backtop


Print 220 comment(s) - last by .. on Mar 6 at 8:52 AM


GM CEO Rick Wagoner wants to prevent his company from going bankrupt, but he's aware that his company is fast approaching the end of the government aid rope. GM sales plunged 34% in Q4 2008, and it posted a $9.6B USD loss, bringing its total losses for the year to $30.9B USD.  (Source: The Torque Report)
GM looks to the government for its latest cash fix

When reports indicated that GM might soon request more cash, many observers puzzled at the news.  Hadn't GM just received a massive $13.4B USD loan from the federal government?  Well, $13.4B USD doesn't last too long when you're losing $9.6B USD a quarter.  That's how much GM lost in the Q4 2008, according to its earnings reports released today.

The struggling automaker has seen its sales plummet to oblivion thanks to the ravaged economy.  And while its Japanese and Korean competitors are able to sustain on a broader world market, GM is largely unable to reach customers in places like Korea or Japan thanks to a variety of conditions, such as lack of dealerships allowed in Japan and tariffs in Korea.  Even its domestic competitor Ford is a bit more fortunate in that it had a larger cash reserve then GM.

To put it concisely -- GM is in deep trouble, and bankruptcy seems more and more like the only option.  GM's Chief Executive Officer, Rick Wagoner, however, refuses to entertain such thoughts and is preparing to ask the treasury for more money.

In total, $1.5B USD of GM's losses come from continuing operations, such as the development of GM's upcoming flagship product, the Chevy Volt.  About $3.7B USD of the losses came from one-time expenses, such as writing down the assets of the struggling Saab and Hummer brands, which GM wants to sell.  It also spent $900M USD on restructuring and capacity changes.  In total the losses put GM $30.9B USD into the red for the year, the second biggest yearly loss in the company's 100-year history.  

John Casesa, a managing partner at consultant Casesa Shapiro Group LLC in New York comments, "The size of the loss matters not only because it impacts what it will cost to restructure the company, but also the kind of bill for which the taxpayer is on the hook.  Conditions in this quarter could not have been worse."

The deciding hour for GM will be when it makes its case to President Obama and his advisors for an estimated additional $16.6B USD in support.  President Obama, while making it clear that survival of the domestic auto industry is a top priority, has recently indicated that bankruptcy for America's Big Three, particularly GM and Chrysler, may be the only way to turn things around.  The alternative, some analysts say is spending anywhere from $100B USD to $200B USD in taxpayer-funded loans, to prop up the industry until it can turn around.

In the short term, GM needs $2B USD more in March or it will run out of cash.  The basic problem is that GM is not selling enough vehicles.  It saw its sales drop 34 percent in Q4 2008 to $30.8B USD.  That big drop exceeded even analysts' very pessimistic predictions.

GM's Wagoner released a carefully worded statement, saying, "We expect these challenging conditions will continue through 2009."

His Chief Financial Officer, Ray Young, added, "We don’t know if we’re going to receive additional government funding.  That’s the reason we objectively put the statement in the press release."

GM owes $12.4B USD to its salary and pension plans, which many retirees across the country depend on for income.  The money from these retirees, who range from retired engineers and draftsmen to plant workers, provides a great deal of cash injection into the consumer market.  Losing that injection would be a major hit to consumer spending.  GM already cut 47,000 jobs last month, amid the tens of thousands it has already cut.

That's not all of GM's problems, though.  In total, it has $62B USD in debt not including government loans.  It hopes to cut it to $33.5B USD this year, but if sales continue to plunge, much of the cuts could simply be to absorb the current losses.  Rod Lache, a Deutsche Bank AG analyst in New York suggests that GM's debt will decrease insignificantly; he estimates it will be at around $60.3B USD at the year's end, excluding government loans.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No.
By Orpheus333 on 2/26/2009 10:22:28 AM , Rating: 5
If you are a business and people dont want your product, you do not deserve to be in business- you do not deserve to take money from said people. We've already voted with our wallets.




RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: No.
By Orpheus333 on 2/26/2009 10:31:00 AM , Rating: 5
You're right, this is only a recent development and hasn't been happening for the past 10 years.

Regardless, government and private enterprise should stay out of bed- it only creates bastard failures.


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: No.
By mdogs444 on 2/26/2009 10:52:39 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The government absolutely needs to intervene within private industry to ensure that we don't have a complete economic meltdown. This is appropriate during this crisis - we are not living in "ordinary" times.

I see you have been intoxicated by all the Kool Aid Tom....either that, or you are work in the auto industry and want us to cover your behind.

Government intervention caused this problem. They need to get out of the way, let the market bottom out, turn around, and prosper through free market principals.


RE: No.
By reader1 on 2/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: No.
By mdogs444 on 2/26/2009 11:14:12 AM , Rating: 5
You mean those free market principals in which banks did not want to make loans to people with low credit scores, no savings, and little downpayments? Those ones that didnt work - until that is, that the democrats forced legislation to make banks loan to risky people because everyone is "entitled" to own a home. Right?

Ahh yes, you must be another Barney Frank wanna-be.


RE: No.
By reader1 on 2/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: No.
By pequin06 on 2/26/2009 11:49:49 AM , Rating: 5
So the consumer has no responsibility?


RE: No.
By mars777 on 2/26/2009 10:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not part of your discussion but i think:
/So the consumer has no responsibility? /

No, the consumer has responsability but has no brain...


RE: No.
By odessit740 on 2/26/2009 11:53:18 AM , Rating: 4
Well now we know which side of the socialist isle you stand on.

Why don't you go live n Venezuela or Cuba or I don't know, perhaps North Korea where they don't have much material excess.

You are an idiot. Most of the people in the US struggle to survive. It isn't like everyone wants to have a car, but the distances in the states are so great that from Baltimore I have to take a 1 hour commute to DC.

The middle class will have to fork over another socialist check and my generation will be paying for it.

The same democrats who outlaw gambling install slot machines in Maryland... with Republicans being no better.


RE: No.
By Ammohunt on 2/26/2009 2:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
Americans are hunkering down the talk around work here among those that pay attention is centered around subsistence living and protection from societal collapse (i.e. Firearms purchases). My guess is that if Obama keeps his pace with his Socialist agenda he is going to have a civil war on his hands. I lived through the survivalist paranoia of the Clinton years which was nothing much more then well..paranoia, but this is different people are afraid of what the future holds. I for one am not going to be caught with my pants down. Prepare for the worst hope for the best.....


RE: No.
By ccmfreak2 on 2/27/2009 11:01:10 AM , Rating: 4
Yup, I see America making a huge switch in Congress this next term (I'm seeing this is more likely than the civil war). American support for the Obama "Spend"-ulus package ended January with abou 38% (and most of that was people who thought they were going to get another check!), yet Congress still sent it through. There is a lot of fear of the Socialist agenda rising up right now. Shoot - even Putin recently warned the US of interfering with it's markets. People are getting upset. I see America firing a lot of Congress in 2010 - not just Democrats, and not just Republicans. I say SEND 'EM ALL HOME AND BRING IN A WHOLE NEW BATCH!


RE: No.
By the goat on 2/26/2009 12:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those people wouldn't have been trying to buy things they couldn't afford if capitalism didn't thrive on and encourage material excess.


So that means. . .

I swear it wasn't rape. She was asking for it with the way she was dressed. I can't be held responsible for my actions.

Your logic doesn't hold up.


RE: No.
By 67STANG on 2/26/2009 1:00:30 PM , Rating: 5
I prefer not to think of it as rape.
I think "surprise sex" sounds much more cheerful.


RE: No.
By DrKlahn on 2/26/2009 2:19:08 PM , Rating: 5
That's awful. Next thing you know someone will come up with something equally ridiculous like undocumented immigrants instead of illegal immigrants. Oh wait...


RE: No.
By 67STANG on 2/26/2009 2:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
LoL. If I could still vote, I'd +1 you.


RE: No.
By on 3/6/2009 8:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
+1 lol


RE: No.
By callmeroy on 2/27/2009 8:46:01 AM , Rating: 5
There exists no perfect system, government, economic or otherwise -- but there is undeniable and proven facts that greater amounts of people have lived higher quality lives under free market enterprise/Capitialism than any other system.

THAT is why people are slamming you for your post.

The logic of did american's spend outside their means is sound. Fact is while I have strong negative feelings towards how the government and banks didn't do their jobs that got us here, its immature and lazy logic to think we as American consumers are blameless.

Anyone who thinks consumers played no role in this down turn has their head in the sand....part of the problem is credit -- we were a nation that thrived on credit....BEFORE this downturn the average house hold credit card debt (JUST credit card debt mind you) was about $10,000. Per house hold.

And yet we as a society didn't care because things looked rosey and the bubble was still strong --- or so we thought....

Now we are paying , and paying dearly for that ignorance and indulgence.


RE: No.
By ccmfreak2 on 2/27/2009 11:07:48 AM , Rating: 2
It's almost as if common sense has completely left the consumer. They mindset has come into our lives of "I want it, and I want it now - no matter what!" Bottom line is that if the bank offers you a $1000 a month morgage payment but you only make $20,000 a year, YOU CAN'T AFFORD THE HOUSE! It doesn't matter how badly you want it or how stupid the bank is for offering it to you. Any moron who stops and thinks for 3 second can figure that one out!


RE: No.
By KamiXkaze on 2/28/2009 12:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly most people think they can.

kXk


RE: No.
By DigitalFreak on 2/26/2009 11:30:43 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
You mean those free market principals in which banks did not want to make loans to people with low credit scores, no savings, and little downpayments? Those ones that didnt work - until that is, that the democrats forced legislation to make banks loan to risky people because everyone is "entitled" to own a home. Right?


Thanks for the laugh. More like the banks were deregulated, which allowed greed to take over. Banks made those loans because they wanted to, not were forced to.


RE: No.
By pequin06 on 2/26/2009 11:44:35 AM , Rating: 5
And those poor victims who signed the loans had guns pointed at their heads and families with the evil and vile banks sayig "SIGN THE LOAN AGREEMENT OR ELSE!"...
Right......


RE: No.
By randomposter on 2/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: No.
By superflex on 2/26/2009 1:34:48 PM , Rating: 5
Totally false.
I was offered a loan on a house after my divorce and only took about 75% of the banks offer. Just because you want to live beyond your means, doesn't mean the rest of us are that stupid.


RE: No.
By on 3/6/2009 8:49:47 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. If the rest of us were that stupid, we would probably be in the middle of some sort of housing crisis or something...


RE: No.
By straycat74 on 2/26/2009 11:46:00 AM , Rating: 5
You need to get your information from other than the 15 second blurb on the evening news.

Start here with this warning of the current crisis from 2000:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion...


RE: No.
By Rhaido on 2/26/2009 6:15:58 PM , Rating: 5
I doubt greed alone would entice lenders to make loans to people who could not pay them back. Defaults make wealth accumulation slightly difficult for evil greedy capitalist lenders. It is well known that Reno and Gorelick at Justice used the CRA to manhandle lenders while claiming to be fighting so-called redlining. Cuomo at HUD set FMac/FMae targets to 50% also.

Apologies for the copy/paste of my old post from last month but it beats retyping:
Stories about low-income and so-called affordable housing have been in the press for 10 years. Are you saying that low-income loans are not subprime? Please provide links supporting your subprime percentage claim.

For those of you who have not read these articles from 10 years ago, below are the links along with some recent ones at the bottom of this post.

"Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat 'redlining' by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities."

"The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0...
Cuomo at HUD did indeed raise this requirement to 50%.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42...

"Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/12...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2009/01...


RE: No.
By Rhaido on 2/26/2009 6:28:48 PM , Rating: 3
Archived pages have changed so here is the NYT article:

September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top


RE: No.
By Rhaido on 2/26/2009 6:32:37 PM , Rating: 3
From the LAT:

Archive for Monday, May 31, 1999
Minorities’ Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites’
By Ronald Brownstein
May 31, 1999 in print edition A-5

It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

These numbers are dramatic enough to deserve more detail. When President Clinton took office in 1993, 42% of African Americans and 39% of Latinos owned their own home. By this spring, those figures had jumped to 46.9% of blacks and 46.2% of Latinos.

That’s a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression.

This trend is good news on many fronts. Homeownership stabilizes neighborhoods and even families. Housing scholar William C. Apgar, now an assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, says that research shows homeowners are more likely than renters to participate in their community. The children of homeowners even tend to perform better in school. Most significantly, increased homeownership allows minority families, who have accumulated far less wealth than whites, to amass assets and transmit them to future generations.

What explains the surge? The answer starts with the economy. Historically low rates of minority unemployment have created a larger pool of qualified buyers. And the lowest interest rates in years have made homes more affordable for white and minority buyers alike.

But the economy isn’t the whole story. As HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo says: “There have been points in the past when the economy has done well but minority homeownership has not increased proportionally.” Case in point: Despite generally good times in the 1980s, homeownership among blacks and Latinos actually declined slightly, while rising slightly among whites.

All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.

But for all that progress, the black and Latino homeownership rates, at about 46%, still significantly trail the white rate, which is nearing 73%. Much of that difference represents structural social disparities–in education levels, wealth and the percentage of single-parent families–that will only change slowly. Still, Apgar says, HUD’s analysis suggests there are enough qualified buyers to move the minority homeownership rate into the mid-50% range.

The market itself will probably produce some of that progress. For many builders and lenders, serving minority buyers is now less a social obligation than a business opportunity. Because blacks and Latinos, as groups, are younger than whites, many experts believe they will continue to lead the housing market for years.

But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.

The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.

Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce.” But with the housing market still sizzling, minority unemployment down and Fannie Mae enjoying record profits (over $3.4 billion last year), it doesn’t appear that the limit has been reached.

All signs point toward a high-velocity collision this summer between two strong-willed protagonists: HUD’s Cuomo and Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D. Raines, the first African American to hold the post. Better they reach a reasonable agreement that provides more fuel for the extraordinary boom transforming millions of minority families from renters into owners.


RE: No.
By TSS on 2/26/2009 7:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
i'm not reading your 3 ridicolously long posts. i'm always in for a little reading, and i have alot to say myself. but cmon, this is still the internet.

summarize, damn you.


RE: No.
By BansheeX on 2/28/2009 12:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
Greed? Greed? The banks were going to FAIL! Wow, some profitable decision that was, loaning money to people who couldn't pay it back... YOU and socialists like you made the decision profitable by promising to SAVE THEM FROM FREE MARKET CONSEQUENCE with forcibly appropriated money. You passed legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act that declared lending standards discriminatory to low-income people. You created a central bank to backstop fraudulent lending instead of making it illegal! A central bank that artificially PRICE FIXES interest rates to encourage speculation and discourage savings? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were GSEs and even they were in the subprime business, making millions in campaign contributions. The marxist, social engineering tax code exempted homes from capital gains after 2 years of ownership, incentivizing flipping even more. This is all on your heads you stupid central planners, you CHANGE market behavior and then blame everything on spontaneous evolution of man into becoming more greedy.


RE: No.
By someguy123 on 2/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: No.
By weskurtz0081 on 2/26/2009 11:51:40 AM , Rating: 5
You know, no regulation is obviously not a good thing, but over regulation is equally bad or worse.

Just because something went wrong with very LITTLE regulation doesn't mean you should move to the other extreme.

A small amount of effective regulation is what we need, but I don't think that's what we are going to get.


RE: No.
By someguy123 on 2/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: No.
By weskurtz0081 on 2/26/2009 12:01:37 PM , Rating: 3
Not really. Stupid consumers, corrupt politicians on both sides of the isle, greedy businesses that BYPASSED in place regulation..... all kinds of things caused this, not just deregulation.

By saying that you are oversimplifying what got us here.


RE: No.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2009 4:05:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
i don't think there should be complete regulation, or any regulation for that matter, but in this case lack of regulation is what caused this whole problem.


Your right. Lack of regulation on Freddie and Fanny , GOVERNMENT entities, is what got us into this.


RE: No.
By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 12:07:32 PM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately the situation is significantly more complex than that; the problems we're experiencing go far beyond simple fraud and greed. This situation has exposed underlying weaknesses in our financial system.


RE: No.
By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 12:15:23 PM , Rating: 3
One other thing...

If I were to hazard a guess as to what caused the housing market crisis, it would be the assumption by all parties that housing prices simply could not go down. When that assumption proved false, the whole house of cards collapsed.


RE: No.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2009 4:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
The housing crisis didn't pull us into this.

Only five states have crisis level numbers of bad mortgages. The country as a whole only has 9% bad mortgage rate at the time of the start of the 'crisis'

When you start calling a setback a "CRISIS" that requires the government to take money from the taxpayers to fix it, THAT is what causes the house of cards to collapse.

What causes this to snowball and TURN into a crisis is when people stop spending money or tighten their budgets. We NEED people in this country to consume goods. Yes, even wastefully.

I have personally trimmed over $250 dollars a month from my spending budget. That's $250 dollars a month that's NOT going into the economy anymore. That's NOT keeping someone employed who makes the crap that me and everyone else buys.

So we have near record lows of consumer confidence spending index. High unemployement. A stock market that resembles a kiddie roller coaster. 40l-k funds being withdrawn by the boatload out of fear. People taking their money out of funds and stocks and buying hard equities like gold and silver. etc etc.

And this all happened because a TINY minority of the country couldn't pay their mortgage anymore ? No.


RE: No.
By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 4:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
I won't say it's the only thing, but the housing market was certainly a biggie.

Keep in mind, when one house on your block gets foreclosed, the rest of the houses drop in value. Multiply that effect by the number of houses that are currently in foreclosure or that will go into foreclosure in the not too distant future. Suddenly banks and financial institutions were left holding a bag of loans/debt backed securities that were secured by property that was worth a heck of a lot less. That of course caused the nation's banks to poop their pants....


RE: No.
By KamiXkaze on 2/28/2009 12:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
That is why where seeing gold now in the $900 range.

kXk


RE: No.
By zinfamous on 2/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: No.
By callmeroy on 2/27/2009 8:38:25 AM , Rating: 1
I don't understand you, I was logging on to post in your defense on one post because I interpreted your other remarks to be that folks were spending beyond their means -- which is absolutely correct, but then I read this post of yours and I'm like "WTH? I thought this guy got it...guess not".....

The government was (and apparently still IS) the cause of the problem not the solution. The government essentially encouraged risky loans, you know why the government intervened? Because the shit storm got to thick there was no way on earth they could of just sat around doing nothing -- lest they incite even more scorn from their voters. Make no mistake if the regulators did their jobs --- along with the CEOs of these banks....this thread wouldn't even exist today.


RE: No.
By callmeroy on 2/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: No.
By Guyver on 2/26/2009 1:05:23 PM , Rating: 4
Community Reinvestment ACT forced "greedy" banks to make bad loans to people.

Why? Traditional lending required people to have a certain debt to income ratio for a certain priced home. Certain ethnic groups have a disproportionately higher debt ratio. Consequently their home ownership was also disproportionately lower than others. Therefore traditional practices were too racist.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/196491.php


RE: No.
By callmeroy on 2/26/2009 1:24:41 PM , Rating: 1
I worked for a top 10 mortgage bank at the start of the crash (I worked in IT) -- I don't disagree with your points. Good business and adherence to sound economic practices is what was ignored. Now we are all paying the price.

There is some good that will come from all this (I just hope I still have a home by the time the smoke clears) -- the new economic system that will rise up from the ashes so to speak will return to how it should be --- if you can't afford it, the credit isn't extended. Period. Tough shit...go cry somewhere else.

No more of these lame "rule of thumb" lending tactics that go "ok you qualify for a loan that is three times your annual salary...." --- oh ok, but forget about the fact I have utility bills and I happen to like to eat too.

I still remember when I was at my first full time IT job over a decade ago I was making $30k and the bank was ready to give me a loan for just over $90k w/ hardly any deep look into my finances beyond my credit score and my annual gross.

How is that responsible lending?


RE: No.
By MarcLeFou on 2/26/2009 7:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with what you're saying but a loan of 3 times what you make isn't even close to a problem.

I make 42k a year and I have a condo I have a loan on of 120K (initial loan price - 142k value so 22k downpayment).

This is in Canada where income tax is a bitch and I have a lot of disposable income left after mortgage, car, food and etc is paid off.

Its important to qualify mortgages but barring a bad credit history, a 90K loan to a 30K income doesn't sound bad at all to me as long as there's an asset tied to it (aka house).


RE: No.
By KamiXkaze on 2/28/2009 12:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen far worse than that more so people making 25k and getting 200k homes that is just nuts.

kXk


RE: No.
By The0ne on 2/26/2009 1:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the government should step aside, even in this crisis. Sure, there will be countless job losses and business shutdowns, but not everyone and every business will close. Thinking that they will is ridiculous. Some of the companies (suppliers, transportation, dealers, etc.) will just have to minimize until the industry can get rolling again. And in the mist of rebuilding, hopefully better management and planning will result from it.

Spending billions of dollars on a company like GM that will ALWAYS lose money every quarter is a real joke. They don't have a plan, a real plan, to change anything they're doing. Rather I should say even if they did have a plan to change the UAW will still be there to obstruct it as they ALWAYS had. There is no win-win for the big3 at this time. They need to die off, kill the UAW, and rebuild.


RE: No.
By DigitalFreak on 2/26/2009 11:06:15 AM , Rating: 5
I love how you constantly mention that sales for all automakers are down, but refuse to acknowledge that only GM and Chrysler are on the verge of going under because of it. Ford and the Japanese / South Korean companies must be doing something right because they aren't on the verge of going out of business.


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: No.
By TSS on 2/26/2009 7:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
look, me or anybody else isn't against helping a company in dire need that provides so much work in an unexpected down turn. GM wasn't the one creating a housing bubble.

what troubles me, and just about anybody else i recon, is this little line right here:

quote:
In total the losses put GM $30.9B USD into the red for the year, the second biggest yearly loss in the company's 100-year history.


second? SECOND? the crisis didn't start untill beginning 2008.

in fact, their worst year ever was the year BEFORE the recession, the economy's best year ever.

if ford where to come asking for help, i'd say give them a bailout no problem. i'd even consider bailing out toyota and honda. just not GM. nor chrysler.

the reason sales are down 30-55% is because of chrysler else sales would be down 30-40%. that tells you something.


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 8:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
your statement holds true if you decide to completely ignore the fact that Ford also went through the exact same process that GM is going through now in 2006. Ford lost 25 billion the year before their restructuring and it was feared they would not survive as well. GM was merely unlucky in the timing of their restructuring plans with the recession hitting in the middle of the process. Without an economic downturn the results would likely have been similar to Ford. Even so the price tag is shrinking as planned with Q3 being -15 and Q4 resulting in -9. There really is no reason to doubt a company that has undergone the same situation a multitude of times over its 100 year lifespan. So, what were you saying again?


RE: No.
By FITCamaro on 2/26/2009 12:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
Other than Ford, none of the other automakers are saddled with extremely high production costs or massive health care costs due to greedy unions either.


RE: No.
By Guyver on 2/26/2009 12:40:17 PM , Rating: 3
The Japanese and Korean automakers get government subsidies. What's your point?


RE: No.
By afkrotch on 2/26/2009 1:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
They didn't take it cause they needed it. They took it, cause it was a cheap loan. Something they wouldn't get through a bank.

So if they can get a cheap loan, might as well take it and invest it into something.


RE: No.
By callmeroy on 2/26/2009 1:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
...yeah they re-invested it to keep the company's doors open.....


RE: No.
By MozeeToby on 2/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: No.
By otispunkmeyer on 2/26/2009 2:19:52 PM , Rating: 1
basically its the bane of GM's life... timing

theyve pretty much always rocked up to the party late...whatever the trend at the time, GM arrived just as that trend went west.

they must of spent loads on re-tooling and engineering and stuff to get better built, more dynamic cars out there along with trying to pioneer some of the newer hybrid technology but again thanks to timing its happened when no ones got any money to buy the damn things!

and the UAW wont of helped either


RE: No.
By Hiawa23 on 2/26/2009 1:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
GM hasn't made a profit since 2004, so for some reason, I really am not surprised by this. For the record let me just say that I don't want any of our auto companies to go under, but it's clear with the model they currently have they need to go into a government backed bankruptcy, & reorganize cause they are going to continue to need money & it's clear the UAW & the companies can't get this worked out on there own, & the bad economy is amking it much worse. I understand all the jobs, blah , blah, blah, the other side keeps throwing up, but if a company can't run their business profitably then something needs to happen & the answer isn't to keep throwing good money behind bad. Their problems started way before this depression...ur recession, depending on who you ask started, but do some of you really want the govt to keep throwing money down this pit, cause it seems to me the rpoblem is nowhere near to be solved, & I am seriously worried, how in G's name are they supposed to start paying back these loans when they will continue losing money this year & probably next year, as I don't see the auto industry turning around anytime soon? The Volt isn't going to save em. Reorganize now, hopefully when the economy comes back they will to be in a position to once again lead the world, & make money, in an efficient manner.


RE: No.
By Gorfy on 2/26/2009 10:33:29 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is GM's business model. Yes all sales and profits are down, but do you see everyone going bankrupt? The car manufacturers that have been making good business decisions all along seem to be doing just fine. ("fine" being relative to GM of course)


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 10:35:46 AM , Rating: 2
I suppose doing just fine is losing less billions then the next guy...


RE: No.
By Gorfy on 2/26/2009 10:47:50 AM , Rating: 5
Correct. If Microsoft (let's just say) were to lose 1B this year, and they had 15B in cash, and everyone else is going bankrupt, then they're doing just fine.

In my not so humble opinion, the problem is most Americans don't understand the concept of saving. I don't know if it's because their parents never gave them an allowance or what. But seriously 80% (minimum) of the people I know live their life mostly on credit. They know when payday is, and they're actually excited about it. I am 23 years old. I make $15,000-$20,000 a year and I have almost $40,000 saved up. I do not know when payday is, and frankly I couldn't care less. If CEOs had a similar level of fiscal responsibility, their companies wouldn't be as deep in those shitholes where they currently reside.


RE: No.
By wordsworm on 2/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: No.
By Gorfy on 2/26/2009 11:16:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'm in the military. I knew someone would make a comment like that though.


RE: No.
By someguy123 on 2/26/2009 11:52:10 AM , Rating: 3
even if you were still living at home, that would be a great decision on your part to live there while saving up. I don't understand the mentality behind moving out as fast as you can and then basically relying completely on credit/loan payments to survive.

what exactly are people trying to prove by being the first out the door, but also being in constant debt?


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 12:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm in the military.

Ah, in that case this is the reason why you aren't spending money and are able to save 40k. You've been living on the tax payers money for years now. ;)


RE: No.
By Pneumothorax on 2/26/2009 12:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
I hope that was sarcasm as I will pay top dollar for people who are defending us. In contrast, I don't support paying for stupid companies that allowed union bullying to have pensions that allow you to retire before 50 that no other solvent non-government company is offering right now.


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 12:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
no, it wasnt a hack against the military weirdo. I was pointing out that someone who has never actually experienced fiscal responsibility in his life at the ripe age of 23, living under a roof for free, and getting free food all on the tax payers dime is somehow telling me losing less billions than the next guy is ok. The kid doesnt know any better because at 15-20k hes in for a life altering experience and one hell of a rough journey when the free ride is over.


RE: No.
By someguy123 on 2/26/2009 12:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
free ride? man you must be from another planet.

real easy to call it a free ride while you sit pretty at home isn't it.


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 12:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
perhaps it was more of a free ride for me given there wasnt a war going on when i served, but essentially yes, everything of necessity is provided and a long list of benefits when you are done. I didnt know shlt then either. I am merely saying being 20 and having a few spare dollars doesn't mean your answer to the problem is the right one. Would anyone like to actually argue the point on losing billions or would you like to argue BS semantics more?


RE: No.
By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 1:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's not about semantics, it's about showing basic respect to others, especially those who put themselves in harm's way so you don't have to. Saying he's getting a "free ride" in exchange for his service is downright asinine.


RE: No.
By someguy123 on 2/26/2009 1:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
ya you were definitely in the military when you described this guy as a "military weirdo".

and this person was just using that as an anecdote to the average american's savings mentality. had nothing to do with personal achievement or anything of that sort. he was just pointing out that for some reason people live on debt even when they don't have to. obviously some people have more financial responsibility than others, but tons of people move out way before they should and immediately spend all of their money when their check comes in.


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 1:15:14 PM , Rating: 1
you fucking jackass. nice way to take the quote out of context. fuck you.


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 1:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
My point has been made. The argument of losing billions over losing more billions is the only thing asinine here. As typical anyway, instead of facing the music its more appropriate to misquote someone to make yourself feel better. I understand how low some people like yourself can sink too.

And yes the truth is poor people use the military as a way to make ends meet. (omg shocking) They have no interest in being in the military, they just want free food and housing for four years while earning money and nice benefits package for later, its only changed now because they might actually die. Its been that way for a long time and will continue to be that way for a long time to come.


RE: No.
By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 1:33:54 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, I've sunk quite low...

quote:
you fucking jackass. nice way to take the quote out of context. fuck you.


You obviously have the high ground here. I apologize, and I'll move on.


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 1:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
still stuck on trying to figure out how loosing billions versus loosing billions is a good thing I see...


RE: No.
By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 1:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody is saying losing money is a great thing. The point is that if a company has significant cash reserves, they are in a better position to weather the storm than a company that has no reserves.


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 1:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
given nobody knows when this will end that is the only asinine point in this whole ordeal.


RE: No.
By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 2:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
Of course nobody knows when this is going to end. That doesn't change the fact that someone with cash reserves is in a better position than someone without cash reserves. There is nothing asinine about it. Its a simple fact.


RE: No.
By someguy123 on 2/26/2009 5:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
that point isn't asinine. how is increased chance of company survival asinine? that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. fact of the matter is when you have cash reserves you can at the very least survive, and if the economy rebounds you'll still be alive. without reserves or surviving on loans you end up like GM, where they will probably be bankrupt by next quarter unless the government gives them more loans, and the likelihood of them surviving the recession is drastically lower than a microsoft or other company with large reserves.

fact of the matter is GM was overly aggressive and spent too much on expansion/buyouts without any left over in case of a recession. this coupled with the corrupt unions destroyed them.


RE: No.
By mindless1 on 2/26/2009 8:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
The point people seem to keep forgetting is we as a society have to determine whether to take the short cheap way out of a problem by letting our industries collapse, or look long term at what goods we still produce (a vital part of economy).

What happens if GM goes under or files for bankruptcy? What about their creditors, then they need a bailout instead of what little funds flow from GM? What about the supporting parts and service industries, all these job losses? Spending money on GM is putting that money back into our economy, not like digging a fire pit and burning it.

We don't know how long or how much money it would take, but we do know there are plenty of considerations about whether this money is best spent on GM et al, or something else. I suppose we can just spend it on welfare instead, putting people out of work tends to do that.


RE: No.
By jjmcubed on 2/26/2009 3:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ya you were definitely in the military when you described this guy as a "military weirdo".


The way I see it was he was calling you a weirdo, not the person in the military. Read it again.


RE: No.
By someguy123 on 2/26/2009 4:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
what? he wasn't even talking to me. and why would he call the guy before him a weirdo....the guy before him didn't make any weird comments.


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 7:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
even when pointed out to you by others, you still dont get it.

I wasnt degrading the military, the person who responded to me assumed I was making a crack at the military when I obviously was not. I merely used his current situation to point out the fact that the kid has never had a fiscal responsible situation in his life to this point yet he felt perfectly emboldened to tell others about their financial issues. I mean really, at 23 hes been sheltered and fed by his parents and military for every moment of his life to this point.

Of course some whack job jumps up out of the blue like it was some sort personal grudge against the military. Followed by an dolt like you with reading comprehension issues.


RE: No.
By Aloonatic on 2/27/2009 3:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
His point seemed to be about how he was able to save $40k when earning only $15k-$20k, so why can't everyone? Has little to do with the average American.

His income, when you take into account other received "benefits" is probably greater than that that he stated. I'm sure that he has to pay some token amount towards overheads like rent, utilities, local taxes (not sure if you're taxed just for living somewhere as we are in the UK), medical/dental expenses etc, but these amounts have very little to do with what the average American pays.

His take-home pay minus living expenses is probably rather closer to the average American's than his post suggested.

Then, after taking into account that when out on active service there are usually tax benefits and no way to spend any money for months on end, it isn't really that difficult to see how someone in that positions can save their money.

As such, the comparison to everyone else in society and asking why they can't save like he can is silly, but good on him.

That's before getting into the "everyone needs to save" debate which, at first, seems like a good idea but the reality is that if you don't want the government "bailing out" companies like those in the motor industry then what you really need to see is people like our military friend going out and spending the money that they have saved, whilst everyone else starts to service their debts but still keep some spending going. Getting into a position where they has a positive savings (getting back into the black) for many, is a distant dream.

If everyone starts to save now then a lot more companies are going to go bust as consumer spending drops off a cliff.


RE: No.
By mindless1 on 2/26/2009 8:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
The point you are overlooking is it's not a valid comparison, it would be like GM being able to operate for free then being handed billions to do whatever they want, then they choose to save or spend it. In that case, there's no way to have losses as the worst they can do is break even.


RE: No.
By mindless1 on 2/26/2009 8:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
The point is simple, and valid.

When someone who has all their expenses paid for, AND is paid $20K, it's the equivalent of someone else being paid $40K or more (depending on their expenses like a family, where they live, health condition, etc).

Granted, we can reasonably say it's a personal choice to minimize these expenses or not, except being in the military and/or not having a home and children is not a sustainable situation for the majority of the human race.

Perhaps the phrase "free ride" wasn't quite correct, but the underlying concept of free as-in not having to pay for much out of that 15-20K is validated in the total savings reported.


RE: No.
By wordsworm on 2/26/2009 1:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
In any case, you clearly are not paying rent. You're earning it in your military career. But coming out and saying that more people should be able to save money while you're not responsible for rent isn't exactly fair. Have you taken a look at how expensive rent is these days? It's enough to suck the marrow out of your income.

However, I have had a similar strategy as you: take the jobs where accommodation is free - not to mention the free lunch. Really, it helps a lot. When I had to pay for it, half of my income went towards just paying rent. I can't even imagine how impoverished I'd be if I had to deal with the costs of raising children to boot. Doing so allowed me to save about 1k/month.

So, teaching in Korea for 18 months has allowed me to save enough money to try my hand at starting a company - which hopefully one day will turn a profit, but it's not likely to in the near future. A lot of people borrow to start a company, but I came to a developing country where office rental is about $100 a month with electricity, and the combined salary of my two employees works out to about $325.

I do agree that many people have a hard time dealing with money. My sister lives on credit. When she gets a cash gift, she buys stuff with it rather than pay down her credit cards. Though she lives in a nice house, mostly paid by her x-husband, she struggles daily to make ends meet. Most of my friends live that way.


RE: No.
By JoshuaBuss on 2/26/2009 12:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
agreed. When I first started meeting people who cared what DAY they got their paychecks I was very confused. I couldn't believe that people actually spent money as soon as they got it. Simply stupid.


RE: No.
By Guyver on 2/26/2009 1:00:08 PM , Rating: 1
GM perferred making gas-guzzling SUVs and Trucks when the economy was good, gas was cheap, and SUVs / Trucks were in high demand by consumers.

Until the last few years, the Japanese did not have a real answer for GM's or Ford's full-sized pickup trucks. Ever heard of a crappy American-made Truck / SUV?

Care to take a guess where the big profits were at?

The crappy reputation for American automobiles is with their smaller cheap cars and not because U.S. automakers can't make them better in quality. They didn't seem to think it was cost-effective on their part given the demand of their more profitable trucks and SUVs. So why did they bother to make the cheap crappy cars to begin with? The main reason why they bothered to make "crappy" cheap cars were due to government-madated CAFE standards which allowed them to raise their average fuel economy across all automobiles (to include SUVs and Trucks). There's government intervention for you!

Since the Japanese couldn't for the longest time compete against GM & Ford in terms of real trucks, the Japanese excelled at making higher quality small automobiles. This was at the expense of U.S. automakers making cheap crappy small cars to satisfy U.S. CAFE mandates.

Now the Economy has tanked and even the Japanese (specifically Toyota and Nissan) are feeling the pinch rather badly. And these are makers who are not top-heavy in SUVs and Trucks.

The government needs to get off it's GREEN high horse and at the very least suspend the CAFE standard mandates. The only thing these CAFE standards really do is force automakers to use less steel and more exotic plastics / polymers to make the vehicles lighter but less survivable in a head on collision.

Personally, I'm waiting on GM's next employee discount program.... I want to buy a Chevy Silverado 2500 Crew Cab 4x4. I could have bought one right after new years for $17k. I hesitated too long and am now regretting it. I'd rather guzzle gas knowing if I hit a Prius head on, I'll be walking away from the accident rather than be "green" with a less survivable vehicle.

And before people start bashing crappy American automobiles again, the American automakers own a lot of the foreign brands. GM owns Daewoo and Opel (so arguments that they cannot sell in foreign markets is based on the assumption they're trying to sell under their American names). Until recently Ford owned Volvo and Jaguar. Chrysler and Mercedes were one company once. GM owned shares of Isuzu and Ford in Mazda.

Point being is that there was a lot of technology shared between the U.S. automakers and their foreign subsidiaries. Heck many of you know that a GMC Sonoma is the same thing as a Chevy S-10.... but did you know the Isuzu Hombre was also the same truck? In either case, no one has a patent on quality. It all comes down to business decisions.


RE: No.
By jmn2519 on 2/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: No.
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/26/2009 10:41:42 AM , Rating: 3
Toyota and Honda are fishing for Yen intervention and may soon request bailouts as well:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/eyeonas...

They have formed a coalition similar to the Big 3 did before their bailout request.

Further, they have the advantage of having a captive market as Japan allows virtually no foreign dealerships/repair shops due to a combination of nationalism and economic tactics. That gives them 100 million + extra customers -- a pretty nice boost in these tough times.

Imagine if the big three had the U.S.'s 200+ million drivers to themselves!


RE: No.
By TerranMagistrate on 2/26/2009 11:20:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Imagine if the big three had the U.S.'s 200+ million drivers to themselves!

No need to imagine.

A long time ago that was the case, percentage wise at least. That's the reason why the big three U.S. auto manufacturers were the largest in the world and were highly regarded.

And today they are largely a shadow of their former selves. How times have changed for the worse.


RE: No.
By kilkennycat on 2/26/2009 12:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that car sales in Japan have been terrible, don't you? And for a much longer time than the current recession. It seems that the Japanese with their very crowded country and excellent public transport systems, plus their willingless to walk or bicycle, have finally stopped worshipping the automobile. It has become an expensive in-convenience..... If the Japanese auto manufacturers had to rely on Japan for the bulk of their auto sales they would have gone bust long ago. Opening up the Japanese market further to the US auto-makers will do nothing for their bottom lines.


RE: No.
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/26/2009 10:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, they are. The Japanese government is attempting to buy common stock in all the banks. We are doing the same thing to to some degree.


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 10:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
Not yet at least... But remember that even Toyota - the poster child for Big Three haters - is going to post an operating loss this year. They made $19B profit last year - so that is around $19B less profit than they made last year. That is going to hurt them a lot.


RE: No.
By DigitalFreak on 2/26/2009 11:12:18 AM , Rating: 2
You still don't get it, or don't want to. Toyota is posting a loss this year. So what? They are no where near the position GM and Chrysler are in, no matter how you try to spin it.


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 11:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
In terms of sales and revenue, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda are all in the same boat - all down significantly.

But yes, Toyota and Honda are in overall better positions economically, at least for now.

Also remember that Toyota and Honda have a very large protected local market to draw strength from, whereas the Big Three don't.


RE: No.
By DigitalFreak on 2/26/2009 11:27:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, all sales are down. Even if you take the foreign companies out of the equation, you still have Ford. It's pretty obvious that the changes they implemented a few years ago have helped them fare better than the other "Big 2". GM and Chrysler should not be rewarded with continuing government bailout money because they failed to implement their own changes back when they had the chance.


RE: No.
By retrospooty on 2/26/2009 10:50:03 AM , Rating: 3
"Idiot. The problem is not GM's products - it is an industry-wide downturn resulting from the current economic crisis. Sales for nearly all automakers - including Honda and Toyota - are down 30-55% from one year ago. "

Dont be so fast to call him an idiot...

Yes, all car companies sales are down, but GM was often losing money when the economy was good... Becasue people dont want thier crappy cars. Throw in the recession and the good ones are hurting, the hurting ones need the govt to give them 10's of billions just to stay alive.

See the difference?


RE: No.
By DigitalFreak on 2/26/2009 11:15:44 AM , Rating: 2
He does see the difference, but refuses to acknowledge it.


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 11:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, all car companies sales are down, but GM was often losing money when the economy was good... Becasue people dont want thier crappy cars
LOL, that's funny. Do I need to remind you that GM is #1 globally? I don't see how they could possibly be in that position if people didn't want their "crappy cars."

Also, when was the last time you looked at quality statistics across all the manufacturers? But I digress...

Ignorance and denial is bliss, isn't it?


RE: No.
By DigitalFreak on 2/26/2009 11:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, when was the last time you looked at quality statistics across all the manufacturers? But I digress...


Just now, actually. http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pre...

Top 5:
Lexus, Mercury, Cadillac, Toyota and Acura

Three of the top 5 are Japanese companies. I don't see Buick, Chevy, or GMC in that list.


RE: No.
By retrospooty on 2/26/2009 11:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
"Also, when was the last time you looked at quality statistics across all the manufacturers? But I digress..."

Those initial quality studies are..."initial". Take a look 5 years down the road and see whats holding up well. GM is not. That is why the resale value drops so fast. Honda/Acura has the best resale value many many years in a row. GM/Ford/Chryslers are rediculous.

Have you looked at resale value lately? Ignorance and denial truly is bliss


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 12:03:15 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, and that is why I own an Audi and a Toyota personally. But on the other hand, to say GM's quality is crap is clearly not supported by the facts. That's my point.


RE: No.
By retrospooty on 2/26/2009 12:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
I guess its all in how you define quality. Out of the gate, GM's quality has improved.

I define quality by a car that lasts 10 years without falling apart. So by that definition, GM=Crap. OF course not all GM cars fall apart after 10 years, but the amount that do are far too many, thus the low resale value.


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 2:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
At 10 years, most every brand of car falls apart, so by your definition, all brands are crap.

Even the most expensive cars on the market are not designed for 10 years and 250,000 miles. You will have some percentage of samples of any brand that last that long, but that's only because of very good maintenance and very good luck.


RE: No.
By croc on 2/26/2009 5:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ahem. My BMW 318i was built in 1985. Top end has been rebuilt once due to negligence on my part, and the auto xmission had to be overhauled after the front seal went out. (well, didn't need a complete overhaul, just a good going over while it was already removed.)


RE: No.
By retrospooty on 2/26/2009 6:35:59 PM , Rating: 3
LOL - no, not even. And again, that percentage you mention is much worse for GM than Honda, Toyota, and others.

Damn Tom, you really just pick a talking point and stick to it , no matter what, refusing to admit you are even the slightest bit wrong. Funny though, when it comes to YOUR own money, look, you sure as hell didnt buy American =)


RE: No.
By chrnochime on 2/26/2009 10:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that you even decided to buy Audi puts you in the group that is either ignorant or clueless as to the atrocious reliability Audis nowaday enjoy. That's what Audi needs to keep them afloat. And I don't care how good the interior looks when they have so many damn problems past warranty.

It doesn't take too much then to believe that you would deny being the slightest wrong about your Big 3 comments.


RE: No.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/2009 5:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree, and that is why I own an Audi and a Toyota personally. But on the other hand, to say GM's quality is crap is clearly not supported by the facts. That's my point.


I love the duplicity. We all have to suck it up and support and pay for the bailouts, but you cruise around in an Audi and Toyota. I think there is a word for people like you.

And by the way, you bought an Audi. What in the hell do you know about quality ?


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/27/2009 7:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be such a simpleton. Even though I don't own a GM product doesn't mean that I can't step in and argue that their quality is not poor, or that the bridge loans that the government is providing might be an okay idea given the current crisis.

And regarding the Audi, that car is more than 10 years old, runs great, looks nice, and has only been in the shop for normal maintenance since the warranty ended. So bite me.


RE: No.
By The0ne on 2/26/2009 1:13:46 PM , Rating: 1
I have to reiterate this again until people understand. JDPOWER is not the standard in quality. They are just a third party that does some testing and gives out awards. Yes, it's nice to have the award but it is still NOT the industry standard. They're not even mention when discussing about quality of a company (in industries, seminars, traning, etc.).

When you're referring to Quality within a company like GM, it's not referring to any third party quality tests or results. It's referring to QA systems such as Six Sigma, TQM, Lean, and so forth. Results from JDPOWER does not translate to better quality from a company. It just tells you the specific car being tested is what it is. It doesn't tell you whether or not they same production line, the same workers, the same processes and what not are used on their other line of vehicles.


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 2:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
You're right but you forget that QA statistics gleaned from interal processes aren't publicly available for comparison between manufacturers. And even if they were, they would not be comparible because of differences in methodology.

So sources that look across the industry like JDPower are really one of the best ways to try to objectively compare quality between manufacturers.


RE: No.
By HinderedHindsight on 2/26/2009 12:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
LOL, that's funny. Do I need to remind you that GM is #1 globally? I don't see how they could possibly be in that position if people didn't want their "crappy cars."


The reason why GM is #1 in terms of sales is due to access to more markets, and they have always been willing to spend more money to purchase competitors (or establish themselves as majority shareholders of other brands) across the globe. This does not mean you have a quality product, it means you are able to strong arm the global markets.

This strategy also (at least partially) explains their lack of cash reserves.

I don't know how much in terms of shares GM has in other companies, but it seems to me that their currnt strategy is to get the United States government to prop them up while they maintain their dominance in owning global brands. They only seem to talk about selling the likes of Saturn and Hummer, probably because those are the brands that Americans are aware of, meanwhile other brands which might be more profitable to sell (such as Holden) they seem to be holding on to for dear life. Bankruptcy would probably require them to sell off their ownership status of several global brands.


RE: No.
By Gyres01 on 2/26/2009 1:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
GM is not #1 anymore, Toyota recently took that title...


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 2:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and then GM took it back. But that doesn't change the point, does it, that obviously a lot of people must like GM cars if they are buying so many of them.


RE: No.
By rudy on 2/26/2009 11:30:53 AM , Rating: 3
It is also that GM tried to grow to quickly to invade emerging markets like China where they are the largest auto maker. This was a risk they took and due to the economic change it was a bad risk and now they may pay the ultimate price. But had things not turned down we would probably all be talking about how GM regained the number 1 spot due to a smart move. Some times you win some times you lose.


RE: No.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2009 3:39:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Idiot. The problem is not GM's products - it is an industry-wide downturn resulting from the current economic crisis. Sales for nearly all automakers - including Honda and Toyota - are down 30-55% from one year ago. Because these are large, capital-intensive businesses, nearly all automakers are going to be running large losses until people start buying new cars again.


Fool you once, shame on them. Fool you twice, shame on YOU.

You're the idiot. You sat here and defended the freaking bailouts the first time, while non morons like me and Fit tried to get it into your thick numbskull that this would happen.

Now here we are. Predictably. With Gm STILL failing, and now needing more money.

I'm done with people like you. I'm getting ulcers. I'm tired of idiots like you that just don't get it. I honestly think we should line up everyone who is for bailouts and put a .22 behind their ear. For the greater good of this country.

GM started failing over a decade or more ago. There was NO "industry wide" downturn then. Enough with your excuses, shut up !!


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 3:52:37 PM , Rating: 1
Why are you bitching now? You and everyone else knew at the time that more money would be required. The first set of loans were just to cover them for a couple of months until the Obama administration got in place and could put in place a longer-term line of credit. All part of the plan.

Also, where did you get any kind of expectation that all of a sudden GM would become profitable, in the middle of a bad recession and terrible across-the-board auto sales.

You need to get real. You may be upset about the situation - as I am - but the reality is that these loans are pretty necessary at this point in time. Just like most of the government stimulus spending is...a necessary evil.


RE: No.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2009 4:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
. Just like most of the government stimulus spending is...a necessary evil.


Now I know you are a complete liberal idiot. Tax and spend NEVER boosts economies. Goddamnit !

That's it. You need a .22 to the back of the head. Period.


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/27/2009 8:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tax and spend NEVER boosts economies.
Only you could be wrong twice it the same sentence.

1. Any economist or student of economics can tell you that government spending absolutely can and usually does have a positive effect on the economy. In fact, it was government spending that got us out of the Great Depression.

2. Obama is not proposing "tax and spend," since after all, he is also lowering taxes at the same time. The point, again, is to stimulate the economy by putting more dollars in the hands of people

And spare me your childish ".22 to the back of the head" tripe. Are you 12 years old or something?


RE: No.
By MadMan007 on 3/1/2009 5:47:10 AM , Rating: 2
Before someone answers with a trite 'WWII got us out of the GD' I would like to point out exactly what WWII was...massive govt spending.


RE: No.
By Gorfy on 2/26/2009 10:29:38 AM , Rating: 3
+1

But the way the government has dealt with this so far, if I were GM right now, my memo to the public would probably sound something like:

"Lube up taxpayers. We're goin back in for more!"


RE: No.
By PogoThePrez on 2/26/2009 10:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
Prepare the wet sloppy noise!!!


RE: No.
By Pneumothorax on 2/26/2009 2:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
BOHICA comes to mind lol


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 10:30:48 AM , Rating: 2
Uhm they are usually number 1 or number 2 in total car sales every month. Not to downplay their current financial troubles but they are indeed in demand. The problem is restructuring just before an economic downturn and bad dealings with unions that they cannot currently break without filing bankruptcy.

And they did move from what? -15 billion to -9 billion in a couple of months. At least they are headed in the right direction now and if the pattern holds they could be at -3 billion by the third scheduled meeting with congress. As long as they continue in the right direction then its worth a shot.


RE: No.
By tallcool1 on 2/26/2009 12:41:25 PM , Rating: 3
Are you willing to open up your personal wallet, checking and savings account and personally give money to the CEO of GM? Feel free to send him a check and stay out of my wallet.

Thank you.


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 12:47:44 PM , Rating: 1
what you are too foolish to realize is if GM goes belly up all those people will be on welfare and will be reaching into your wallet regardless. That results gives no foreseeable future for compensating for the loss.

On the other hand a loan keeping the company afloat still gives at least some hope of those people paying taxes and repaying this loan at some benefit to the american people.

You are screwed either way, but giving them the money now at the very least offers the chance that it will return something on that investment, think about it.


RE: No.
By Guyver on 2/26/2009 1:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't he already agree to essentially work for free as part of the condition of getting a bailout for his company?


RE: No.
By tallcool1 on 2/26/2009 3:40:45 PM , Rating: 3
What I mean by giving the CEO of GM one of your personal checks, isn't for his salary, but to use for his company.

Everybody that supports this bailout, how much of your personal money are you willing to give to GM? Comon, lets put some real figures out here. You want to donate $100, $1000, %10 of your yearly salary, what's it going to be?

And then after March when they need some more money again, how much more are you willing to do without the next time?
Maybe you could defer putting %10 into your 401K, and instead have it go to GM? Perhaps your budget is tight, will you go without phone service, water, cut back on food so that you have extra money to give them?

This goverment money isn't some mythical item, its mine and your real tax dollars. Maybe some are willing to sacrifice, however some are on much tighter budgets. So don't tell me how you want to spend my tax dollars, if your so generous, dig into your wallet, send them a personal check as a bailout donation, stay out of my wallet.

Thank you!


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 7:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
you pay either way.

you either pay them to stay in business with your tax dollars with the chance they return the money with interest...

or you pay for the welfare checks with your tax dollars and further the economic issues by dumping 150000 more jobless on an already heavily burdened system followed by the many related jobs that will also fold...

They went from Q3 -15 billion to Q4 -9 billion. If they continue to move forward in the right direction then the decision should be pretty clear.


RE: No.
By mindless1 on 2/26/2009 9:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
... or what's behind curtain #3, even if the tax dollars weren't paying for a bailout or welfare, your Uncle would find something to spend them on instead.


RE: No.
By SandmanWN on 2/26/2009 10:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
true that, the tax money is gone regardless. the question is does it go to social program A or bailout program B. Program A is always there sucking away with no end in sight, but eventually B finds a resolution good or bad.


RE: No.
By Beenthere on 2/26/2009 10:37:08 AM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately most people have no clue what is actually happening in the U.S. auto industry, the U.S. economy or the world economy. If they did they'd know Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Porsche, VW, Audi, Ferrari, et al sales have all tanked because we are in a worldwide economic depression. The Detroit auto makers have supplied ~50% of all vehicles sold worldwide for the past 60 years.

If the problem was the products that the Detroit auto makers sell, then Honda, Toyota, Nissan, et al would not be suffering the same identical problems. Toyota and Nissan have both declared multi-Billion dollar losses for their current fiscal year.

Americans really should educate themselves.


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 10:45:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Americans really should educate themselves.
I agree. There is some kind of ignorant mob mentality amongst many American citizens when it comes to the auto industry. And you see that in Washington as well. Fortunately Obama is smarter than that and understands the situation for what it really is.


RE: No.
By mdogs444 on 2/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 11:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you're paying attention too well to what Obama is saying and doing.

What Obama is saying is that the US government needs to boost spending in order to help us out of the current economic crisis. Then after that he will focus back on reducing spending and working towards cutting the deficit.

Political idealism and dogma have no place in the current debate, in my opinion. We need to figure out the right way out of this mess regardless if that is a "liberal" or "conservative" solution, or some combination of both.


RE: No.
By mdogs444 on 2/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 11:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
I agree and share your concerns - I voted against Obama myself. But I don't currently see any other approach that can work, and I don't see anybody else who can take on the problem. Private industry is too weak and ineffectual to even begin. Consumers are fear-motivated. Other governments around the world can't solve our problems.

I think the fact of the matter is that we have the choice between a not-so-good solution or a disaster if we fail to act. Not doing anything is only going to make the problem much, much worse.

Also, don't underestimate the power of having a well-regarded, charismatic leader with a powerful vision - even if that vision is not 100% "right." Reagan led us through some tough times, despite a lot of criticism at the time and after the fact.


RE: No.
By wordsworm on 2/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: No.
By weskurtz0081 on 2/26/2009 11:40:27 AM , Rating: 3
It's rather interesting that you are attributing this entire mess to one singular person. I had no idea that consumers, businesses, congress, and the entire country/world are not responsible for this.

Your right, it's much more fun to blame just one person... good call!


RE: No.
By tallcool1 on 2/26/2009 12:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
Obama has been in office for 1 1/2 months and he's already calling him one of the best presidents ever?

Talk about drinking the koolaid!!!
Blaming Bush for everything? What have you been smoking?

You really need the facts, watch this ENTIRE report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1


RE: No.
By MadMan007 on 3/1/2009 5:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
That is an interesting video however it seems one-sided (shocker, Fox News) and I doubt that if there is any information that counters or muddies the waters as there tends to be in the real world whether it would have been presented. I'd like to know...what did they propose as solutions to the problem they saw?


RE: No.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2009 3:56:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There's no point in the argument Tom. Soon these guys will be blaming the economic woes of the nation on Obama


Obama was a Congressman who voted right down Democrat party lines for EVERY-SINGLE-BILL that helped lead us to where we are today. And he's blameless ??

Our current economic "woes" will look like a day in the park compared to what he's doing to "cure" the economy. Are you even paying attention to what's going on out there ? Did you even LISTEN to his speech and how many times he contradicted himself ?

Do you even REALIZE how much three trillion dollars is ? That's TRILLIONS, with a T !

quote:
I have a lot of confidence in Obama. He has a lot going for him: intelligence, charisma, leadership, just to name a few


None of that means a damn THING. Except leadership in a president. But so far every single thing he's done has been for political gains, NOT for America. How can that be called leadership ?

Nobody says " Man that Jimmy Carter was sure one of the best presidents we've had ". Have you EVER heard someone say that ? So why do you think Obama will be ranked any higher ?

I know why, because he's black. And if you question him and his policies, you get called a racists and accused of disparaging his historical acheivement.

I swear to god I would move out of this country if there actually was anywhere better to live. Idiots like you are taking us straight to hell.


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/27/2009 8:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
You're so far "gone" there's really no point carrying on a debate with you.


RE: No.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2009 6:07:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't think you're paying attention too well to what Obama is saying and doing.


No Tom. It's you who isn't paying attention very well.

God I swear, I have owned guns for years and have never fired a shot in anger. But if you were in front of me right now.. well.. I don't know what would happen.

I think you're just too stupid and gullible to live honestly. Maybe a city bus will save us all the trouble...

quote:
Political idealism and dogma have no place in the current debate


Apparently neither do facts...

quote:
What Obama is saying is that the US government needs to boost spending in order to help us out of the current economic crisis. Then after that he will focus back on reducing spending and working towards cutting the deficit.


How do you set up massive government agencies who will require huge budgets every year, and then reduce spending ? Have you ever seen a socialist nation reduce spending TomZ ?

quote:
We need to figure out the right way out of this mess


To a socialist every 'mess' or problem is an opportunity to make big government the cure. How are you NOT getting this TomZ ??


RE: No.
By TomZ on 2/27/2009 8:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Spare me your primitive political rhetoric and dogma. You really need to turn off Rush and start thinking with your own brain for a change.

Let's pretend you're the president for a moment, even though that's a pretty scary thought. But anyway, how do you propose we solve the current economic crisis. Let's check the score.

1. Banks are broken - they're hoarding cash, including the bailout money, since they saw Lehman Brothers fail. So no lending which hurts working capital for businesses.

2. Companies are lacking working capital and so they can't invest in new development, productivity gains, etc. Also, they face much lower sales and because they have to answer to shareholders, they are forced to cut costs. That of course puts people out of work.

3. Consumers are in panic mode, with consumer confidence at all-time lows. People are not buying houses, they are not buing cards, they are not buying durable goods. Instead, they are paying off debt, and since consumer spending is such a large part of GDP, you're seeing a widening recession.

4. And of course, the above all work in a feedback loop that create a cycle of recession. In other words, layoffs lead to worsening confidence, leading to lower spending, leading to more layoffs, etc.

Now Mr. President, what do you propose to do about this problem...?

Thinking about cutting taxes...? Think again. Bush cut taxes and here we are. Doesn't seem to have helped much, has it?

How are you going to get us out of the mess? Come on, we're waiting. After all, any jackass can criticize things going on in a Rush-type style - but it's much harder to put it on the line and come up with a real solution, isn't it? Come on, be a man and tell us what you'd do. Or do you think we should just shoot our way out of this problem?


RE: No.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/28/2009 8:45:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's pretend you're the president for a moment, even though that's a pretty scary thought. But anyway, how do you propose we solve the current economic crisis.


Your premise is false. The assumption that the President MUST do something drastic to end the 'crisis' is false. Most economist agree the economy WILL recover either way.

Tom it's really simple. There is NOTHING in the 'stimulis' package that can actually stimulate the economy. And if I'm being brainwashed by Rush, as you say, then I really question who you have been brainwashed by. You keep sticking to the same liberal talking points and false premise.

Your argument is that the economy can be stimulated by the government taking HUGE amounts of money out of the economy and spending it where it thinks it should be spent. And make no mistake, that is exactly what Obama's plan does. Trillions of dollars have to come from somewhere TomZ.

On a more personal note, I would like to appologize for my violent comments the other day. That is not the way to go about things. I should be trying to help convince you and others how uninformed and misguided they are, not give in to my frustrations and make enemies.

I'm not going to answer your silly 'what if I was president' question because, again, it's premise is false. This topic is way too serious to me to play little mind games.

9 thousand earmarks stimulates economies.
A train from a city to Disney World stimulates economies.
Millions of dollars for birth control stimulates economies.
Increasing unemployment benefits to insane levels stimulates economies.
Oh, I love this one, a new ATV park stimulates economies.
Renovations for government employee offices stimulates economies.
Taxing businesses to pay for socialist programs stimulates economies.

If the above statements actually make sense to you, which they clearly do, then I worry for our future.

TomZ either you don't know what's actually in the bill, or just don't have a clue. Either way, asking me what I would do as President doesn't draw much water. I'm not President, Obama is, and what he's doing is the wrong thing to do. Yes, it WOULD be better to actually do nothing than making a problem worse.

Giving a man a bridge to build doesn't help unemployment either. Carter did this in the 70's. Once the bridges are built, those workers have no more work. Once the roads are made, no more work. Because the government isn't a business, it can't build economic growth. It can simply TAKE from the economy and appropriate funds. Every dollar the government spends is a dollar that the taxpayers can't. If you can't agree with this simple undenyable fact, then I give up.

A woman who owned a business recently asked Obama, point blank, what's in your stimulus package that will help my business. Know what he said ? He told her his smart electric meter plan will save her energy costs. Ponder that one for a minute, if you dare.

quote:
Come on, be a man and tell us what you'd do.


I would destroy our largest industry by socializing medicine. I would federalize the banks and the auto industry, because we all know the government is far more efficient then businesses. I would also expand entitlement programs that reward those who do nothing. I will borrow from China AND tax the 'rich' of my own country to pay for it. I will print money with the treasure to pay for the rest which will lead to hyperinflation.

How do you like my plan so far ! Does it look familiar ?


RE: No.
By MadMan007 on 3/1/2009 6:16:28 AM , Rating: 2
No need to boter with this one:

quote:
I will borrow from China AND tax the 'rich' of my own country to pay for it.


that was already a done deal regardless of who won the recent election. Except for the taxing the rich part, but lord knows that an extra $300 in taxes for every $10k in income for gross above $250k is going to just devastate them. It was really smart to lower taxes during a war.


RE: No.
By on 3/6/2009 8:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, anyone ever tell you ignorance is NOT a virtue? Ass.


RE: No.
By weskurtz0081 on 2/26/2009 10:47:38 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, ignorance only exists in America doesn't it.....

That comment, American really should educate themselves, doesn't speak very well of you.

Now, if you could attempt to not single out a single group of people, and instead be MORE general, then maybe you wouldn't sound like a tool, but singling out an entire country, and essentially calling them stupid won't get anything done, unless all you want to do is tick people off and have them not listen to you.

If so, then, mission accomplished!


RE: No.
By RamarC on 2/26/2009 11:14:53 AM , Rating: 4
regardless, it's time to cut our losses. I believe GM's execs are playing this like poker. They don't really offer any other alternative. They're just not acting like someone who wants to survive and is willing to try everything/anything. It's either give us this money or we quit. So, let 'em quit. Something better will rise from their ashes than anything the current management could create.


RE: No.
By spread on 2/26/2009 10:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
Ehhhh, don't worry bout it. Some billion dollar ducktape will hold everything together.


RE: No.
By yomamafor1 on 2/26/2009 10:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
I also wonder if GM is actually digging its grave by asking more money from the Feds. The more they ask for, the less reputation they receive from the general public. This means less people are going to spend money on GM's products.

The key here, like you said, is about whether people like your products, and spend their cash on them. GM can be put on life-support indefinitely if everyone migrates to Ford or even foreign car manufacturers.


RE: No.
By Aloonatic on 2/26/2009 11:01:52 AM , Rating: 4
If the US is the same as the UK then....

....One of the problems that never seems to be picked up on is that in the last 5 or so years there has been an increase in demand fuelled by cheap credit which has disappeared and will/should not appear again any time in the near future.

Sales have been good and factories have been churning out cars to supply that demand. Not all cars have been bought on credit of course, but a fair percentage have been. People haven't been hanging onto cars for a while and saving up but instead, they have been chopping them in and taking out loans for a new car every couple of years when they really haven't been in financial position to do so.

Those customers have gone and will be gone for a long time.

Pretending that this is a one year (or maybe two year) blip whilst the banks sort themselves out and we'll all go back to spending again as before is just silly.

When the banks do sort themselves out they are not going to fund the same level of credit as before and let people run up the debts that they have been (in all areas of their personal/household finances which knocks on to big spends like cars) so the demand will not be as high, hence, these car manufacturing and many manufacturing companies need to face the fact that they are going to have to make these reductions in capacity more permanent and people are just going to have to find other jobs.

Arguably they have been working for companies that should not have been hiring them for the last few years in the first place and we are all paying for it now. It doesn't stop me from feeling sorry for these people of course, but we need a sharp dose of reality rather than this pretend "government can make it OK with big cheques" limbo that we are stuck in at the moment.

Couple this more prolonged drop in demand with the perception that things are going to keep on getting cheaper and feeling that it's a buyers market if you are lucky enough to have some cash there is going to be no return to the golden last few years any time soon.

The sooner companies come to realise this and adjust the better and the shorter the hangover from the last 5 or 6 years partying will be.


RE: No.
By TSS on 2/26/2009 8:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
it's not completly the same:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/Internati...

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/25/news/economy/debt....

the USA has private debt the height of 365% of Private GDP while the UK only has... 355% (private and public debt isn't the same thing). from the first link:

"From the 1970s onward, however, the economy has undergone two profound structural shifts. First, the economy as a whole has become much more indebted. Output rose eight times between 1975 and 2007. But the total volume of debt rose a staggering 20 times, more than twice as fast. The total debt-to-GDP ratio surged from 155 percent to 355 percent. "

stop counting in "5-6 years" and start counting in decades. this was set in motion before i was even *born*.

what the hell happened in the 70's to the economy? hippies?


RE: No.
By MadMan007 on 3/1/2009 6:22:23 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the stagflation of the 70s didn't help that metric. Since it's a ratio you can change either the numerator or the denominator and come out with the same percentage change.


RE: No.
By Spuke on 2/26/2009 12:12:36 PM , Rating: 3
1. GM and Chrysler were expected to come back for more money. The original loan was never intended to be THE fix. Why is this news?

2. All the same people are making all the same arguments in this thread. BORING!!!! SNORE!!!!

3. Do you guys get paid on the amount of posts made?

4. I'm going to stick with the "articles" that actually contain news from now on.

5. Have a nice day.


I'll bet Americans get a good economics lesson
By Beenthere on 2/26/2009 10:26:36 AM , Rating: 1
I'll bet after a brutal, decade long economic depression, many Americans will learn a valuable lesson in economics, government, politics and the loss of U.S. jobs.

When the U.S. auto industry tanks it will take Honda, Toyota, BMW, M-B and VW U.S. manufacturing operations with it, as more than 80% of the vendor suppliers will go under also.

When tax payers pay for the next three decades for the aftermath of what was the U.S. auto industry, this will be a rude but necessary education for all.




RE: I'll bet Americans get a good economics lesson
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 10:34:04 AM , Rating: 2
You're absolutely correct. If the US auto industry fails, it will cost taxpayers much, much more than the value of the loans that the industry is receiving right now.

If, in the longer term, we decide we want to export all those jobs overseas, I don't have a problem with that. But to avoid massive pain in the short term, we need to let that process happen gradually.


RE: I'll bet Americans get a good economics lesson
By mdogs444 on 2/26/2009 11:29:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If the US auto industry fails, it will cost taxpayers much, much more than the value of the loans that the industry is receiving right now.

Actually, it wont cost us a dime...unless you're referring to the entitlement that the tax payers should pay for all the union people to go to college and get some skills that don't revolve around sweeping floors and pushing a button for $70/hr.
quote:
we decide we want to export all those jobs overseas, I don't have a problem with that

Export them where? No one in other countries are going to want these over payed and under skilled employees who want to band together and hold a company hostage.


By TomZ on 2/26/2009 11:39:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, it wont cost us a dime...
Allowing even just one of the Big Three to fail will lead to the failure of many of the automotive suppliers. This will create a domino effect of many of their suppliers also failing. This will lead to large-scale job loss well into the millions of jobs.
quote:
Export them where? No one in other countries are going to want these over payed and under skilled employees who want to band together and hold a company hostage.
You misunderstand...I'm saying their jobs get exported, not the employees. :o)


By TerranMagistrate on 2/26/2009 11:47:45 AM , Rating: 2
Outsourcing the U.S. auto industry may do much more harm than good in the long term. I don't know the exact number of people in the U.S. that hold jobs in this industry but the number is likely in the millions if you count part suppliers and such.

Not to mention these are relatively well paying jobs so if the company you worked for has moved its manufacturing overseas then finding a job with comparable yearly income may be an impossible task.



By TomZ on 2/26/2009 12:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, and yes, the number is in the millions. The scope of the auto industry is far and wide.

We Americans seem to have decided that we are comfortable exporting many of our good-paying jobs overseas. I just hope we are all comfortable with the future ramifications of that.

Actually, we need to remember that, in order to remain an economic superpower, we need to continue to create wealth. We, as a nation, have clearly forgotten that.


By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 10:42:13 AM , Rating: 5
Nobody is rooting for the sudden failure of GM.

I want them in chapter 11 bankruptcy because that is the vehicle by which they can restructure and come out a stronger, leaner company. Some might argue that nobody would buy from a bankrupt automaker, but is buying from an automaker that makes regular trips to Capitol Hill to beg for money all that much better?


By Beenthere on 2/26/2009 1:10:45 PM , Rating: 1
Even Congress realizes that Bankruptcy would be the end of the U.S. auto industry and thus they are trying to prevent that as everyone loses. Creditors get nothing and the U.S. auto industry and 3 million auto worker jobs are gone forever...

If this happens then every tax payer will pay for unemployment benefits welfare and health care for 5-10 years, for 15 million or more people who will lose their job as a result of the demise of the auto industry. Do the math and see what's better for the country - saving ~3 million U.S. jobs or paying for 15+ million more people on welfare.


By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 1:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
Do you know what chapter 11 bankruptcy is???


RE: I'll bet Americans get a good economics lesson
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 2:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
Chapter 11 is not a realistic option for automakers. Main problem is that their suppliers will demand cash up-front for any/all purchases. After all, that is what bankruptcy is about - forcing "pennies on the dollar" types of terms onto debtors, and of course, who do you think companies like GM owes money to...its suppliers of course. And since GM and Chrysler have very little cash, that means that they won't be in a position to negiotiate deliveries with thier suppliers. End of game.

Second problem, if they were to survive the above, is the lack of consumer confidence in a company in bankruptcy, which would cause their sales to be reduced by some large fraction more.

Not to mention shareholders for publicly held companies like GM, which would be pretty much wiped out by a bankruptcy. That would make it damn near impossible for GM to raise cash through stock offerings in the forseeable future.

Do you still think that Chapter 11 is realistic? Chapter 11 is suicide for a carmaker.


By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 3:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Main problem is that their suppliers will demand cash up-front for any/all purchases. After all, that is what bankruptcy is about - forcing "pennies on the dollar" types of terms onto debtors, and of course, who do you think companies like GM owes money to...its suppliers of course. And since GM and Chrysler have very little cash, that means that they won't be in a position to negiotiate deliveries with thier suppliers.


Do you suppose the situation is different for any other company that enters into Chapter 11? Keep in mind within Chapter 11, companies can still receive special loans to continue their operations: the banks that provide these loans get to jump first in line if the company has to be liquidated. I have no problems with the government securing that type of financing for GM.

quote:
Second problem, if they were to survive the above, is the lack of consumer confidence in a company in bankruptcy, which would cause their sales to be reduced by some large fraction more.


Like I said, do you suppose it is any worse to buy from a company in Chapter 11 than it is to buy from a company that makes quarterly trips to DC to beg for money? I for one don't.

quote:
Not to mention shareholders for publicly held companies like GM, which would be pretty much wiped out by a bankruptcy. That would make it damn near impossible for GM to raise cash through stock offerings in the forseeable future.


Do you suppose they're going to be raising money from a stock sale anytime soon regardless???


RE: I'll bet Americans get a good economics lesson
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 3:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you suppose the situation is different for any other company that enters into Chapter 11? Keep in mind within Chapter 11, companies can still receive special loans to continue their operations: the banks that provide these loans get to jump first in line if the company has to be liquidated. I have no problems with the government securing that type of financing for GM.
There are no banks loaning out capital like this, so there is no hope for loans like you describe, period. Auto manufacturing is very capital intensive.
quote:
Like I said, do you suppose it is any worse to buy from a company in Chapter 11 than it is to buy from a company that makes quarterly trips to DC to beg for money? I for one don't.
Big difference there. On the one hand, the US government is going to keep them afloat, and on the other hand, the company is "bankrupt," which to most consumers means the same thing as "out of business" (even if that is not really correct).
quote:
Do you suppose they're going to be raising money from a stock sale anytime soon regardless???
Not in this market, but maybe in 5 years...? But if they go through a bankruptcy now, the stock will be worthless both now and in 5 years.


By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 3:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are no banks loaning out capital like this, so there is no hope for loans like you describe, period. Auto manufacturing is very capital intensive.


Hence why I mentioned the government securing that type of financing, which renders the rest of your post effectively moot.


RE: I'll bet Americans get a good economics lesson
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 3:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
How do you propose to force the banks to lend money to the automakers, considering that they don't want to do that otherwise?

Maybe once the government finishes nationalizing the banks then it can force them to provide loans that they otherwise wouldn't.


By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 3:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
The government could give the DIP loan itself for all I care, although back room negotiations have worked in the past.

The point is that Chapter 11 is the appropriate and only vehicle for the restructuring that GM so desperately needs.


By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 3:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
although back room negotiations have worked in the past


That is to say that the government has successfully performed back room negotiations in the past.


By MadMan007 on 3/1/2009 6:27:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the bondholders are the debt owners not the supply chain companies. Those companies surely work on receivables accounts like most any other and I'm sure that if they were owed the amounts we're talking about here they'd have shut down long ago.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2009 3:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even Congress realizes that Bankruptcy would be the end of the U.S. auto industry and thus they are trying to prevent that as everyone loses.


No you moron. Everyone loses BECAUSE they are trying to prevent it.

GM right now is a one ton anchor tied to a rowboat with a hole in it. The entire COUNTRY is going to be pulled under the water at this rate. We do NOT have the money to help GM and still have a economy that's worth a crap.

Cut the anchor loose. We can survive the end of the U.S auto industry. It's not making any money anyway !! It's consuming resources, correction, WASTING resources and eating up taxpayer bailouts that we CANT afford !!


Nice...
By retrospooty on 2/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Nice...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/26/2009 10:26:23 AM , Rating: 1
Not that I don't agree with most of your statement, but in GM's defense on one point, I think the Volt is going to be arguably one of the best vehicles on the market, and really a great piece of engineering -- if GM can survive long enough to see it hit the market, that is.


RE: Nice...
By bankerdude on 2/26/2009 10:36:45 AM , Rating: 3
The Volt was never intended to be a mainstream product aimed at the masses. It is a niche product, capturing the "wow" factor inherent in it's technology. However, it's initial price point will put it above the realm of affordability for many people, harkening to the argument many people have with the current crop of hybrids, being thus: Should I pay $5000+ more for a Civic Hybrid rather than a standard Civic to save money on gas that will take at least 3-4 years to recoup my initial investment? Hard argument in the current troubled times.


RE: Nice...
By retrospooty on 2/26/2009 10:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
IT might be, it might not be... It will all depend on the final shipping specs and price... and reliability. All 3 of those things are problems for GM in the past.


RE: Nice...
By DigitalFreak on 2/26/2009 11:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
At $40,000, they aren't going to sell enough to make any difference in their financial situation.


RE: Nice...
By fishbits on 2/26/2009 11:21:30 AM , Rating: 3
"... I think the Volt is going to be arguably one of the best vehicles on the market, and really a great piece of engineering..."

Are you serious? A $35,000 sub-compact?!
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/02/wipers-stereo-p...
And if memory serves, that's a taxpayer-subsidized price.

Your grasp of reality seems on par with GM's. It's "great engineering" to be able to produce a car comparable to others in the market for "only" two times the price and more. Hmm, why are sales in the toilet, and costs way out of hand?

At least the overpriced car Homer Simpson came up with to bankrupt an auto company was powerful like a gorilla, yet soft and yielding like a Nerf ball, and came with a bubble cockpit and bladder buster-sized cupholders. For it's price, the Volt would be a laughing stock if it weren't so blatantly insulting. If you're paying for the "I saved the plant-which we live on" feeling, you can do it for $34,995 less by buying one of those curly light bulbs. Then get a well-engineered car (you know, made with the kind of great engineering that considers price when designing products) from a company that doesn't suffer perpetual anal-cranial inversion.


RE: Nice...
By teckytech9 on 2/26/2009 1:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree as asset classes have collapsed in prices. In simpler terms, steel and cars are approaching 1990 prices.

The Volt has to be priced lower than $20,000 to be competitive. That's not a problem if the government gave a $20,000 rebate check to purchase a Volt. Then, I would probably be a customer.


RE: Nice...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2009 3:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the Volt is going to be arguably one of the best vehicles on the market, and really a great piece of engineering


I think your smoking the Green Peace pipe again.

Gas is a $1.50 right now and crude oil is at near record lows. Studies and observational evidence prove Americans only care about fuel efficiency when gas is too expensive.

Nobody cares about the Volt right now. At least not in numbers large enough to save GM.


RE: Nice...
By CU on 2/26/2009 10:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
They are building better cars. But nobody is buying any cars from anyone. People aren't really buying anything period unless they need it to live. This is a bigger problem than just GM. Look at all the other businesses that have went under or are barely making money.


RE: Nice...
By mmntech on 2/26/2009 10:37:39 AM , Rating: 2
GM: God-awful Mess

Was there anybody with half a brain that didn't see this coming. We might as well just nationalize them at this point. Let them fail I say.


RE: Nice...
By nafhan on 2/26/2009 11:21:45 AM , Rating: 3
You are wrong. The cars are fine.
Their business model + unions are the problem.


RE: Nice...
By Motoman on 2/26/2009 11:42:52 AM , Rating: 3
I'm going to have to agree with that. There has been a lot of conventional wisdom about the Biggish 3 not making the kinds of cars that people want to buy, etc. Maybe there's something to that, maybe there isn't. I'm not sold on that concept.

I am convinced that their business model could be better. And I am undoubtedly sure that the unions are a massive problem. I *really* don't want to piss in anyones cereal, and I am absolutely not suggesting that people don't deserve to make a decent living. But the kind of labor required to operate these modern manufacturing lines isn't worth what the Big 3 have to pay for it. It just isn't. The unions were needed at one point in time, certainly, to protect laborers from harsh employers. It is very clear now, though, over the past couple decades, how unions have been dragging their employers down and forcing them to ship jobs to foreign countries. The base pay, benefits, "job banks," etc. are crushing the Big 3 - all for doing work that, frankly, is essentially unskilled labor in most respects, as far as I can tell.

I honestly wish that unions would be outlawed. Maybe we'd have a chance to keep jobs in this country that way.


RE: Nice...
By The0ne on 2/26/2009 1:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
As a test, manufacturer and quality engineer I can tell you the UAW is really the pain in the ass. Can't do the right things with someone blocking your path.


RE: Nice...
By retrospooty on 2/26/2009 6:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
Those are also a problem, but thier cars are crap... Check the resale values and ask yourself why they drop so fast...


public opinion
By tastyratz on 2/26/2009 11:02:34 AM , Rating: 2
They are screwed no matter what right now, because all of this desperation and all of the handouts just lower the public's opinion of them.

Would YOU buy a gm vehicle right now if you thought in a year or 2 you wouldn't be able to make a warranty claim or buy a new oem part if something failed?

Right now you would have to be an idiot to make such a large purchase from GM. That car/truck could very well be unsupported in a very short period of time.

People will buy less and less GM vehicles because the appearance is GM wont be around when they need to maintain them in the next few years.

This is also piled on top of the reputation they earned in the 90s for reliability in comparison to many top japanese car makers.




RE: public opinion
By HighWing on 2/26/2009 1:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what I was going to post. Through all this press the big 3 have been getting, it's been pretty clear from the beginning that GM might not survive regardless of the bailout.

I'm looking for a new car right now, but I would not even consider buying from the big 3 because from all this, I see 3 companies that did not manage their money properly in one way or another. And buy buying a car from them, I would be supporting their actions which I do not agree with. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels the same way.

Personally I would rather see all 3 go bankrupt and be forced to restructure "without" government help. Let the CEO's deal with the problems they ignored for too long. And I say ignore because you can't honestly tell me that a year ago they were not loosing money. By the amount of debt they have now, they had to have known last year that things were not going well, yet they just kept getting deeper in debt


RE: public opinion
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 2:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
If "we" allow that to happen, the American taxpayer will foot a very large bill in terms of economic impact and the need to pay unemployment benefits on a large scale. So just be careful for what you wish for...since it carries a rather high cost.


RE: public opinion
By tastyratz on 2/26/2009 6:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
Versus continuing to pay their bills as a flopping business because we dont want them taking their PAID benefit of unemployment?

GM Wont be disappearing - they would restructure and get rid of a lot of the fat they pay out now that they never should have been to begin with.


RE: public opinion
By MadMan007 on 3/1/2009 6:35:17 AM , Rating: 2
The parts argument is retarded btw, I'm saddened to see that news soundbite crap in an otherwise thoughtful post. Think about it: can you get parts for cars (long) out of production? Yup. The warranty issue is valid but parts in and of themselves is not.


LEAVE GM ALONE
By FaceMaster on 2/26/2009 10:57:05 AM , Rating: 2
This is a depression. Of course GM is going to make a loss. If we don't help them then thousands of people will lose their jobs and Apple will become more powerful.




RE: LEAVE GM ALONE
By bankerdude on 2/26/2009 11:00:56 AM , Rating: 3
Uh....What


RE: LEAVE GM ALONE
By Whaaambulance on 2/26/2009 12:04:18 PM , Rating: 1
"Leave Britney alone!"


RE: LEAVE GM ALONE
By Donkey2008 on 2/26/2009 12:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
+1 to this response.


Restrictions
By fishbits on 2/26/2009 11:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
Seems that once the vampires were invited in the house, err, bailout money was accepted by companies, our politicians see fit to tell businesses how spending operating funds is excessive and shouldn't be allowed. That's mingled taxpayer dollars, you see. No bonuses, no advertising and good-will generating activities that aren't approved. The people who run multi-billion dollar international corporations must be willing to work for discount prices. The millionaire Congressmen who operate at a staggering deficit demand more prudence from others.

Very well then, let's accept that argument for the moment. Since it's taxpayer money keeping the auto companies afloat and their workers employed, no excesses allowed there. So no more political activism or donations from auto workers and the unions they fund, since they have their jobs thanks to government bailout money. Surely that's not what the taxpayers are supposed to be funding.

Keep watching, that's exactly what taxpayers are funding. The auto companies' viability is just a mechanism to launder political kickbacks of taxpayer dollars going to fund and provide manpower for politicians' campaigns. It should clear things up if you've been confused as to why the UAW couldn't care less about the health of the industry it's supposedly in. It's a political organization, making cars is just a fundraising activity.




RE: Restrictions
By Regs on 2/26/2009 3:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure members of the UAW have to eat, sleep, and bath too.

My definition of politics is: when you gather a horde of people together with different passions, goals, and objectives - a single solution is not possible and therefore politics takes the place of the solution to make everybody else feel comfortable.


RE: Restrictions
By MadMan007 on 3/1/2009 6:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
+1 for a quality conspiracy theory.


Moral of the Story
By clovell on 2/26/2009 12:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice - you can't fool me twice.




RE: Moral of the Story
By TomZ on 2/26/2009 2:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
People like you saying that were not paying attention very well. After all, the loans they received previously were known by all - and reported by the media - to be just the start. GM and Chrysler were both very open about the fact they would be needing to borrow more money in the immediate future.

So there is no suprise to anyone who has been paying attention at all.


RE: Moral of the Story
By clovell on 2/26/2009 4:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
Um, no - I didn't say that.

This is putting a band-aid on a knife wound - the rate of bleeding hasn't subsided at all.


Bailout is political kickback from Dems to UAW
By Teancum on 2/26/2009 1:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
"Of all 207 lawmawkers receiving campaign contributions from the UAW PAC in 2008, only two are Republicans (Sen. Arlen Specter, voted Yes; Rep. Frank LoBiondo, voted No). Even more so than voting preference, the UAW’s PAC contributions align with the long time union preference for Democrats."

The UAW employee benefits package costs billions more than their Japanese counterparts.

UAW wage + benefits costs about $70/hr. You cannot turn a profit with that much labor cost.

See this chart:

http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/images/wm...




By Roy2001 on 2/26/2009 1:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's why GM MUST file Ch.11 and get rid of UAW.


By JustKidding on 2/27/2009 2:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, erroneous vote, so I have to post to cancel it. My apologies. Interesting points, thanks.


Haha the pictures
By BadAcid on 2/26/2009 10:28:47 AM , Rating: 3
It never ceases to amaze me that you guys at DailyTech can always find a picture of the bad executives from the article with their lips and expression in that pre-sigh, disappointed look. Jerry Yang, Auto execs, you name it, they got their lips in that "I can't think of what to say without digging myself deeper" look.




RE: Haha the pictures
By otispunkmeyer on 2/26/2009 2:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
yeah lol that picture is great its like

"pffffff yup the whole things about to cave in on my head"

its the look of a man who knows he's got a lage problem he simply cannot do anything meaningful about


By Kougar on 2/26/2009 11:36:26 AM , Rating: 2
My only question was, if GM declares chapter 11 bankruptcy does that mean they are no longer required to fully pay back taxpayer bailout money?




By chrnochime on 2/26/2009 10:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the bail-out condition stipulates that GM need to pay back the loan, even if they file for chapter 11.


GM simply cannot survive.
By A Stoner on 2/26/2009 10:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
The only reason it will last as long as it does is because of the same people that are causing it to implode. The UAW. The democrats will shovel money at GM just to keep the UAW happy, but when it comes to the final straw, even that need to keep the UAW happy will have to fall to the ever more powerful need to get votes. GM may continue to be viable until about 2011, at that point, people who need to get elected will have gotten the kickbacks from the UAW that they can and will vote down any new money for GM. Just in time to claim to be responsible to the retarded voting public.




correction. . .
By the goat on 2/26/2009 12:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The basic problem is that GM is not selling enough vehicles.


The basic problem is that GM is spending too much money.




Not again, GM
By Rhl on 2/26/2009 3:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
...All the workers and execs at GM will look up and shout 'Save us!' And I'll look down and whisper 'No.'




Ford?
By limitedaccess on 2/26/2009 4:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
Why compare the hardships of GM/Chrysler to foreign automakers and not Ford?

Why is it that Ford, which faces the same challenges in doing business (or is it excuses), seems to be doing relatively okay in these times? While GM and Chrysler seem to be on last legs?

Because of this, it seems that there is something inherently wrong currently with how GM and Chrysler are operating compared to Ford, which need to be addressed, as opposed to throwing bags of money to prop those two up.




De-Unionize
By Jay2tall on 2/27/2009 10:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
De-Unionize or go under. It doesn't seem the UAW is budging with anything. Their ungodly benefits need to stop, because it's dragging the companies under. They are putting to much money into their benefits and not enough into the quality of their automobiles. Hence, they produce crap compared to Honda, Toyota, etc. The government did their part, now it's time to let them go and figure it out themselves. Ford seems to be doing something right as someone said, so who knows. Maybe they will be the only one to make it out of this thing. I refuse to buy from any of the big 3, I've owned vehicles from all of them and their reliability is nothing close the the Honda or Nissan that I've had in the past. If you don't make a good product and your labor costs are high, you are going to fail. The government has to quit handing out to them.




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki