General Motors

[BlackLantern]

hey...what happened to Satanic Psyduck??

 

[Paradoxium]

Satanic Psyduck manifests whenever he pleases

 

[BlackLantern]

oh....ok then....Chrysler done ****ed themselves now....if this doesn't get fixed, expect a Senate subcommitte to crawl up their ass with a microscope

 

[Paradoxium]

Crawl on their ass and do what though? This company was done months ago. All the government can do is bleed more money to investigate why they made a stupid decision. Obama's administration consists of people with the fewest private industry experience of any president ever in history.

 

[Marx]

It looks like GM is offering major discounts on Saturns and Pontiacs.

 

[Paradoxium]

GMAC Said to Discuss $3 Billion or More in U.S. Aid

Lulz, that's because they are getting moar gubbermint money for teh discount

 

[hippie_hunter]

Ford Motor Co. made $2.7 billion in 2009, its first annual profit in four years.

The automaker on Thursday also forecast a full-year profit in 2010. Earlier it had only promised to be "solidly profitable" in 2011.

Ford benefited from cost-cutting, a $696 million profit in its credit arm and popular cars and trucks like the Ford Fusion midsize sedan and Ford Escape small sport utility vehicle. It gained market share in North and South America and Europe, despite the worst U.S. sales climate in 30 years.

"While we still face significant business environment challenges ahead, 2009 was a pivotal year for Ford," Ford CEO Alan Mulally said in a statement.

Ford's 2009 net income of 86 cents per share showed a significant improvement from the year before, when it lost a record $14.6 billion. Excluding one-time items of $711 million, Ford made 43 cents per share. Those items included severance payments and retiree health-care charges.

The profit surprised Wall Street, where analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters expected an annual loss of 31 cents.

In the fourth quarter, Ford earned $868 million, or 25 cents per share, compared with a loss of $5.9 billion a year earlier. Ford earned money in three of the four quarters last year.

Ford said it will make profit-sharing payments to its U.S. hourly workers in March. They will be the first profit-sharing checks since 2004.

The Dearborn-based automaker's debt load increased by $7.4 billion to $34.3 billion, largely because it took a charge of $7 billion to account for debt to a union-run retiree health-care fund. That puts Ford at a disadvantage to GM and Chrysler, who were able to shed debt in bankruptcy court.

 

[BlackLantern]

everyone is in the can and Ford is making some cash....everyone look at Ford, that is how you run an American auto company

 

[Marx]

I think alot can be learned from Ford.

 

[Marx]

GM GIVING SOME DEALERS THEIR FRANCHISES BACK
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/05/smallbusiness/auto_dealer_arbitration/index.htm?hpt=T1

 

[Kelly]

Yeah, looks like they will have time to renegotiate with about half of the dealerships closed.

 

[Paradoxium]

Some of the cost cutting methods Ford employed - they are being blocked by the government and unions since they control the companies (GM/Chrysler) now. As we know the Government only expertise is losing money.

 

[Marx]

GM PAYS OFF BAILOUT MONEY
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/21/autos/gm_loan_repayment/index.htm?hpt=T1

 

[DACrowe]

I saw that. Very interesting. So, does the government still have 61% equity stake in GM and if so, are we in a position to sell it off soon? I mean this is great news that GM paid it off 5 years ahead of schedule, but the sooner the US gets out of the automaking industry, at least as a majority shareholder, the better.

I know we have 10% equity stake in Chrysler and while they're improving, we're years away from resolving that. But that is nothing compared to the GM intervention. I'm glad it happened, we saved thousands of jobs by doing it and from the economy sinking into the abyss much, much further...but the quicker we step away from this...well temporary socialism (and unlike HCR, that is what owning GM is) the better.

Great news, though and a sign that we made the right decision, at least with GM. Chrysler, I'm not so sure about.

 

[chaseter]

Here is the part of the story that everyone seems to be missing:

The federal government, along with the governments of Canada and Ontario, loaned General Motors $8.4 billion and took equity stakes in the automaker after it filed for bankruptcy last June. Although the company has paid back all of its loans, the loans were but a small part of the $50 billion GM received from Washington last year. Uncle Sam will get that money back when General Motors goes public and the government can sell its 60.8 percent stake in the company.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/04/general-motors-pays-back-uncle-sams-loan/

So they pay back 8.4 billion in loans and everyone is happy! But we sunk 50 billion into the company......

 

[Hobodeluxe]

Here is the part of the story that everyone seems to be missing:


http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/04/general-motors-pays-back-uncle-sams-loan/

So they pay back 8.4 billion in loans and everyone is happy! But we sunk 50 billion into the company......

it's a start. and look a the hundreds of thousands of jobs it saved.
look at the money we saved not having all those people on unemployment and other social programs.

I just wonder how long the Fox crowd can keep up their cognitive dissonance in the face of all the conflicting evidence? Oh wait. they don't care about facts. They can spin anything.

 

[chaseter]

They can spin everything just like this administration and every headline did today?

WHITE HOUSE TOUTS GM LOAN REPAYMENT
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/21/2275990.aspx

GM PAYS OFF BAILOUT LOANS
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/21/2275990.aspx

GM PAYS OFF ITS BAILOUT LOANS
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/21/autos/gm_loan_repayment/

GM PAYS OFF GOVERNMENT LOAN
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704133804575197990349307652.html

Cognitive dissonance, conflicting evidence, facts, spin!!!!

I wonder what message all of those headlines give to the average reader. Hmmm, GM paid off everything that the Government gave it! Great news!!! Stupid Fox News is evil for saying otherwise...oh wait!? The government used over 50 billion of our tax money on GM and we just got back 8.4. Well that doesn't make sense???

It is a start, it's a good start that they are ahead of schedule. But they need to repay the other 40-something billion that came out of my wallet and everyone else's.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

you do understand the rest is in stock and once it's able to go public again a lot of that will be recovered right?

the LOANS were paid back

a lot of the stock will be.

and of course people who only read the headlines will be misinformed.
this is a fine example of the pro corporate media. they always try to spin it positive for the corporations. it's not a partisan left wing slant. your link to the WSJ proves that.

 

[chaseter]

a) the government should never have become a stock holder
b) we will not get back over 40 billion when the stocks are sold

The government having majority share is scary when you look at the long list of failed government institutions. They have the ability to tell GM what to do when they can't even run the USPS, Amtrak, SS, Medicare, etc.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

a) the government should never have become a stock holder
b) we will not get back over 40 billion when the stocks are sold

The government having majority share is scary when you look at the long list of failed government institutions. They have the ability to tell GM what to do when they can't even run the USPS, Amtrak, SS, Medicare, etc.

and yet they're turning it around and we're preparing to offer an ipo soon.
and all those people kept their jobs. so even if we do lose some of the money selling the stock it will probably be far less than we would have spent putting them on (perhaps long term) unemployment and other programs.

I don't see why you're so upset. It's looking like it worked out for the best.
Unless you wanted failure.

 

[chaseter]

Turning what around? Something on the brink of death? Any company given 60 billion dollars is going to make it out alive. Rewarding bad business is not the way to ensure future success.

It seems we now live in an era of unaccountability. If the housing market tanks and I don't want to continue to pay for my mortgage, I can walk away from a bad decision. If a car company run by unions makes a lot of bad choices, they can be given mountains of cash to start anew. If I make poor choices in life, the government can support me for years and years.

All those people did keep their jobs, but what about all the other companies that have went under without assistance from the government? But what about them Hobo? Why didn't they get any help? Why didn't those people get to keep their jobs? Why Hobo? Lets keep putting bandaids on gaping wounds instead of letting the wounded animal die and allow healthier animals to take their place.

 

[chaseter]

HAHA.

GM repaid the year old loan it owed by using more TARP money. It paid off the loan from a line of credit that it still has available from TARP. So essentially, it paid off a loan with a loan. Why? To have a good story in the head lines to try and bring back the company and restore consumer confidence to get sales up.

 

[BlackLantern]

**** them....I saw their Emperor Palpatine looking CEO last night on their new commercial

 

[DACrowe]

I keep hearing "the government should not have done this," and "it's still socialism."

While I partially agree that the Feds being stock holders is scary and I don't want this to become a pattern.

But in this special circumstance (in the heart of the Great Recession) I don't know how anyone can really say saving tens of thousands of jobs was a bad thing. You can whine and make your ideological libertarian argument all you want, but if it had failed, thousands upon thousands of more people would be unemployed and the economy would likely be in a much worse place right now. Confidence would be lower and we likely wouldn't be staring at the start of a massive expansion right now.

 

[chaseter]

That is true, there would be less jobs, the economy would be worse, etc. But increasing the deficit, raising taxes, increased inflation, etc. are all offsets. Why prop up failed institutions? Why bail out failed companies? The market would recover whether or not the government gave away trillions and trillions of dollars to those businesses. I don't see the point of rewarding bad business. That isn't how things work.

You need to spend during a recession but giving money to keep afloat sinking businesses isn't the way to fix the recession. People need to spend money to buy products which increases output which then heals the economy. Keeping GM making cars when vehicle sales are at an extreme low doesn't make sense. Cutting taxes, giving incentives, and allowing the private sector to do what it does all lead to a better place than increasing regulation, increasing the public sector, and raising taxes. Look at what FDR did. To his critics, he prolonged the depression by doing exactly what Obama is doing.

All of the people that lost their jobs would be employed by another company that would take the place of the failed one. We keep setting ourselves up for more future failures by doing quick fixes instead of looking down the road.