It wouldnt be just the loss of these companies but many hundreds of thousands supplier chain jobs and business as well.

People chastize these companies for bad past decisions but the reality the great majority of their debt is attributed to looking after the retirement income and medical benefits for aging retirees (both union and non-union) IS THAT SO BAD???

However with that I say they must be forced renegotiate NAFTA and other labor agreements that seen too many automotive engineering jobs going to Europe, Mexico and Canada.(not that some countries such as Canada aren’t in pretty much the same boat as us, but they are NOT the USofA which is where our priorities must lie)

C.

(Quote)
JonP Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:23 pm

On a side note:

In six days we have a choice.

Vote for Hope
or
Vote for Fear

And to quote the funniest SNL skit i have ever seen:
“remember when you go into the voting booth, right after you close the curtain, but before you vote, remember this face, this face right here because a vote for John Mccain is a vote for George Bush!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAhBigg7xtQ&feature=related

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:32 pm

It has been a very interesting post. Lots of varying positions. Situation Normal.

(Quote)
GLV Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

I don’t know about the rest of you, but no matter who wins the election next week, I’ll just be glad to get this behind us and not have political ads on TV every five minutes telling me how bad both people running for office will be. Kind of leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth no matter who you support. Who knows…we might even be able to get back to discussing the Chevy Volt again here on GM-Volt.com!

(Quote)
Storm Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:39 pm

Would an executive who gave a damn about the company he was leading continue to suck $16 million every year in personal compensation from a near bankrupt entity?

I guess begging is profitable.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 12:11 am

JonP 162

“Please point me to one case where the taxpayers funded a merger of any company, and what the outcome was….Anyone?”

Well I think what your asking; was there ever a good outcome ?
In socialist countries, the government often gets involved with the private sector. It’s a great vote getter. But for the taxpayer at large it’s often a disaster. Companies lose productiveness for sound business reasons and the problems that caused the business failures are never addressed leaving the government (the taxpayer) holding the bag when the company folds.

If you have 2 companies competing for business and one is successful while the other isn’t, should the government tax the one that is successful to help out the one that isn’t ?

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 12:21 am

GLV #160

Political TV ads are for the mindless. The current election boils down to sex appeal vs war hero. The average voter doesn’t understand the issues because they have never been discussed.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 12:53 am

statik #107

“I don’t care what America/Canada’s politics, culture, work ethic or religion is…if the population triples to a billion people, the standard of living goes WAY down. If the population stays at 340 million the standard will continue to rise with human advancement”

*** *** ***

Statik, sorry but Thomas Malthus simplicity ‘aint gonna’ work! The answer to this is not simple and isn’t even close to “straight forward”. To be honest it depends on much more than you and/or your keyboard ever imagined and that’s why I’m not going to even venture an answer to this. Economics and political economy are “simple” and yet they are VERY complicated and that’s what I’ll say about this. Simple extrapolation doesn’t work, and a glass of water “half-full” is exactly that….except for those that disagree!

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 1:03 am

Gsned # 115

“We have invented more, produced more, and consumed more than any other nation not because of our resources but because of the struggle and work ethic of those coming here.”

*** *** ***

And…an environment of free enterprise that encourages them to do so. Please don’t forget that this election year. Socialism never encouraged anything and only comforted in difficult times only to fall short on promise!

(Quote)
Kevin Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 6:23 am

Chrysler has built some real dozers which has been a contributing factor to their downfall. Does anyone remember their reluctance to change car interiors so men would not need to remove their hat (i.e. in an age when hats were going out of style)? Does anyone remember stellar transmissions and engines on certain mini-vans that kept burning up?

Let them recover on their own otherwise they will be an anchor around GM’s neck for years to come.

A new generation of electric car manufactures should rise up and stand on the ashes of those who can not and will not innovate!

It’s time for them to go the way of the Edsel (may it rest in peace).

(Quote)
J Man Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 7:15 am

#87 D’Artagnon
Rather than bailing out GM, how about if the government write every taxpayer a $25,000 check to go buy a car? It would be cheaper and more effective.
______________________________________________________

That would work for me. With my discount I can go get to of those 36 mpg Cobalts. One for me and one for my wife.

====================================================
#101 Morgan

Family business closed, New job and I have already taken a pay cut and I guarantee I make less than you.

YES the UAW is part of the problem. I remember how many people my dad had to lay off during the strike in 92.

I remember how the American Axle strike just last year put about 5 companies out of business permanently. Those folks are out of a job directly because of your Union.
____________________________________________________

If you don’t mind me asking, what was the family business and what do you do know?

Although the UAW does have problems I would not agree that they are part of the problem but there are some problems . As far as the ‘92 strike, I do not know much about it, I was still in high school.

As far as other companies being out of business, every time GM closes a plant, they take business’ out with them. When the plant in Moraine, OH closes on December 23, the one that builds the Trailblazer, Envoy and other like SUVs, they are taking other plants out with them. One is a company that builds seats for those vehicles. The UAW had nothing to do with that as well as the others that will follow in that area as well as the ones closing in Janesville, WI.

=================================================
Now let me go over some examples where GM screwed up

1. EV1 – Roger Smith was that guy that was in control when they came up with it, Wagoner comes and and it is gone.

2. Fiat – GM pays a big chunk of money to get a chunk of Fiat. A couple years later GM decide that they do not want Fiat anymore. GM pays more money to Fiat to get out of it.

3. Executive pay and bonuses – They more they screw the company up and loose money the more they pay themselves.

When it comes to the unions you need to remember that the unions job is to negotiate the best contract they can for the represented employees. When they do this both parties have to come to a agreement on that contact, they may not like it but they agree to it. Then it is presented to the membership to vote on it. So all these things that the general public blames the UAW for the employees getting is agreed to by GM.

Here is another example of wasted money. My supervisor makes more than I do. While I am on the line she spends of the the day sitting in a office typing numbers into a computer that a union employee gave her. Another part of her job is to make sure the rules are followed, also known as a babysitter.

Some of the higher level management are given company cars. GM gives them the car to drive, pays for the plates and I believe the insurance as well. How much do you think this costs GM. At my salary I pick the car of my choice but the guy that makes three times what I do gets a company car( Vette, Caddy) to drive for free. From a financial standpoint it does not make too much sense to me.

(Quote)
andy Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 7:16 am

Yea, Grizzly, look were blind ideology has got your country now. Its easy to lay blame on socialism for its faults but its another to look in the mirror and really see whats going on in your own patch.
GM should bite the bullet and close unprofitable lines. It can survive. It has to stop thinking its the biggest and start thinking like a business.
If GM et al get propped up by the government, it means that your right wing, neo-con republicans were a CON all along! The whole world is praying for a change “for the better”.

(Quote)
andy Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 7:37 am

To Ed M says.
Its about time your country got real and started to look at policies instead of “religious” or “military” cred. because these guys have been found wanting. Bush appealed to the religoius mob and look what he delivered. What , if anything, of intellectual rigor, has McCain given you? Seems to me he is trading on his “hero” status. All I heard was that he thinks Iraq can be ” won”. What a dickhead. He obviously hasn’t learned the lesons of recent history. Nobody has or will win in Iraq. Its been so brutalised and factionalised by the last 7 years. Look I ain’t saying Obama is a saint, but he sure does stand a little taller than John. You do need a fresh approach, cause the status quo ain’t going anywhere.
PS, No prime minister of australia would have gotten away with what Bush has done- he would have been lynched! You have got to stop IDOLISING the office of presidency and be more prepared to vote them out. Name one president who was trully pure of heart, cause I think you have been delt a bad bunch over the last 30yrs. ( maybe Carter? ) Kennedy, Nixon, Bush, Clinton — all have been shown up as arseholes .

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 7:43 am

#159 JonP

Statik,

I noticed you failed to mention that GM’s stock is up almost $1.50 in 2 days. Obviously alot of people think the merger is a good idea, and one that can be profitable.

My GM shares are up 7.8% in the 2 short weeks I’ve owned them, so obviously i voted yes to the low interest loans.
————————————-
I only say something, when there is something to say. There has been little GM news of late, alot of rumoUr. Obviously GM has not moved up $1.50 because of GM, but because of the market as a whole and the growing confidence…I think the DOW+1000 day proved there were larger forces at work than confidence in the merger.

Obviously, no stock goes up everyday, or down everyday.

I will note a retort to your ‘Statik, I noticed you failed to mention’ opening, that you were also not here 3 days ago talking about how your short term investment was in the tank when GM closed @$5.45…so it is a two way street.

I give you credit though, it is a bold move coming out and posturing about GM’s position two business days before their quartely report.

/regardless, I do wish you good luck

(Quote)
Statik Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 7:46 am

#162 JonP

And to quote the funniest SNL skit i have ever seen:
“remember when you go into the voting booth, right after you close the curtain, but before you vote, remember this face, this face right here because a vote for John Mccain is a vote for George Bush!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAhBigg7xtQ&feature=related

—————————————–
I will agree with you on that skit…it was very funny.
(Still, not going to wade into the ‘which candidate is better’ debate…but a funny skit).

(Quote)
Tim Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 9:22 am

“If the American people should ever allow private banks to control the money supply; first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the land that their fathers conquered.” -Thomas Jefferson

(Quote)
Casadore Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 10:55 am

It’s about time our government supports AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY Like the Japanese government supports theirs!

(Quote)
noel park Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 11:09 am

Here’s my new abbreviation:

“If You Can’t Say Anything Nice, Just Don’t Say Anything At All.”

Ruth Park

IYCSANJDSAAA

Later on this one may become appropriate, but I hope not quite yet:

“Turn Out The Lights, The Party’s Over”:

TOTLTPO

Willie Nelson & “Dandy” Don Meredith

(Quote)
Hoang Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

All Bullshit! I am sorry but I cannot help it. I mean all the Enron, Banks and now the car makers who are crying like a baby. There should be a law that will confiscate all the money, properties of those CEOs , vice CEO, sub CEO, assistant CEOs… when the company go under.

(Quote)
&eye Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Absolutely they should NOT fund ANY corporate merger. It is not the role of government, and it is NOT a free market if the state is interceding. Unless we’re going to call a spade a spade and change the name of this country to the U.S.S.A., the government should NOT BE FUNDING ANY CORPORATE MERGERS OR BAILING OUT ANY BANKS OR CORPORATIONS. We didn’t choose state-capitalism here. We don’t want it. Corporations want it, and they use the media to sugar coat it and cram it down our throats.

(Quote)
meccano Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 5:48 pm

How about GM merge with itself? GM has EIGHT brands (not including Vauxhall, Opel & Holden) and not a one that makes money! Does GM really need Chevy, Saturn, Buick, SAAB, Pontiac, Hummer, Cadillac and GMC and now it would be in their best interest to add Chrysler, Dodge & Jeep? More brands, more models and more competing with itself. How ’bout one brand – GM! Within the GM line you have a couple Chevys, a couple Buicks, a Cadillac or two, one mid size and full size GMC truck, a SUV and a SUV crossover and the Corvette is the Halo car. OK, you can have a Opel rebranded as a Saturn for the European car lovers. Dump SAAB, Hummer & Pontiac. 12 models MAX in ONE GM brand with no dogs and no overlaps in the entire lineup. License Toyota’s Hybrid tech and offer as option in every model starting today and Toyota can license back Volt tech as a even trade. GM starts anew – lean and mean with each and every car model they offer world class.

(Quote)
john Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Why not just spend $25 billion buying out the pensions and health plans of the auto workers ?

Then let Chrysler die – it’s over folks.

(Quote)
LB Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Absolutely not. If our tax money goes to GM to buy Chrysler, GM’s tax money should go to buy us all brand spanking new cars of our choice. Something is horribly wrong with this picture.

(Quote)
LB Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 11:38 pm

How does this work again? We pay GM to buy Chrysler and then we pay them again to buy cars from them? We should pay the house builders money to buy land and raw materials and when they are done, we can buy houses from them. We can pay cotton farmers money to buy farms and then we’ll pay them for the clothes on our backs.
Need to eat?……. Pay taxes so fishing companies can buy the oceans so they can sell us fish to eat. Need a job? Pay taxes that go to GM so they can buy Chrysler and lay off thousands upon thousands of people, but hey you still have a job working at GM-Chrysler, and they’ll hire you to make cars that they’ll sell to you so you can get to work. Not making enough at GM-Chrysler? Any competition for jobs elsewhere? No competition, they’ll pay crappy wages and get away with it. So then you can pay more taxes so they can buy Ford…………..

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
November 1st, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Chrysler’s U.S. sales are down 25 percent through September, the worst decline of any major automaker.

Of Chrysler’s 26 models on sale in both 2007 and 2008, only four have sold more this year than last, and three of those are small-volume niche vehicles such as the Dodge Viper. The company’s market share has dwindled from 16.2 percent in 1996 to 11 percent this year, according to Ward’s AutoInfoBank.

Analysts say there are no cutting-edge designs or potential big sellers in sight to rescue the maker of the Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands.

=D~

(Quote)
ARC Says:
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 am

Absolutely not. Detroit has had to be dragged kicking & screaming into the future. Resistance to CAFE. Resistance to California’s clean air legislation. Toyota saw the writing on the wall and they are building cars here in the US. Let the big three fail.

-ARC

(Quote)
GlobalTaxpayer Says:
December 13th, 2008 at 11:59 pm

No no no. Especially for the “C” private company.
These Big 3 did not out-perform the foreign car makers in the past (during good time) and don’t believe they can survive for long especially during recession even with the bailout $, hence…

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier

Poll: Should the US Government Fund the GM-Chrysler Merger?

187 Responses to “Poll: Should the US Government Fund the GM-Chrysler Merger?”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts