backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by jconan.. on Jun 17 at 9:38 PM

The Chinese plan to increase the brand's international presence

DailyTech reported yesterday on GM's announcement that it had found a buyer for the Hummer brand of heavy utility vehicles.  The mystery buyer promised to take on the brand and help expand its international presence.  In the process it saved a number of jobs at Hummer plants and helped GM complete a major step toward moving out of bankruptcy.

Now the identity of the mystery buyer has been revealed.  Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company Ltd., a Chinese industrial firm, will be purchasing the brand and attempting to revive it.

States Yang Yi, chief executive of Tengzhong, "We plan to ... allow Hummer to innovate and grow in exciting new ways under the leadership and continuity of its current management team."

He did, however, hint at changes stating that the deal "will allow Hummer to better meet demand for new products such as more fuel-efficient vehicles in the U.S."

The companies hope to have the deal finalized by September.  The deal does not concern the military Hummer technology owned by defense contractor AM General, which licensed the brand name to GM for civilian vehicle purposes.  AM General will now, in turn, license the name to Sichuan Tengzhong, which will continue the civilian Hummer development.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Sad.
By borismkv on 6/3/2009 12:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see the evidence you have to support your taxation claims there, buddy. As for your points,

1. Flat tax would result in a dramatic streamlining of the IRS, which would save the government a considerable amount of money. It would cost some jobs, but the government is already providing far too many jobs as it is. Government jobs don't add anything to the economy. They are more of a drain than an assistance as the money to pay for it is taken away from the free market. And it's not like we couldn't add an amendment to make flat taxes legal according to your argument (which I'm not entirely convinced is correct).

2. Oil will be necessary in high amounts for a minimum of 30 years, even if hydrogen fuel cell vehicles become a viable option at the end of this year. Look around you. How many 30, 40, 50 year old cars do you see on the road? The majority of the US population can't afford to replace their cars every time a new fuel efficient technology comes out. And even when they do, they still have to get rid of their old car, which typically goes to someone less financially affluent. ICE vehicles will be running around en mass until the end of this century no matter what you think.

3. I refuse to thank you for stopping the privatization of SS. It's arguable that if social security had been shut down less than a year ago, the bubble never would have burst. Each individual pays 6% of their paycheck to SS. In *addition* each employer is forced to match that amount. Cutting social security (or giving the option to do so) would result in an immediate raise of between 6 and 12 percent for each and every working individual in America. In contrast, contributing 3 percent of my money to a 401k will result in me retiring a millionaire. I can use that money as leverage on a home loan or for a business loan. I cannot use the money I have contributed to Social Security until I'm 65 or unless I end up with a severe disability. Period. With the number of health issues I have inherited, I'll be lucky to make 55. I don't want to contribute to social security. I should be given the option not to. I feel that the current social security system is tantamount to slavery.

6. (Don't care about the others), Poverty is insane in South America because of out of control corruption. Throwing money at that problem will only make it worse, not better.

What you seem to ignore is the simple fact that if I had all the money that I theoretically earn, I would be able to *afford* assisting the poor more effectively. If more than a third of my money goes into a bureaucrat's pocket, how does it help the guy down the street from me? Or more importantly my sister who is stuck in social security/medicare assisted living. She should be in a mental institution that could take care of her (she has severe brain damage) but guess what, there are so many bureaucrats taking all of my money that nothing was actually spent on things like mental health institutions, which resulted in the only state run facility within 500 miles being closed down.

Do not even pretend that the government is a preferable steward of the public interest. Social programs would be much better served if they were run by private entities instead of a bloated and bureaucracy ridden government like ours.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki