KSUFans Archives
Fan Life => The Endzone Dive => Topic started by: Bookcat on March 05, 2009, 10:53:30 AM
-
In pre-market trading, GM shares fell 18 percent from Wednesday's close, to $1.80.
:popcorn:
They're going to go out of business. I'm serious.
-
They are exploring bankrup. right now but I think it is a ploy to get more money from the gov. Either way they have no long term business plan and it would be best to just go under and save money.
-
which of the multi-billion dollar loans that they've received gave it away :confused:
and who cares if they go out of business, the government will buy them, restructure their debt, and then you too can claim ownership in a crappy car manufacturer.
-
They need to go bankrupt. Doubt I would consider buying another one of their cars if they did that.
Gotta say, for a school car, my Grand Am performed nicely....but I know that for the most part GM churns out too many different crapty models that depreciate way too fast.
-
How does the government go bankrupt?
-
How does the government go bankrupt?
Just pretend like they don't owe anyone money :dunno: "pfffft, whatevs china, I don't remember you loaning me a $20"
-
They are damned if they do and damed if they don't.
If they go into bankruptcy, they get to shed all their pension liabilities to former employees...which is a hell of a thing to do to the workers who trusted and depended on them.....but it's really one of the very few ways to save the company. crap story.
If they go out of business, then the retirees get nothing anyway....but this is the worst case scenario, which would hose the enconomy up pretty bad for awhile. There are vast, vast numbers of businesses and jobs that depend upon the survival of GM. From parts manufactures to steal producers to car dealers to mechanics, etc., etc.
Would be a really bad thing in the near term, but maybe necessary? :dunno:
-
We (taxpayers) end up paying for it either way. Either the gov steps in and gives them the money now, or waits until they go bankrupt and has to step in and float all the banks. Probably best just to bite the bullet and give Detroit whatever they want now as opposed to picking up the pieces later.
I'm personally not for either of those ideas, but hey who am I... I'd hate to see the country lose an auto manufacturer, but when your business model SUCKS, you deserve to go out of business. It's the American way. Meanwhile, Toyota and Honda are hurting but at least they have their crap together and will weather the storm without asking for a handout.
-
We (taxpayers) end up paying for it either way. Either the gov steps in and gives them the money now, or waits until they go bankrupt and has to step in and float all the banks. Probably best just to bite the bullet and give Detroit whatever they want now as opposed to picking up the pieces later.
I'm personally not for either of those ideas, but hey who am I... I'd hate to see the country lose an auto manufacturer, but when your business model SUCKS, you deserve to go out of business. It's the American way. Meanwhile, Toyota and Honda are hurting but at least they have their crap together and will weather the storm without asking for a handout.
No... It's better to pick up the pieces later. Allowing them to go bankrupt only helps in the natural correction of the economy. Other than the legal part of it, there is no difference between a big business making stupid decisions that cause it to go under vs someone stealing from a company (Enron) to make it go under. In either case, the little people within the company suffer, but the direct suffering is mostly within (yes, there are contracts outside of GM that it would affect). The void in the market would be filled. People wouldn't stop buying cars because their favorite brand isn't there. They would just go find another brand.
If you keep it from falling apart by pumping in money that doesn't exist, then you've spread that problem out to all sectors of the economy. That's what the free market is. Stupid decisions = failure. Good decisions = success.
-
We (taxpayers) end up paying for it either way. Either the gov steps in and gives them the money now, or waits until they go bankrupt and has to step in and float all the banks. Probably best just to bite the bullet and give Detroit whatever they want now as opposed to picking up the pieces later.
I'm personally not for either of those ideas, but hey who am I... I'd hate to see the country lose an auto manufacturer, but when your business model SUCKS, you deserve to go out of business. It's the American way. Meanwhile, Toyota and Honda are hurting but at least they have their crap together and will weather the storm without asking for a handout.
No... It's better to pick up the pieces later. Allowing them to go bankrupt only helps in the natural correction of the economy. Other than the legal part of it, there is no difference between a big business making stupid decisions that cause it to go under vs someone stealing from a company (Enron) to make it go under. In either case, the little people within the company suffer, but the direct suffering is mostly within (yes, there are contracts outside of GM that it would affect). The void in the market would be filled. People wouldn't stop buying cars because their favorite brand isn't there. They would just go find another brand.
If you keep it from falling apart by pumping in money that doesn't exist, then you've spread that problem out to all sectors of the economy. That's what the free market is. Stupid decisions = failure. Good decisions = success.
I agree with this 100%, I guess I meant "let's just pay them and get it over with now" as kind of speaking from the mentality that we seem to have in approaching this whole crisis. Personally I'm all for letting the cards fall where they may. Only trouble with that is that people are so stupid and dependent on government as it is, that if you let that happen (letting all the banks, etc. go, things would get BAD in a hurry), people will turn around and demand the government to step in on an even BIGGER scale. Very scary. All we're doing now by pumping this &@#%ing monopoly money in the system is delaying the inevitable, and in fact making things worse when the crap finally does hit the fan.
-
Only trouble with that is that people are so stupid and dependent on government as it is, that if you let that happen (letting all the banks, etc. go, things would get BAD in a hurry), people will turn around and demand the government to step in on an even BIGGER scale. Very scary. All we're doing now by pumping this fracking monopoly money in the system is delaying the inevitable, and in fact making things worse when the crap finally does hit the fan.
Which is, of course, precisely what a leftist anti-capitalist would want to happen. First destroy the offending system, leave the population broke & begging for a solution, then provide one in the form of an benevolent nanny-state. Of course that never ends well but our present overlords don't really seem to care.
-
Only trouble with that is that people are so stupid and dependent on government as it is, that if you let that happen (letting all the banks, etc. go, things would get BAD in a hurry), people will turn around and demand the government to step in on an even BIGGER scale. Very scary. All we're doing now by pumping this fracking monopoly money in the system is delaying the inevitable, and in fact making things worse when the crap finally does hit the fan.
Which is, of course, precisely what a leftist anti-capitalist would want to happen. First destroy the offending system, leave the population broke & begging for a solution, then provide one in the form of an benevolent nanny-state. Of course that never ends well but our present overlords don't really seem to care.
What would Jesus do? Honest question. Really. Think about it and give a reasoned response. TIA.
-
Only trouble with that is that people are so stupid and dependent on government as it is, that if you let that happen (letting all the banks, etc. go, things would get BAD in a hurry), people will turn around and demand the government to step in on an even BIGGER scale. Very scary. All we're doing now by pumping this fracking monopoly money in the system is delaying the inevitable, and in fact making things worse when the crap finally does hit the fan.
Which is, of course, precisely what a leftist anti-capitalist would want to happen. First destroy the offending system, leave the population broke & begging for a solution, then provide one in the form of an benevolent nanny-state. Of course that never ends well but our present overlords don't really seem to care.
What would Jesus do? Honest question. Really. Think about it and give a reasoned response. TIA.
:users:
-
We (taxpayers) end up paying for it either way. Either the gov steps in and gives them the money now, or waits until they go bankrupt and has to step in and float all the banks. Probably best just to bite the bullet and give Detroit whatever they want now as opposed to picking up the pieces later.
I'm personally not for either of those ideas, but hey who am I... I'd hate to see the country lose an auto manufacturer, but when your business model SUCKS, you deserve to go out of business. It's the American way. Meanwhile, Toyota and Honda are hurting but at least they have their crap together and will weather the storm without asking for a handout.
No... It's better to pick up the pieces later. Allowing them to go bankrupt only helps in the natural correction of the economy. Other than the legal part of it, there is no difference between a big business making stupid decisions that cause it to go under vs someone stealing from a company (Enron) to make it go under. In either case, the little people within the company suffer, but the direct suffering is mostly within (yes, there are contracts outside of GM that it would affect). The void in the market would be filled. People wouldn't stop buying cars because their favorite brand isn't there. They would just go find another brand.
If you keep it from falling apart by pumping in money that doesn't exist, then you've spread that problem out to all sectors of the economy. That's what the free market is. Stupid decisions = failure. Good decisions = success.
LOL, it's cute when people act like a free market has ever existed.
-
Only trouble with that is that people are so stupid and dependent on government as it is, that if you let that happen (letting all the banks, etc. go, things would get BAD in a hurry), people will turn around and demand the government to step in on an even BIGGER scale. Very scary. All we're doing now by pumping this fracking monopoly money in the system is delaying the inevitable, and in fact making things worse when the crap finally does hit the fan.
Which is, of course, precisely what a leftist anti-capitalist would want to happen. First destroy the offending system, leave the population broke & begging for a solution, then provide one in the form of an benevolent nanny-state. Of course that never ends well but our present overlords don't really seem to care.
What would Jesus do? Honest question. Really. Think about it and give a reasoned response. TIA.
Teach people how to fish rather than subsidizing a massive daily handout of fresh fish to all the world's deadbeats.
-
Only trouble with that is that people are so stupid and dependent on government as it is, that if you let that happen (letting all the banks, etc. go, things would get BAD in a hurry), people will turn around and demand the government to step in on an even BIGGER scale. Very scary. All we're doing now by pumping this fracking monopoly money in the system is delaying the inevitable, and in fact making things worse when the crap finally does hit the fan.
Which is, of course, precisely what a leftist anti-capitalist would want to happen. First destroy the offending system, leave the population broke & begging for a solution, then provide one in the form of an benevolent nanny-state. Of course that never ends well but our present overlords don't really seem to care.
What would Jesus do? Honest question. Really. Think about it and give a reasoned response. TIA.
He'd tell you to respect your government and pay your taxes, more or less.
-
GM should have stopped making about half their brands a couple of years ago, buick, pontiac, and a few others would be easy targets.
-
Only trouble with that is that people are so stupid and dependent on government as it is, that if you let that happen (letting all the banks, etc. go, things would get BAD in a hurry), people will turn around and demand the government to step in on an even BIGGER scale. Very scary. All we're doing now by pumping this fracking monopoly money in the system is delaying the inevitable, and in fact making things worse when the crap finally does hit the fan.
Which is, of course, precisely what a leftist anti-capitalist would want to happen. First destroy the offending system, leave the population broke & begging for a solution, then provide one in the form of an benevolent nanny-state. Of course that never ends well but our present overlords don't really seem to care.
What would Jesus do? Honest question. Really. Think about it and give a reasoned response. TIA.
He'd tell you to respect your government and pay your taxes, more or less.
Or he might kill all the firstborn children of government officials and appoint a prophet to lead the faithful elsewhere.
-
I don't get how people who support the government building roads can be pissed about the government giving money to an auto maker.
:dunno:
-
I don't get how people who support the government building roads can be pissed about the government giving money to an auto maker.
:dunno:
srsly?
-
What would Jesus do? Honest question. Really. Think about it and give a reasoned response. TIA.
He'd tell you to respect your government and pay your taxes, more or less.
Yeah, I'm sure he (along with many others) would tell you that arrangement with the Romans worked out well. :blank:
-
I don't get how people who support the government building roads can be pissed about the government giving money to an auto maker.
:dunno:
Rusty hates roads :Driving:
The interstate road system was built to provide easy access for our military in case of attack and facilitate easy and inexpensive transportation of goods. That is what our government is supposed to do.
-
Only trouble with that is that people are so stupid and dependent on government as it is, that if you let that happen (letting all the banks, etc. go, things would get BAD in a hurry), people will turn around and demand the government to step in on an even BIGGER scale. Very scary. All we're doing now by pumping this fracking monopoly money in the system is delaying the inevitable, and in fact making things worse when the crap finally does hit the fan.
Which is, of course, precisely what a leftist anti-capitalist would want to happen. First destroy the offending system, leave the population broke & begging for a solution, then provide one in the form of an benevolent nanny-state. Of course that never ends well but our present overlords don't really seem to care.
What would Jesus do? Honest question. Really. Think about it and give a reasoned response. TIA.
Teach people how to fish rather than subsidizing a massive daily handout of fresh fish to all the world's deadbeats.
Tell that to the 5000 deadbeats who mooched his bread and fish.
-
I don't get how people who support the government building roads can be pissed about the government giving money to an auto maker.
:dunno:
Rusty hates roads :Driving:
The interstate road system was built to provide easy access for our military in case of attack and facilitate easy and inexpensive transportation of goods. That is what our government is supposed to do.
Neocons: We're always fighting for free markets, except for when we don't want them.
-
LOL, it's cute when people act like a free market has ever existed.
This.
-
I don't get how people who support the government building roads can be pissed about the government giving money to an auto maker.
:dunno:
Rusty hates roads :Driving:
The interstate road system was built to provide easy access for our military in case of attack and facilitate easy and inexpensive transportation of goods. That is what our government is supposed to do.
Neocons: We're always fighting for free markets, except for when we don't want them.
And the interstate is infrastructure which benefits all people in the US and actually provides a positive dollar return on the investment. A car is hardly infrastructure. And new cars are more of a luxury item. There are plenty of other methods, including used cars, to get around and if one car maker goes under, the others will naturally pick up the slack. There will always be enough cars to meet the demand.
-
And the interstate is infrastructure which benefits all people in the US and actually provides a positive dollar return on the investment. A car is hardly infrastructure. And new cars are more of a luxury item. There are plenty of other methods, including used cars, to get around and if one car maker goes under, the others will naturally pick up the slack. There will always be enough cars to meet the demand.
Without billions (trillions?) in highway subsidization, GM would never have reached it's current size, and its loss would not have had the devastating effect on the economy that we are now facing. We've been subsidizing domestic auto makers in some way for years. Only now that it is dumbed down enough that Neocons can understand how the bail out works are they upset with it.
-
And the interstate is infrastructure which benefits all people in the US and actually provides a positive dollar return on the investment. A car is hardly infrastructure. And new cars are more of a luxury item. There are plenty of other methods, including used cars, to get around and if one car maker goes under, the others will naturally pick up the slack. There will always be enough cars to meet the demand.
Without billions (trillions?) in highway subsidization, GM would never have reached it's current size, and its loss would not have had the devastating effect on the economy that we are now facing. We've been subsidizing domestic auto makers in some way for years. Only now that is dumbed down enough that Neocons can understand how the bail out works are they upset with it.
We need those euro trash trains. F'ing Spain has built a national network of them. They are fast, safe, easy to get on and off, and always on time.
-
And the interstate is infrastructure which benefits all people in the US and actually provides a positive dollar return on the investment. A car is hardly infrastructure. And new cars are more of a luxury item. There are plenty of other methods, including used cars, to get around and if one car maker goes under, the others will naturally pick up the slack. There will always be enough cars to meet the demand.
Without billions (trillions?) in highway subsidization, GM would never have reached it's current size, and its loss would not have had the devastating effect on the economy that we are now facing. We've been subsidizing domestic auto makers in some way for years. Only now that is dumbed down enough that Neocons can understand how the bail out works are they upset with it.
We need those euro trash trains. F'ing Spain has built a national network of them. They are fast, safe, easy to get on and off, and always on time.
This just in: the U.S. is a LOT bigger than Spain, and have your ridden a Amtrak train lately, they are always late. The U.S. needs more rail infrastructure before they can even THINK about converting to passenger trains as a main source of transport. Right now Amtrak is living off government subsidies and with out BNSF and UP Amtrak would no longer exist. Just a little FYI
-
We need those euro trash trains. F'ing Spain has built a national network of them. They are fast, safe, easy to get on and off, and always on time.
This just in: the U.S. is a LOT bigger than Spain, and have your ridden a Amtrak train lately, they are always late. The U.S. needs more rail infrastructure before they can even THINK about converting to passenger trains as a main source of transport. Right now Amtrak is living off government subsidies and with out BNSF and UP Amtrak would no longer exist. Just a little FYI
Not really different than what Pete said. The U.S. needs a better train network. The sooner the better.
-
The U.S. needs more rail infrastructure before they can even THINK about converting to passenger trains as a main source of transport.
That still misses the main point: commuter rail only works well where population density is immense. Thus before it can become widespread in the US we'll need to bulldoze the suburbs and force the population into small spaces near train stations. In order to accomplish that the government must first make it so expensive to live in detached single family homes and commute via private vehicles that such is unaffordable for all but the very wealthy. Of course once the troublesome middle class has been priced out of those markets and warehoused in vertical apartments there'll be that much more open space for the wealthy to enjoy.
-
The U.S. needs more rail infrastructure before they can even THINK about converting to passenger trains as a main source of transport.
That still misses the main point: commuter rail only works well where population density is immense. Thus before it can become widespread in the US we'll need to bulldoze the suburbs and force the population into small spaces near train stations. In order to accomplish that the government must first make it so expensive to live in detached single family homes and commute via private vehicles that such is unaffordable for all but the very wealthy. Of course once the troublesome middle class has been priced out of those markets and warehoused in vertical apartments there'll be that much more open space for the wealthy to enjoy.
Again, our cities wouldn't be so spread out without federal highway funds.
-
Thus before it can become widespread in the US we'll need to bulldoze the suburbs and force the population into small spaces near train stations. In order to accomplish that the government must first make it so expensive to live in detached single family homes and commute via private vehicles that such is unaffordable for all but the very wealthy.
michcat nails it, azcat left nursing his wounds yet again.
if us gov'ments at all levels stopped subsidizing automobile use, mass transit would take off in the high-density parts of the us.
-
US residents wouldn't be spread out so much if our country weren't so darn big and there weren't so much space!! :frown:
-
US residents wouldn't be spread out so much if our country weren't so darn big and there weren't so much space!! :frown:
I'm talking about urban/suburban areas in particular.
-
MC,
Your post are so &@#%ing stupid, I honestly thought you were fishing.
Sincerely,
FB
-
MC,
Your post are so fracking stupid, I honestly thought you were fishing.
Sincerely,
FB
Aren't you the car salesman? Would make sense.
-
MC,
Your post are so fracking stupid, I honestly thought you were fishing.
Sincerely,
FB
Aren't you the car salesman? Would make sense.
Nope; I just don't see where me thinking you're a dumb crap means I support the GM bailout. And thinking Highways are built so that GM, or any car company for that matter, is directly pumping $$ into the car manufacturers pocket is a dumb crap way of thinking.
-
MC,
Your post are so fracking stupid, I honestly thought you were fishing.
Sincerely,
FB
Aren't you the car salesman? Would make sense.
Nope; I just don't see where me thinking you're a dumb crap means I support the GM bailout. And thinking Highways are built so that GM, or any car company for that matter, is directly pumping $$ into the car manufacturers pocket is a dumb crap way of thinking.
I didn't say it was the same as directly pumping money into their pockets. Did you not read all my posts?
-
fb seems really stupid. good to know.
-
I stopped after this:
I don't get how people who support the government building roads can be pissed about the government giving money to an auto maker.
:dunno:
maybe I'm reading it wrong; but I shouldn't be pissed about GM getting my tax $, when I think GM is crap and needs to go bankrupt; but I should be pissed because I'm driving my Honda on nice highways funded by Tax $$.
So, please elaborate and enlighten all of us; dipcrap.
-
Idea:
Cars are durable goods and people won't "just find someone else" to buy a car from, they just won't buy a car. It isn't like GM will just sell its enormous infastructure/car dealerships/future liabilities/workforce to Nissan and everything will carry on. The failure of GM will create an ENORMOUS inefficiency in the market (there will be people who are able to work and skilled without anything to do etc.) and while for someone who has easily transferable skills like an IT guy it would just be as simple as moving (frictional unemployment) this would create an enormous glut of structural unemployment (GM Detroit auto-workers are not going to up and move to Monterrey and work for less money for Ford or to Japan etc.) which still exists despite whatever that moron Tom Friedman says.
As has been previously said, without even getting in to the full multiplier effect of GM's failure on the auto parts/steel etc. industries it will be an enormous cluster-f if GM goes. I mean it is conceivable that it may be cheaper to let GM fail and then facilitate a buyer with some govt. $$, but there is no private entity in the world remotely positioned to pick up the pieces for even nickels on the dollar from GM's failure. The credit crisis has put everyone in a position to avoid any risk, so not only can GM not dig themselves out of this, no other company can help themselves by vulturing off of GM to get out of this. The global auto market is franked. The GLOBAL market for credit is franked.
I'm not saying any of this is ideal and I am not at all excited about the government doing any of this, but go talk to World Bank about how they have rescued economies like Japan, Korea, Brasil or Argentina when their banks failed. Buyout city, then turn it back to private investors. Pretty much the only way.
-
Nonsense. Do you really believe that multimillion dollar plants are just going to sit empty? If GM did cease to exist, something/someone would purchase the plant/equipment and Detroit would be pumping out cars still.
Most likely scenario: GM goes under, everyone loses their job; GM re-opens under new management a week later, everyone's back to work within a month, without unions telling a button pusher they're worth $30/hour; they'll only be paid 15$ an hour, all the employees default on their loans, etc, becuase they're dipcraps and they are living in houses & driving vehicles that factory workers should not be able to afford. Banks in the detrioit area are screwed over; but the rest of the nation's banks will be fine.
GM will now be successful as they don't have the overhead they once did and can afford to sell cars cheaper. Toyota and Honda are now fracked because they can't compete with the low priced american made cars, but the entire country can buy new cars from an american made source.
Banks will eventually rebound, or if they don't new banks will move in, because there's an entire factory of "skilled" labors working & living in mobil homes or apartments, that need to buy that $50,000 house to get back on their feet.
The system will be rebalanced after a couple of years. People will be getting paid what their worth & as long as banks don't give loans to high risk people, banks will rebound.
Capitalism is like a forrest. It will grow for several years and if there are no major fires along they way, dense brush and dead crap will accumulate until there's a huge fracking fire that wipes the slate clean for it to start all over. If this forrest doesn't burn down now, It will just be more fuel for a larger fire down the road.
So eat a dick all you haters.
-
fb. Despite what you may think, people that are smart don't buy a new car every other year. When people stop spending money like morons, they just keep their car for 10 years. Cars are not like food, you cut back big time in lean times. GM is not going to be bought up quickly 1. because no one has the money to buy one of the biggest companies in the world with the credit market as is (assuming no govt. assistance here or overseas) 2. the car market is completely dicked for the foreseeable future.
-
Most importantly, everyone at any level of the auto industry is a slimy piece of sh*t.
-
fb. Despite what you may think, people that are smart don't buy a new cars every other year ever.
FYP
-
fb. Despite what you may think, people that are smart don't buy a new car every other year. When people stop spending money like morons, they just keep their car for 10 years. Cars are not like food, you cut back big time in lean times. GM is not going to be bought up quickly 1. because no one has the money to buy one of the biggest companies in the world with the credit market as is (assuming no govt. assistance here or overseas) 2. the car market is completely dicked for the foreseeable future.
1. Your assumption that even half of the country that can afford a new car could be labeled as intellegent or even smart is humorous to say the least.
An intelligent person would also stop driving a suburban that gets 10 miles to the gallon when gas is 3.50/ per but people still drove them as long as they could afford it.
My point is people are always going to live to the very edge of there means as long as they can. Aircraft employees are still hurting from the Boeing strike; not because they were on 3 day work weeks for 3 months, but because they've developed a lifestyle based off a 60 hour work with with 20 hours of that being time and a half. What kind of moron would set their budget based off of income that is not guaranteed.... like overtime? Nearly every person that works in that industry... that's who. They're the middle class of Wichita, and no one is cleared to work overtime. They're still hurting even though they're back to work full time. When things even out in a couple of years, and they're back to work full time... Everyone WILL go buy a new car, because they think they can. Along with other crap they don't need. because they want it.
2. People are still making $$. Not to the extreme that they once were, but someone out there is still raking it in. GM will not cease to be a company regardless of it still being GM or if someone buys them out. You believe the media too much.
3. The auto market is dicked for the foreseable future because everyone is dicked. The sooner everything crashes, the sooner everything will be built back up. The bubble is going to burst, how much it drags everything down is dependant on how large that bubble gets. Let it burst now.
-
Most importantly, everyone at any level of the auto industry is a slimy piece of sh*t.
No slimy'r than any other industry. People in general are slimy pieces of crap. The sooner people realize that, the less bitter they will be when they get dicked over for being dumb asses.
-
You're right fbwillie, no big problem. Banks will fail, GM will fail and all those rich venture capitalists will just swoop in to make everything happy again.
Never mind that GM is an enormous, out-dated, crap business model behemoth! We'll just slash salary and still be competitive! Won't need any bailouts or any subsidies to compete when every other government on Earth is bailing the crap out of their manufacturing base/banking industries. We'll compete because we're 'murrican and we're just f'ing better!
lol's at your entire world view if you can even call it that.
-
fb. Despite what you may think, people that are smart don't buy a new cars every other year ever.
FYP
Who the hell would buy a "new" car anyway. They depriciate way too much when you drive them off the lot. It makes MUCH better sense to buy a year old model, or at least a demo model, with about 10,000 miles on it and keep it to at least the end of the warranty/extended warranty. Unless, that is, you're a complete ignoramus.
-
You two do realize that whether or not federal bailouts happen is almost entirely a moot point don't you? The sheer volume of derivatives contracts outstanding coupled with the fact that parties to same stand ahead of all other creditors in US bankruptcy courts is going to crush the economy if things don't turn around pronto. If that cascade starts, and judging by AIG's results it might well already be underway, the collapse will be far worse than anything the world has ever seen. No amount of hot-off-the-presses Monopoly money will stop it.
-
You two do realize that whether or not federal bailouts happen is almost entirely a moot point don't you? The sheer volume of derivatives contracts outstanding coupled with the fact that parties to same stand ahead of all other creditors in US bankruptcy courts is going to crush the economy if things don't turn around pronto. If that cascade starts, and judging by AIG's results it might well already be underway, the collapse will be far worse than anything the world has ever seen. No amount of hot-off-the-presses Monopoly money will stop it.
You might as well :banghead:. It will hurt less.
-
You two do realize that whether or not federal bailouts happen is almost entirely a moot point don't you? The sheer volume of derivatives contracts outstanding coupled with the fact that parties to same stand ahead of all other creditors in US bankruptcy courts is going to crush the economy if things don't turn around pronto. If that cascade starts, and judging by AIG's results it might well already be underway, the collapse will be far worse than anything the world has ever seen. No amount of hot-off-the-presses Monopoly money will stop it.
Most of the time I think your are a fascist &@#%, but I completely agree with you on this point.
Bad stuff is just beginning.
I honestly half expect to be moving the old lady and I into the folks basement by this time next year. I am going to go drink now.
-
You two do realize that whether or not federal bailouts happen is almost entirely a moot point don't you? The sheer volume of derivatives contracts outstanding coupled with the fact that parties to same stand ahead of all other creditors in US bankruptcy courts is going to crush the economy if things don't turn around pronto. If that cascade starts, and judging by AIG's results it might well already be underway, the collapse will be far worse than anything the world has ever seen. No amount of hot-off-the-presses Monopoly money will stop it.
Most of the time I think your are a fascist frack, but I completely agree with you on this point.
Bad stuff is just beginning.
I honestly half expect to be moving the old lady and I into the folks basement by this time next year. I am going to go drink now.
Actually Pete I'm an anti-fascist (and an anti-socialist, and an anti-communist) as I in no way want the government in bed with big business. I'm pretty much against all "-isms" and "-ists".
-
Oh and Pete, just so you'll be able to recognize fascism when it happens here's a great example. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030503762.html?dlbk) Anyone still want to argue that the lefties are for the little guy? :lol:
-
fb. Despite what you may think, people that are smart don't buy a new cars every other year ever.
FYP
Who the hell would buy a "new" car anyway. They depriciate way too much when you drive them off the lot. It makes MUCH better sense to buy a year old model, or at least a demo model, with about 10,000 miles on it and keep it to at least the end of the warranty/extended warranty. Unless, that is, you're a complete ignoramus.
Wait 3 years. That's the point where a majority of the depreciation has run it's course. That's the inflection point on the depreciation graph. If you buy a new car, you may as well throw cash out the window every few miles, since that's essentially what you are doing by accepting the majority of the depreciation.
-
You two do realize that whether or not federal bailouts happen is almost entirely a moot point don't you? The sheer volume of derivatives contracts outstanding coupled with the fact that parties to same stand ahead of all other creditors in US bankruptcy courts is going to crush the economy if things don't turn around pronto. If that cascade starts, and judging by AIG's results it might well already be underway, the collapse will be far worse than anything the world has ever seen. No amount of hot-off-the-presses Monopoly money will stop it.
Most of the time I think your are a fascist frack, but I completely agree with you on this point.
Bad stuff is just beginning.
I honestly half expect to be moving the old lady and I into the folks basement by this time next year. I am going to go drink smoke hash now.
-
You two do realize that whether or not federal bailouts happen is almost entirely a moot point don't you? The sheer volume of derivatives contracts outstanding coupled with the fact that parties to same stand ahead of all other creditors in US bankruptcy courts is going to crush the economy if things don't turn around pronto. If that cascade starts, and judging by AIG's results it might well already be underway, the collapse will be far worse than anything the world has ever seen. No amount of hot-off-the-presses Monopoly money will stop it.
pretty much what I've been say'n.... except it's too late, the bailouts have already come.
You're right fbwillie, no big problem. Banks will fail, GM will fail and all those rich venture capitalists will just swoop in to make everything happy again.
Never mind that GM is an enormous, out-dated, crap business model behemoth! We'll just slash salary and still be competitive! Won't need any bailouts or any subsidies to compete when every other government on Earth is bailing the crap out of their manufacturing base/banking industries. We'll compete because we're 'murrican and we're just f'ing better!
lol's at your entire world view if you can even call it that.
GM's problem could be solved pretty easily. They're failing because they're paying out more money to retiree's & current employees than any CEO could burn in a lifetime. The lazy ass union has these "skilled workers" believing they're worth more than what they are. If their jobs so &@#%ing horrible and underappreciated, they should be able to find a new job with no problem.... I mean, they are "skilled workers" right?
&@#% the employees that didn't do crap for their retirement but believe someone else would take care of them. Tell all new employees when their hired back they'll start at a competitive wage of half of what they were making and if they don't like it, find someone that will pay them what they want.
It's not about being "'murican or just &@#%ing better". It's about the opportunity that's there. The factory won't stay empty. People won't just sit on their ass when the $$ runs out. And lifestyle's won't easily change. People will always strive to have it better than they did 3 months ago. And a bailout isn't doing anything but exchanging debt from one hand to the other; except it's being multiplied.
It'll be hard for a while, but its &@#%ing coming no matter what. The sooner it happens the less damage it will create and the sooner people will get over it. Another bailout isn't doing anything but delaying a crash. It will come and it won't be the end of the world.
-
Oh and Pete, just so you'll be able to recognize fascism when it happens here's a great example. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030503762.html?dlbk) Anyone still want to argue that the lefties are for the little guy? :lol:
That article is BS. Rich people don't exist, right KK?
-
You two do realize that whether or not federal bailouts happen is almost entirely a moot point don't you? The sheer volume of derivatives contracts outstanding coupled with the fact that parties to same stand ahead of all other creditors in US bankruptcy courts is going to crush the economy if things don't turn around pronto. If that cascade starts, and judging by AIG's results it might well already be underway, the collapse will be far worse than anything the world has ever seen. No amount of hot-off-the-presses Monopoly money will stop it.
pretty much what I've been say'n.... except it's too late, the bailouts have already come.
You're right fbwillie, no big problem. Banks will fail, GM will fail and all those rich venture capitalists will just swoop in to make everything happy again.
Never mind that GM is an enormous, out-dated, crap business model behemoth! We'll just slash salary and still be competitive! Won't need any bailouts or any subsidies to compete when every other government on Earth is bailing the crap out of their manufacturing base/banking industries. We'll compete because we're 'murrican and we're just f'ing better!
lol's at your entire world view if you can even call it that.
GM's problem could be solved pretty easily. They're failing because they're paying out more money to retiree's & current employees than any CEO could burn in a lifetime. The lazy ass union has these "skilled workers" believing they're worth more than what they are. If their jobs so fracking horrible and underappreciated, they should be able to find a new job with no problem.... I mean, they are "skilled workers" right?
frack the employees that didn't do crap for their retirement but believe someone else would take care of them. Tell all new employees when their hired back they'll start at a competitive wage of half of what they were making and if they don't like it, find someone that will pay them what they want.
It's not about being "'murican or just fracking better". It's about the opportunity that's there. The factory won't stay empty. People won't just sit on their ass when the $$ runs out. And lifestyle's won't easily change. People will always strive to have it better than they did 3 months ago. And a bailout isn't doing anything but exchanging debt from one hand to the other; except it's being multiplied.
It'll be hard for a while, but its fracking coming no matter what. The sooner it happens the less damage it will create and the sooner people will get over it. Another bailout isn't doing anything but delaying a crash. It will come and it won't be the end of the world.
Yeah, that's pretty much the opposite of what every economist is saying.
As for your other two points 1. you're right the workers were getting paid too much, you know what else? the cars got a terrible reputation and the innovation lagged behind foreign auto. They got stuck into a model that focused on trucks/suvs, GM made terrible redundant lines that cost them $$ and they are NEVER going to be able to compete with the labor markets of Mexico or India or China. Those auto plants are going some place cheaper with cheaper talent. People in the auto industry have skills. Not just the people on the assembly line moron, but all of the engineers, draftsmen, fabrication guys, skilled welders that are largely based on the Detroit/automaker industry. True, theoretically they could adapt and get other jobs. BUT THERE AREN'T ANY FREAKING JOBS. Nobodies taking on a project that hasn't worked in their industry and may or may not need to re-tool before they become a valued member of their team.
You can get your rocks off on trying to snort at the sit and pretend like nothing is wrong, but when GM fails it will be bad and no one is stepping in to clean them up except the govt. No one has the power of the genie from Aladdin to pick up GM and put it in a different country with a more friendly business/labor environment where it belongs.
But carry on with your car salesman gig, sounds like you're doing great.
-
The factory won't stay empty.
the world is filled with empty factories.
-
They got stuck into a model that focused on trucks/suvs ....
They were forced into it by CAFE standards which pushed the cars American wanted out of the lineups of American car makers while exempting light trucks (pickups) & models based on light trucks (SUVs). Thus to get the larger vehicles they wanted Americans began to buy SUVs since the car companies were required not to produce the cars Americans wanted in the quantities in which Americans wanted them.
The second deadly prong of CAFE was that it forced American car makers to cut every corner imagineable on small cheap cars and to sell them at near zero profit in an attempt to bring their fleet economy up to the legal mandate. Americans didn't want all of those little pieces of crap but to avoid massive legal sanction the car builders had to build them and sell them.
Did GM get "stuck into a model that focused on trucks/SUVs"? Sure, but it was the federal government and its CAFE regulation that did it.
-
Oh and don't forget that the Wagner Act is largely responsible for the excessive labor costs experienced by American car builders so we can chalk that particular problem up to government intervention in the marketplace as well.
-
Yeah, that's pretty much the opposite of what every economist is saying.
As for your other two points 1. you're right the workers were getting paid too much, you know what else? the cars got a terrible reputation and the innovation lagged behind foreign auto. They got stuck into a model that focused on trucks/suvs, GM made terrible redundant lines that cost them $$ and they are NEVER going to be able to compete with the labor markets of Mexico or India or China. Those auto plants are going some place cheaper with cheaper talent. People in the auto industry have skills. Not just the people on the assembly line moron, but all of the engineers, draftsmen, fabrication guys, skilled welders that are largely based on the Detroit/automaker industry. True, theoretically they could adapt and get other jobs. BUT THERE AREN'T ANY FREAKING JOBS. Nobodies taking on a project that hasn't worked in their industry and may or may not need to re-tool before they become a valued member of their team.
You can get your rocks off on trying to snort at the sit and pretend like nothing is wrong, but when GM fails it will be bad and no one is stepping in to clean them up except the govt. No one has the power of the genie from Aladdin to pick up GM and put it in a different country with a more friendly business/labor environment where it belongs.
But carry on with your car salesman gig, sounds like you're doing great.
Are these the same dipcrap economist that saw this crap coming in 2001?
I'm not a &@#%ing car salesman. I worked at a dealership for 2 years as a Customer service manager. Do you honestly think I would want GM to fail if I worked in that industry any more? That part of my life is over and I learned more about people there than any place I've ever been, included 4 years at KSU. The honest truth is, Car salesman are no worse than you. The difference is, their ability to pay the bills depends on being a slimy piece of crap. Most people do it for no reason at all.
As for "Skilled workers" I'm not talking about getting new jobs now, I'm talking about the last time contract negotiations came around. FTR, I'm bagging on the unions more than the employee's. A company should be able to fire anyone that has the mindset of: "That's not in my job description, Now give me a raise and a pension that doesn't exist in any other industry" I'm talking about the people that are sitting in their hummers screaming at a channel 3 news camera saying: "Have you read this contract? It's wrong what their doing to us." It's a &@#%ing joke. We're in this mess because of all the entitlement people feel. No one owes anyone a &@#%ing thing unless you work for it. That's what’s wrong with everything. Pick a sector that's failing right now and I guarantee you it failed because people felt entitled to more than their "fair share"
Which brings me to my next point. GM got stuck on the suburban & truck line because that's what people want. The same stupid &@#%s that are complaining about gas mileage go into a dealership and drive a four cyl that gets 35 MPG against a V8 that gets 15 and will buy the car with more power every &@#%ing day. That's what GM owners want. Power and space they don't &@#%ing need. Hippies in california are the only ones that want anything different.
People that are smart and realize they don't need an 8 passenger vehicle to drive around their 3 kids go buy a &@#%ing used honda because they realize that's all they need. But those people rarely exist. Try experiencing real life before you go off and believe every &@#%ing thing the media shoves down your throat. The only thing that sucks about GM's business model is where the cash flow goes. The cars they make are entirely a result of what stupid craps buy. People don't want a &@#%ing "green" car. They want a big piece of crap that will pull their boat and shut their kids up with 3 DVD players in the back so each of their spoiled brat kids can tune out to sponge bob without their elbows touching. Liberal media is pointing the blame at auto industries for not venturing towards a more economical vehicle, but it's not their &@#%ing market. Honda & toyota sells cars to people that want to be responsible. And GM & Ford sells cars to dipcraps that want more than they need. That's how this crap works. GM will die unless they start building what their old customer base can afford. An $8,000 piece of crap with crank windows & a tape deck.
American's provided every inch of rope that is hanging us right now. Secure the noose, and kick the chair because our ass is done. And no amount of $$ from the government is going to stop this hangman.
-
The factory won't stay empty.
the world is filled with empty factories.
70,000 newly emptied ones in China alone according to something I ran across the other day.
-
The factory won't stay empty.
the world is filled with empty factories.
How many of them are car factories with multimillion dollar equipment?
-
regardless, they won't stay empty.
-
regardless, they won't stay empty.
In China that's probably true for the most part, in the US I'm not so certain. The economy here can only drag so many governmental anchors along behind it before it stalls more or less permanently.
-
They got stuck into a model that focused on trucks/suvs ....
They were forced into it by CAFE standards which pushed the cars American wanted out of the lineups of American car makers while exempting light trucks (pickups) & models based on light trucks (SUVs). Thus to get the larger vehicles they wanted Americans began to buy SUVs since the car companies were required not to produce the cars Americans wanted in the quantities in which Americans wanted them.
The second deadly prong of CAFE was that it forced American car makers to cut every corner imagineable on small cheap cars and to sell them at near zero profit in an attempt to bring their fleet economy up to the legal mandate. Americans didn't want all of those little pieces of crap but to avoid massive legal sanction the car builders had to build them and sell them.
Did GM get "stuck into a model that focused on trucks/SUVs"? Sure, but it was the federal government and its CAFE regulation that did it.
Partially, but partially because the only money they made significant profit on were luxury cars, trucks and SUV's. They couldn't compete in the cars that most americans drive (4-door sedans).
-
They got stuck into a model that focused on trucks/suvs ....
They were forced into it by CAFE standards which pushed the cars American wanted out of the lineups of American car makers while exempting light trucks (pickups) & models based on light trucks (SUVs). Thus to get the larger vehicles they wanted Americans began to buy SUVs since the car companies were required not to produce the cars Americans wanted in the quantities in which Americans wanted them.
The second deadly prong of CAFE was that it forced American car makers to cut every corner imagineable on small cheap cars and to sell them at near zero profit in an attempt to bring their fleet economy up to the legal mandate. Americans didn't want all of those little pieces of crap but to avoid massive legal sanction the car builders had to build them and sell them.
Did GM get "stuck into a model that focused on trucks/SUVs"? Sure, but it was the federal government and its CAFE regulation that did it.
Partially, but partially because the only money they made significant profit on were luxury cars, trucks and SUV's. They couldn't compete in the cars that most americans drive (4-door sedans).
The people that buy/lease cars every 3 years buy trucks & SUV's.
Sedan drivers don't buy cars but every 8 years. Not worth going after when foreign car companies own that market. Saturn was created to try to steal that market away. When it wasn't successful Saturn began making SUV's.
-
They got stuck into a model that focused on trucks/suvs ....
They were forced into it by CAFE standards which pushed the cars American wanted out of the lineups of American car makers while exempting light trucks (pickups) & models based on light trucks (SUVs). Thus to get the larger vehicles they wanted Americans began to buy SUVs since the car companies were required not to produce the cars Americans wanted in the quantities in which Americans wanted them.
The second deadly prong of CAFE was that it forced American car makers to cut every corner imagineable on small cheap cars and to sell them at near zero profit in an attempt to bring their fleet economy up to the legal mandate. Americans didn't want all of those little pieces of crap but to avoid massive legal sanction the car builders had to build them and sell them.
Did GM get "stuck into a model that focused on trucks/SUVs"? Sure, but it was the federal government and its CAFE regulation that did it.
Partially, but partially because the only money they made significant profit on were luxury cars, trucks and SUV's. They couldn't compete in the cars that most americans drive (4-door sedans).
That statement is demonstrably false as GM, Ford & Chrysler have historically had in excess of a 50% market share in the US. Thus since "most Americans" are driving products built by GM, Ford or Chrysler they, by definition, are competing just fine in the market segments that include the vehicles that "most Americans" drive.
And you know good and well that the reason they only made money on the higher-end market segments is because they were forced to sell a ton of crapty little cars to make their CAFE requirements and the only way for them to do that was to slash prices until they found buyers. Hence it's the government that is responsible for their higher-end products being the only ones turning a profit. Allow car makers to make cars of the types and in the amounts demanded by the market and you'll be on the road to a recovery. Force them to build cars better built by cheaper foreign competitors and/or cars the market doesn't want in the amounts required by government and of course they'll fail. Duh.
-
They got stuck into a model that focused on trucks/suvs ....
They were forced into it by CAFE standards which pushed the cars American wanted out of the lineups of American car makers while exempting light trucks (pickups) & models based on light trucks (SUVs). Thus to get the larger vehicles they wanted Americans began to buy SUVs since the car companies were required not to produce the cars Americans wanted in the quantities in which Americans wanted them.
The second deadly prong of CAFE was that it forced American car makers to cut every corner imagineable on small cheap cars and to sell them at near zero profit in an attempt to bring their fleet economy up to the legal mandate. Americans didn't want all of those little pieces of crap but to avoid massive legal sanction the car builders had to build them and sell them.
Did GM get "stuck into a model that focused on trucks/SUVs"? Sure, but it was the federal government and its CAFE regulation that did it.
Partially, but partially because the only money they made significant profit on were luxury cars, trucks and SUV's. They couldn't compete in the cars that most americans drive (4-door sedans).
That statement is demonstrably false as GM, Ford & Chrysler have historically had in excess of a 50% market share in the US. Thus since "most Americans" are driving products built by GM, Ford or Chrysler they, by definition, are competing just fine in the market segments that include the vehicles that "most Americans" drive.
And you know good and well that the reason they only made money on the higher-end market segments is because they were forced to sell a ton of crapty little cars to make their CAFE requirements and the only way for them to do that was to slash prices until they found buyers. Hence it's the government that is responsible for their higher-end products being the only ones turning a profit. Allow car makers to make cars of the types and in the amounts demanded by the market and you'll be on the road to a recovery. Force them to build cars better built by cheaper foreign competitors and/or cars the market doesn't want in the amounts required by government and of course they'll fail. Duh.
Agreed - GM's failure has nothing to do with a business model built around trucks and SUV's, gas prices skyrocketing, the sales of trucks/SUV's plummeting. It's all because poor lil ol' GM was forced to make compact cars since CAFE was passed 35 years ago.
And Americans hate small, fuel efficient cars. Just look @ the Prius. LOL @ Toyota for thinking a dorky looking 55MPG hybrid could sell in the US. :lol:
-
Agreed - GM's failure has nothing to do with a business model built around trucks and SUV's, gas prices skyrocketing, the sales of trucks/SUV's plummeting. It's all because poor lil ol' GM was forced to make compact cars since CAFE was passed 35 years ago.
And Americans hate small, fuel efficient cars. Just look @ the Prius. LOL @ Toyota for thinking a dorky looking 55MPG hybrid could sell in the US. :lol:
And GM or Ford aren't making Hybrid cars at all right now. An american made hybrid doesn't exist... and that's the real reason the Prius is doing so well.... there just aren't any other options. Tree hugg'n hippies would rather buy american; but instead are forced to appear elite and better than everyone else because they can afford to drop 30K on a car that will take 6 years to make up the difference in fuel they've saved.
-
Not an entirely change of subject, but....
A local parts dealer said that he can't get Ford truck parts anymore due to that portion of Ford Motor Parts being bought out by Peterbilt, with Peterbilt discontinuing the production. Uh-oh.
-
Not an entirely change of subject, but....
A local parts dealer said that he can't get Ford truck parts anymore due to that portion of Ford Motor Parts being bought out by Peterbilt, with Peterbilt discontinuing the production. Uh-oh.
Guys!-
remember that parts in Cars where lightning mcqueen gets separated from mac on the interstate and then chases down a different truck on accident and the other truck is like "Mac? I'm not a Mac...I'm a Peterbilt!" LMAO because they made the front of the Peterbilts grill look like facial hair. :lol:
-
Not an entirely change of subject, but....
A local parts dealer said that he can't get Ford truck parts anymore due to that portion of Ford Motor Parts being bought out by Peterbilt, with Peterbilt discontinuing the production. Uh-oh.
Guys!-
remember that parts in Cars where lightning mcqueen gets separated from mac on the interstate and then chases down a different truck on accident and the other truck is like "Mac? I'm not a Mac...I'm a Peterbilt!" LMAO because they made the front of the Peterbilts grill look like facial hair. :lol:
:lol: :lol:
-
Agreed - GM's failure has nothing to do with a business model built around trucks and SUV's, gas prices skyrocketing, the sales of trucks/SUV's plummeting. It's all because poor lil ol' GM was forced to make compact cars since CAFE was passed 35 years ago.
And Americans hate small, fuel efficient cars. Just look @ the Prius. LOL @ Toyota for thinking a dorky looking 55MPG hybrid could sell in the US. :lol:
And GM or Ford aren't making Hybrid cars at all right now. An american made hybrid doesn't exist... and that's the real reason the Prius is doing so well.... there just aren't any other options. Tree hugg'n hippies would rather buy american; but instead are forced to appear elite and better than everyone else because they can afford to drop 30K on a car that will take 6 years to make up the difference in fuel they've saved.
LOL...you're completely missing my point. Props for somehow making a horrible argument against a non-existent point, though.
-
You two do realize that whether or not federal bailouts happen is almost entirely a moot point don't you? The sheer volume of derivatives contracts outstanding coupled with the fact that parties to same stand ahead of all other creditors in US bankruptcy courts is going to crush the economy if things don't turn around pronto. If that cascade starts, and judging by AIG's results it might well already be underway, the collapse will be far worse than anything the world has ever seen. No amount of hot-off-the-presses Monopoly money will stop it.
Most of the time I think your are a fascist frack, but I completely agree with you on this point.
Bad stuff is just beginning.
I honestly half expect to be moving the old lady and I into the folks basement by this time next year. I am going to go drink smoke hash now.
Better. Good fix.
-
You two do realize that whether or not federal bailouts happen is almost entirely a moot point don't you? The sheer volume of derivatives contracts outstanding coupled with the fact that parties to same stand ahead of all other creditors in US bankruptcy courts is going to crush the economy if things don't turn around pronto. If that cascade starts, and judging by AIG's results it might well already be underway, the collapse will be far worse than anything the world has ever seen. No amount of hot-off-the-presses Monopoly money will stop it.
Most of the time I think your are a fascist frack, but I completely agree with you on this point.
Bad stuff is just beginning.
I honestly half expect to be moving the old lady and I into the folks basement by this time next year. I am going to go drink smoke hash now.
Better. Good fix.
:scared:
-
Agreed - GM's failure has nothing to do with a business model built around trucks and SUV's, gas prices skyrocketing, the sales of trucks/SUV's plummeting. It's all because poor lil ol' GM was forced to make compact cars since CAFE was passed 35 years ago.
I understand that you're just ignoring the facts but again: that business model developed because it was the only way they could meet the CAFE mandate while staying in business. American buyers didn't (and largely still don't) want the tiny tinny little crapboxes that our politicians want us to drive, thus the only way to sell enough to meet the CAFE mandates was to lower the price until those buyers on the very bottom of the economic food chain bit. By the time they reached that price they were turning no profit on the little crapboxes so they did what any sane rational business would do in a similar circumstance: they oriented their business towards those product lines where they could turn a profit but they were, unfortunately, forced to continue subsidizing the crapbox market as well in order to meet their CAFE mandates. Really, this isn't all that hard.
And Americans hate small, fuel efficient cars. Just look @ the Prius. LOL @ Toyota for thinking a dorky looking 55MPG hybrid could sell in the US. :lol:
LOL @ you adding 10 MPG to Honda's own over-inflated estimate of the Prius' efficiency. And LOL @ anyone who believes they'll actually get 45 MPG routinely in one. Unlike most of the greenies here I actually spent a couple of weeks driving one and can say with some certainty that if you baby it along and try to never allow the gas engine to engage you'll be in the high 30s. Not bad but well short of what many pure gasoline / diesel vehicles are capable of in real life. There are some very efficient small cars, much more so than the Prius, and some built by American car companies that simply aren't brought to the US because: 1) there's little demand; 2) they don't comply with our Clean Air Act (though oddly they're good enough for Europe), and 3) they don't meet our safety regulations (again oddly they're good enough for Europe) and/or lawyers would destroy manufacturers putting them on the road here.
And a big LOL @ the idea that Americans are clamoring for small cars. (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qve2Ds-cMvk/SOUJXFDsYqI/AAAAAAAAAgg/xVLGGNndFjM/s1600-h/Auto+sales+%26+market+share_001.jpg) Sales were improving relative to other options during that month but recall that we were just seeing the end of $4/gal gasoline, at sub-$2/gal that statistic will rebound in the other direction.
-
Agreed - GM's failure has nothing to do with a business model built around trucks and SUV's, gas prices skyrocketing, the sales of trucks/SUV's plummeting. It's all because poor lil ol' GM was forced to make compact cars since CAFE was passed 35 years ago.
I understand that you're just ignoring the facts but again: that business model developed because it was the only way they could meet the CAFE mandate while staying in business. American buyers didn't (and largely still don't) want the tiny tinny little crapboxes that our politicians want us to drive, thus the only way to sell enough to meet the CAFE mandates was to lower the price until those buyers on the very bottom of the economic food chain bit. By the time they reached that price they were turning no profit on the little crapboxes so they did what any sane rational business would do in a similar circumstance: they oriented their business towards those product lines where they could turn a profit but they were, unfortunately, forced to continue subsidizing the crapbox market as well in order to meet their CAFE mandates. Really, this isn't all that hard.
They had 35 years to make "crapboxes" profitable, and learned absolutely nothing from the energy crisis or the 70's. They were stupid to build a business model around $1 gasoline. Toyota was smarter than the Americans and figured out a great way to make a small car profitable (and wildly popular).
LOL @ you adding 10 MPG to Honda's own over-inflated estimate of the Prius' efficiency. And LOL @ anyone who believes they'll actually get 45 MPG routinely in one. Unlike most of the greenies here I actually spent a couple of weeks driving one and can say with some certainty that if you baby it along and try to never allow the gas engine to engage you'll be in the high 30s. Not bad but well short of what many pure gasoline / diesel vehicles are capable of in real life. There are some very efficient small cars, much more so than the Prius, and some built by American car companies that simply aren't brought to the US because: 1) there's little demand; 2) they don't comply with our Clean Air Act (though oddly they're good enough for Europe), and 3) they don't meet our safety regulations (again oddly they're good enough for Europe) and/or lawyers would destroy manufacturers putting them on the road here.
Jesus, when you're backed into a corner, you sure do use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. The actual MPG of the Prius is irrelevant. The point is that Toyota showed that Americans want fuel efficient vehicles that they think are good for the environment. GM, meanwhile, viewed small, fuel efficient cars as "unprofitable crapboxes" and put all their eggs in the Escalade basket.
And a big LOL @ the idea that Americans are clamoring for small cars. Sales were improving relative to other options during that month but recall that we were just seeing the end of $4/gal gasoline, at sub-$2/gal that statistic will rebound in the other direction.
LMAO! This is your argument that people don't want small cars?!?!?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qve2Ds-cMvk/SOUJXFDsYqI/AAAAAAAAAgg/xVLGGNndFjM/s1600/Auto%2Bsales%2B%26%2Bmarket%2Bshare_001.jpg)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Small cars are around 15% of the monthly market, even with gas @ $4/gal (check the date). That's not overwhelming demand in anyone's book. :lol:
-
Jesus, when you're backed into a corner, you sure do use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. The actual MPG of the Prius is irrelevant. The point is that Toyota showed that Americans want fuel efficient vehicles that they think are good for the environment. GM, meanwhile, viewed small, fuel efficient cars as "unprofitable crapboxes" and put all their eggs in the Escalade basket.
The fact that you lied about it is quite relevant, even more relevant is the fact that you're now defending the lie.
And again you're ignoring the point: there are far more efficient vehicles on the road than the Prius but it's your precious lefty big government regulatory state that's prohibiting their import (even the ones made by US auto makers overseas). Those vehicles, by the way, are far better for the environment that the Prius because: 1) they use less fuel; and 2) they don't contain hundreds of pounds of highly toxic batteries.
Try again.
-
They had 35 years to make "crapboxes" profitable, and learned absolutely nothing from the energy crisis or the 70's. They were stupid to build a business model around $1 gasoline. Toyota was smarter than the Americans and figured out a great way to make a small car profitable (and wildly popular).
Again: no one would buy them here, even now they're but a small fraction of the market. No rational business would spend "35 years" dumping money into a product lines on the far ass-end of sales. Gasoline was far more expensive in markets overseas thus overseas car builders had very strong incentives to build smaller more efficient cars much sooner than did domestic auto makers. Again, understanding the history here really isn't all that difficult.
-
Small cars are around 15% of the monthly market, even with gas @ $4/gal (check the date). That's not overwhelming demand in anyone's book. :lol:
LOL. OK, dude. GM obviously made the right decision when they decided to write off 15% of the market as little "crapboxes". It's especially obvious when you look at all the success they've been having since gas prices have fallen. People are back to buying Escalades!
Jesus, when you're backed into a corner, you sure do use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. The actual MPG of the Prius is irrelevant. The point is that Toyota showed that Americans want fuel efficient vehicles that they think are good for the environment. GM, meanwhile, viewed small, fuel efficient cars as "unprofitable crapboxes" and put all their eggs in the Escalade basket.
The fact that you lied about it is quite relevant, even more relevant is the fact that you're now defending the lie.
And again you're ignoring the point: there are far more efficient vehicles on the road than the Prius but it's your precious lefty big government regulatory state that's prohibiting their import (even the ones made by US auto makers overseas). Those vehicles, by the way, are far better for the environment that the Prius because: 1) they use less fuel; and 2) they don't contain hundreds of pounds of highly toxic batteries.
Try again.
Again, not the point. I'm all in favor of more fuel efficient options coming to the market, especially diesels like you seem to be alluding to. My point is Toyota proved you can successfuly sell a fuel efficient crapbox to the American market, despite being under the exact same restrictions the Big 3 were under. GM could have done something similar - they chose not to.
Again: no one would buy them here, even now they're but a small fraction of the market. No rational business would spend "35 years" dumping money into a product lines on the far ass-end of sales. Gasoline was far more expensive in markets overseas thus overseas car builders had very strong incentives to build smaller more efficient cars much sooner than did domestic auto makers. Again, understanding the history here really isn't all that difficult.
Does GM not sell vehicles overseas? :dunno:
-
So guess who's doing a group industry analysis on the transportation industry in their business strategy class?
ME
Guess what company I'm researching?
GM
I wonder if I can reference people from message boards... Might look something like this
According to AZCat from ksufans.com :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:
Michigancat counters with :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:
jbleinweber points out :lol: :lol: :lol:
In summary GM is F'ed in the A and will likely go bankrupt due to poor strategic planning and a $1,600 legacy cost for every vehicle produced.
On a side note I found an interesting statistic, In 2006 GM was the largest healthcare provider in the world.
-
And GM or Ford aren't making Hybrid cars at all right now.
:confused:
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escapehybrid/
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion/models/
Think you might be a little confused lil' guy. Best to just leave Ford out of this, much better off.
-
1) there's little demand; 2) they don't comply with our Clean Air Act (though oddly they're good enough for Europe), and 3) they don't meet our safety regulations (again oddly they're good enough for Europe) and/or lawyers would destroy manufacturers putting them on the road here.
there is demand in the us (and canada and mexico). i don't know what the market would be, but it would certainly be large enough to be worth selling to.
agree that it is ridiculous that ford can't sell some of the best vehicles they make in the us.
-
And GM or Ford aren't making Hybrid cars at all right now.
:confused:
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escapehybrid/
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion/models/
Think you might be a little confused lil' guy. Best to just leave Ford out of this, much better off.
Was sarcasm; read rusty's post that I was replying to; He tried to make the point that GM isn't taking advantage of the market that prius owns... he wrote it off as, "i wasn't even trying to make a point... blah blah blah... I'm not going to dispute anything you say because you're stupid... blah blah blah.
Nevermind that I pointed out several post ago GM tried the take the small cheap sedan market with Saturn in the 90's but realized GM buyers only want gas hogging sh1t boxes that can pull 10,000 lbs.
I guess my attempt at sarcasm was trying to dumb down my post so that dipcraps like rusty can keep up with the argument; but I can't get a rebuttal that way either.
-
1) there's little demand; 2) they don't comply with our Clean Air Act (though oddly they're good enough for Europe), and 3) they don't meet our safety regulations (again oddly they're good enough for Europe) and/or lawyers would destroy manufacturers putting them on the road here.
there is demand in the us (and canada and mexico). i don't know what the market would be, but it would certainly be large enough to be worth selling to.
agree that it is ridiculous that ford can't sell some of the best vehicles they make in the us.
Is this why Honda discontinued the Accord Hybrid in 2007? You guys don't know a &@#%ing thing about the car industry.
-
And GM or Ford aren't making Hybrid cars at all right now.
:confused:
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escapehybrid/
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion/models/
Think you might be a little confused lil' guy. Best to just leave Ford out of this, much better off.
Was sarcasm; read rusty's post that I was replying to; He tried to make the point that GM isn't taking advantage of the market that prius owns... he wrote it off as, "i wasn't even trying to make a point... blah blah blah... I'm not going to dispute anything you say because you're stupid... blah blah blah.
They came in waaaaaay too late and really don't offer anything that competes with the Prius. Comparing their line of hybrid pickups to the Prius is LOLeriffic
1) there's little demand; 2) they don't comply with our Clean Air Act (though oddly they're good enough for Europe), and 3) they don't meet our safety regulations (again oddly they're good enough for Europe) and/or lawyers would destroy manufacturers putting them on the road here.
there is demand in the us (and canada and mexico). i don't know what the market would be, but it would certainly be large enough to be worth selling to.
agree that it is ridiculous that ford can't sell some of the best vehicles they make in the us.
Is this why Honda discontinued the Accord Hybrid in 2007? You guys don't know a fracking thing about the car industry.
They discontinued the Accord Hybrid isn't what people want. They want smaller and more fuel efficient, like the Civic Hybrid, which they are continuing to sell.
-
Is this why Honda discontinued the Accord Hybrid in 2007? You guys don't know a fracking thing about the car industry.
:lol:
-
Time and Time again it's been shown that the current ROI on the premium price for Hybrids is absurd . . . they've got a long way to go, but hey, they're "sexy" and make tree hugger types feel good about themselves.
GM is screwed because they should've dropped Pontiac, Saturn, and probaby Buick 5 or 6 years ago.
-
And GM or Ford aren't making Hybrid cars at all right now.
:confused:
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escapehybrid/
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion/models/
Think you might be a little confused lil' guy. Best to just leave Ford out of this, much better off.
Was sarcasm; read rusty's post that I was replying to; He tried to make the point that GM isn't taking advantage of the market that prius owns... he wrote it off as, "i wasn't even trying to make a point... blah blah blah... I'm not going to dispute anything you say because you're stupid... blah blah blah.
They came in waaaaaay too late and really don't offer anything that competes with the Prius. Comparing their line of hybrid pickups to the Prius is LOLeriffic
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The fusion is being touted as the best in class hybrid, but please, continue to preach to me about my industry. Ford's power transition is especially impressive.
-
And GM or Ford aren't making Hybrid cars at all right now.
:confused:
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escapehybrid/
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion/models/
Think you might be a little confused lil' guy. Best to just leave Ford out of this, much better off.
Was sarcasm; read rusty's post that I was replying to; He tried to make the point that GM isn't taking advantage of the market that prius owns... he wrote it off as, "i wasn't even trying to make a point... blah blah blah... I'm not going to dispute anything you say because you're stupid... blah blah blah.
They came in waaaaaay too late and really don't offer anything that competes with the Prius. Comparing their line of hybrid pickups to the Prius is LOLeriffic
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The fusion is being touted as the best in class hybrid, but please, continue to preach to me about my industry. Ford's power transition is especially impressive.
I was speaking specifically about GM. But are you going to seriously argue that the Fusion Hybrid didn't come to market about 4 years too late?
-
Hey look; I can make good arguements too: :lol:
-
Ahhh, hybrids.
Are these really going to be better for the environment in the long run? More batteries in landfills and recycling mills. Do we even have the clean technology to handle heavy metal waste? How long do the batteries last? And can I really just plug my car into a large socket in my garage (if I have a garage).
Seems like people throw around the hybrid word as if that is the new business model all auto manufacturers should abide by.
-
You must be new to america; Hybrids are all that dood. But not those crapty GM hybrids that actually get 38 MPG when they say 38 MPG.... but those trendy awesome Hybrids that get 38 mpg, but everyone thinks they get 55 mpg so you can look like you really care about the environment. ya know?
-
You must be new to america; Hybrids are all that dood. But not those crapty GM hybrids that actually get 38 MPG when they say 38 MPG.... but those trendy awesome Hybrids that get 38 mpg, but everyone thinks they get 55 mpg so you can look like you really care about the environment. ya know?
An attitude similar to this is why GM is on the verge of going out of business.
-
You must be new to america; Hybrids are all that dood. But not those crapty GM hybrids that actually get 38 MPG when they say 38 MPG.... but those trendy awesome Hybrids that get 38 mpg, but everyone thinks they get 55 mpg so you can look like you really care about the environment. ya know?
An attitude similar to this is why GM is on the verge of going out of business.
qft.
I think hybrids will descrease our need for oil to commuter transportation...but, yeah, but I think people are looking at them as an alternative to $4.00 a gallon gas which will inevitably return once the economy improves.
FBWillies post illustrates that not only does GM not have a clue about their business model...but their marketing and design strategy sucks too. Everything from the GM logo to their annoying commericals screams "don't buy me".
-
I was speaking specifically about GM. But are you going to seriously argue that the Fusion Hybrid didn't come to market about 4 years too late?
It was a lot cheaper to license hybrid tech from toyota and engineer a better system from there, than to incur the R&D costs of the first mover. Have a look at the returns, Toyota would have been SOL if it weren't for the interesting psychosis that some americans have been afflicted by recently in regards to hybrids.
-
You must be new to america; Hybrids are all that dood. But not those crapty GM hybrids that actually get 38 MPG when they say 38 MPG.... but those trendy awesome Hybrids that get 38 mpg, but everyone thinks they get 55 mpg so you can look like you really care about the environment. ya know?
An attitude similar to this is why GM is on the verge of going out of business.
So according to you: GM's biggest problem is that they didn't lie to a significant enough degree about the fuel efficiency of their vehicles. Got it.
-
Just a quick poll... how many of you have worked in the car business at all and dealt on a daily basis with what consumers "say" they want in a vehicle.
-
Just a quick poll... how many of you have worked in the car business at all and dealt on a daily basis with what consumers "say" they want in a vehicle.
I've actually worked for an auto dealer (Ford) before, but I'm looking at what people are actually buying rather than using your method of relying on your experience ripping people off at a POS Saturn dealership.
-
Just a quick poll... how many of you have worked in the car business at all and dealt on a daily basis with what consumers "say" they want in a vehicle.
I've actually worked for an auto dealer (Ford) before, but I'm looking at what people are actually buying rather than using your method of relying on your experience ripping people off at a POS Saturn dealership.
I didn't see you post any links, so I won't consider your opinion any higher than anyone elses. Although as a lot boy, I imagine you got to wash every purchase that walked off the lot. But what the hell do I know, I just called & surveyed the &@#%ing people for 3 years.
I wouldn't consider it ripping people off when their sales person ask them what's important to them in their next vehicle and the top first 3 things they say are always: "Fuel economy" "Price" & "Comfort" but after they drive the low priced economic car, they always say: "This doesn't have much power" "The stereo sucks" & "How much is that SUV?"
You honestly want to know what I think killed all car business? Zero percent & 100,000 mile warranties. People have absolutely no reason to buy a car every 4-5 years. 15 years ago, it was an oddity for a person to finance a car any longer than 36 months with 10 percent down; 60 terms was as long as it got. Now you have people financing cars for 7 years AND you can do it all with little cash down. 20 years ago, people got nervous as their car got over 50K miles because it was likely something was going to go wrong and it was paid off & they weren't upsidedown after 3-4 years. Much easier to talk someone into trading when it's not painfully obvious how much $$ their losing and it seems like $$ on the bank when you remind them how much it cost to replace these new fangled computers when they go out.
When KIA & Hyundai made 100,000 drivetrain warranties standard, everyone was busting their nuts trying to match it. It didn't matter that the warranty was non-transferable & voided if you didn't service it at the dealer. Customers are uneducated & think 100,000 miles is 100,000 miles; and you're 36K warranty sucks.
About 5-6 years ago, car buyers saw something monumental. GM had Zero percent AND a warrenty for the next 5 years or 60,000 miles FREE. EVERYONE that was going to be in the market for a car within 3 years bought a car from 03-05. Market was damn near dry by the time 06 models hit the lots. People that were car buyers had already bought & were upside down in their car by approximately $5 - $10K. But they didn't give a crap because they were still under warranty. Not to mention that if they weren't tipped in their car, it was tough to justify to them financing a car for another 5 years for the same or higher payment to buy a car that's only a couple years newer than what they already have & trust. Not an easy sell.
So, you have people not buying new vehicles... but you also have people not trading vehicles. No used car buyer likes to hear that the used car they're about to buy is a lease vehicle or an old rental and I'd wager that 60% of the cars on used lots right now are just that.
People will be ready to buy cars again beginning in 2010... If financing is available... HA.
The best thing that could happen is to only approve zero percent for "A" tier buyers... those people never buy cars every 3 years anyway.
-
http://www.freep.com/article/20090311/BUSINESS01/90311036/AT&T+to+spend+$565M+on+Ford+hybrids (http://www.freep.com/article/20090311/BUSINESS01/90311036/AT&T+to+spend+$565M+on+Ford+hybrids)
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/11/autos/gm_trouble.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009031112 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/11/autos/gm_trouble.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009031112)
Bit of fuel.
-
I guess no one has any money to purchase failing car companies... right?
http://www.easycarblog.com/2009/04/telesto-ventures-are-looking-to-buy-saturn-and-re-sell-cars-overseas.html/
-
I guess no one has any money to purchase failing car companies... right?
http://www.easycarblog.com/2009/04/telesto-ventures-are-looking-to-buy-saturn-and-re-sell-cars-overseas.html/
They aren't even buying a whole subsidiary. They are just buying the retail of one subsidiary. Their entire plan rests on the assumption that GM stays afloat.
You fail.
-
They would have controlling interest in a branch of GM; but not really my point. My point was more that there's $$ out there and there is interest in failing car companies.
-
They would have controlling interest in a branch of GM; but not really my point. My point was more that there's $$ out there and there is interest in failing car companies.
Go back and read the article. They are hoping to buy up the RETAILERS and still have GM handle the PRODUCTION.
That is not real $$ and that is not the kind of interest that will save any of them.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/27/news/companies/gm_announcement/index.htm
stocks up 11%.
The Unions finally gave in...a little. Guess they are figuring out that their strangle on the company they work for still writes their paycheck.
One of the concessions.....that they pay LESS for a health care fund for retired auto workers. Yeah....not that they won't be paying at all.....just LESS for a lifetime health care plan for employees that no longer work for them.
LOL! Man they must have it rough. :rolleyes:
-
Hey . . . now they finally get around to dumping Pontiac . . . and talking about tossing Hummer, SAAB, Saturn.
-
Hey . . . now they finally get around to dumping Pontiac . . . and talking about tossing Hummer, SAAB, Saturn.
This could be a good thing for the company. I have always felt they were spread too thin across too many brands, some of which were pretty gimmicky (see Hummer). SAAB was way better before GM got involved (1990). The only products worth buying from GM were GMC, Cadillac and maybe (big maybe) some Buick. Pontiac models were always a cheapened version of one of the better brands, so was some of the Chevy and Saturn stuff. Perhaps now they will stop with this "value engineered" crap models for the brands they are cutting and get serious about making good vehicles.
-
GM bankruptcy expected as bondholder offer fails
Few took the company up on its bond-exchange offer, making bankruptcy very likely within the next week. The government could receive as much as a 70% stake in the company.
By Jim Puzzanghera
6:01 AM PDT, May 27, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- General Motors Corp. announced today that its offer to bondholders to exchange their debt for equity in the company had ended with "substantially less" participation than required by the Obama administration, likely guaranteeing a bankruptcy filing for the legendary automaker within the next week.
The bond-exchange offer ended at 11:59 p.m. Eastern time Tuesday and failed to reach the 90% participation required, GM said. GM had offered to swap 225 shares for every $1,000 in bonds, a deal many bondholders publicly criticized. Under the plan, announced in April, bondholders would get 10% equity in a restructured GM in exchange for $24 billion in debt, a much less generous deal than the government and the United Auto Workers union would receive for their debt.
The federal government stands to receive a majority stake -- as much as 70% equity -- in exchange for the $19.4 billion it has already loaned to GM and probably tens of billions of dollars more in financing to get the company through bankruptcy. The UAW would get 17.5% and warrants for another 2.5% in exchange for part of the debt owed by GM to its retiree healthcare trust.
The Obama administration's deadline for GM to restructure is June 1, and a source familiar with the negotiations said Tuesday a bankruptcy filing was looking increasingly likely.
GM said in a statement today that no new offers would be extended to the bondholders.
"Since these conditions, as well as certain other conditions, have not been satisfied, the exchange offers will not be consummated," GM said. "The GM board of directors will be meeting to discuss GM's next steps in light of the expiration of the exchange offers."