General Motors

[Paradoxium]

There you go again citing opinionated blogs. According to GM the cars were leased and the MSRP ranged from $33,995 to $43,995. I don't see how something could be dead on arrival if it was on the market for 6 years before it was discontinued. Usually dead on arrival would insinuate that it never went to market. That doesn't make sense. The claim is a total misnomer.

yep: Gen 1 MSRP was $33,995.00. It went north of 80,000 afterwards.

It was more timing than price or flaws. There wasn't an adequate infrastructure for charging the vehicles to convince the consumer to buy them. Once again the cars were on a lease and were being maintained by GM dealers. The first iteration of the vehicle ran on lead-acid batteries which would not run well in cold weather and limited the areas which the cars could be sold. This was corrected in the second generation of vehicles sold in 1999 (two years after the first generation), which ran on NiMH batteries. All first generation lessees were offered an upgrade to the new battery at no extra charge. They didn't really cut the R&D on alternative fuel vehicle, they just turned their focus on hybrids, just like all of their competitors were doing.

And whose responsibility was it to anticipate this?

"axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image." -- Wagoner

So what you are saying is that you really cant blame management because it is a crap shoot anyway. The automobile is limited in that it can not adapt to changing trends instantaneously. If a new trend requires a change in design at best it will take them at least 3 years to design and build (more than likely longer).

You think of trends in the immediate sense, that's not how prognostication works.

That would fall under Article I Section 8 of the constitution. The government can legitimately bailout institutions if it serves to promote the general welfare of the country.

Your bailout does not promote the welfare of the country if creditors decouple from America. Vitiating a bigger problem does no one any favors.

 

[dnno1]

GM still doesn't employ "millions" of people....it's about 277,000 like someone just mentioned....Ford employs about 85,000 I think....so that's not even half a million....and it wouldn't fall under any kind of breach of the Constitution, regardless of how hard you wish it to be.....maybe GM going under will shock the other 2 American automakers into rethinking how they do business....

The scope is larger than that. You have to consider everybody in their supply chain. GM alone has 14,000 dealerships across the country. And let's not forget their parts suppliers and the suppliers of the suppliers. If you did the math it would equate to millions of people. Then it would cascade from there. A loss of a business in a community will certainly impact that community. It will eventually affect retailers and other business because of the loss of income form those workers who are out of jobs. The automakers are not the only ones who will be bailed out. We will be next:

[YT]VaYc9UzC3s[/YT]

 

[BlackLantern]

well the video doesn't work and your points are vague at best....it might impact a community if a GM dealership is the only business in town....I live near a town called Milford, CT where on a 6 mile stretch of road there are about 7 separate car dealerships and only one of them is a GM dealership, and even that lot sells other brands in their used car lot....

 

[Addendum]

GM is not the only auto maker in the US. Ford and Chrysler are doing well. The foreign automakers have factories in the States and they're doing well. If the other automakers can make a profit, why couldn't GM?

One company closing doesn't affect the general welfare of the nation

 

[BlackLantern]

Toyotas American plants are some of the most efficient and profitable....

I still say, take a look at the big 3 auto makers, whichever company has the best outlook for the future (at present) gets some assistance and the other 2 can figure it out for themselves

 

[Paradoxium]

I'm sure once someone loses a job they stand around and do nothing. Especially the sales people, since it is such a specialized job, that is geared only to cars .

I'm also sure those suppliers would rather go bankrupt instead of cutting their workforce and slashing certain supply lines instead. I am also sure companies like Toyota and Honda won't need supplies from these same supply companies since GM is going down under.

America is in a trade deficit, more manufacturing jobs are going to start popping up sooner or later. If anything the one industry that is in for a contraction is the service ones.

And some people call me the fear monger here

 

[Paradoxium]

GM is not the only auto maker in the US. Ford and Chrysler are doing well. The foreign automakers have factories in the States and they're doing well. If the other automakers can make a profit, why couldn't GM?

One company closing doesn't affect the general welfare of the nation

If GM closes down we will incite nuclear war

 

[BlackLantern]

I don't know of any parts or supply place that caters exclusively to one manufacturer...

 

[Addendum]

I don't know of any parts or supply place that caters exclusively to one manufacturer...

The only one I can think of would be when the automobile was first invented

 

[dnno1]

yep: Gen 1 MSRP was $33,995.00. It went north of 80,000 afterwards.

Umm.... the sight I linked to was for Gen II.

"axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image." -- Wagoner

Once again, I refer you to the chart on crude oil prices that I posed on the previous page. In 2003 you are not going to forecast the price of oil going above $60/barrel like it did. Therefore you would assume that the consumer would continue to buy SUV's and luxury cars since they could afford it.

You think of trends in the immediate sense, that's not how prognostication works.

So once you have set yourself on a certain course it is going to be difficult to change from it due to your design cycle.

Your bailout does not promote the welfare of the country if creditors decouple from America. Vitiating a bigger problem does no one any favors.

Who said that was going to happen? The government is supposedly bailing out some of the banks. I think what I was proposing for the American automobile industry (specifically GM) was the same thing that was done for Chrysler in 1979 be done today. They were guaranteed loans from private banks. The government only backed the loans. They really didn't spend any of the taxpayers money. During that period Chrysler developed a new line of cars while restructuring -- without having to declare bankruptcy -- and they became profitable some 4 years later, paying off the last of their debt in 1983. Like I have said before declaring chapter 11 would be the kiss of death for a automaker since no consumer would want to buy a car from them if they knew that there was a good chance that their warranty wouldn't be honored or they couldn't get spare parts.

Look, I have to go type a paper, so we will take this up again tomorrow.

 

[BlackLantern]

...and by virtue of this conversation, over the past couple days I have taken a look at how many GM vehicles I have seen on the road when I am driving (to work, going out) and not very many....but that's here in the northeast....

 

[Paradoxium]

If Dell goes bankrupt, Intelm, AMD, Crucial, Western Digital, Hitachi, Maxtor and Corsair will all go bankrupt, and and and it is unconstitutional

 

[Franklin Richards]

I take the train in Chicago. In Texas I walk. Now I do like cabs but I'm sure they're mostly rice burners.


They can all burn.

 

[Paradoxium]

Umm.... the sight I linked to was for Gen II.

I stand corrected, so they only leased it out, and to own one would have theoretically cost $80,000. I don't think that really enticed the buyer.

Once again, I refer you to the chart on crude oil prices that I posed on the previous page. In 2003 you are not going to forecast the price of oil going above $60/barrel like it did. Therefore you would assume that the consumer would continue to buy SUV's and luxury cars since they could afford it.

And once again we are going back in circles of restating the same thing to each other over and over again. I mention Toyota, then you are going to say it was all luck.. etc..

So once you have set yourself on a certain course it is going to be difficult to change from it due to your design cycle.

And once again I will say prognostication and not in the immediate sense, and you will probably say it is difficult with the design cycle. In circles yet again

Who said that was going to happen? The government is supposedly bailing out some of the banks. I think what I was proposing for the American automobile industry (specifically GM) was the same thing that was done for Chrysler in 1979 be done today. They were guaranteed loans from private banks. The government only backed the loans. They really didn't spend any of the taxpayers money. During that period Chrysler developed a new line of cars while restructuring -- without having to declare bankruptcy -- and they became profitable some 4 years later, paying off the last of their debt in 1983. Like I have said before declaring chapter 11 would be the kiss of death for a automaker since no consumer would want to buy a car from them if they knew that there was a good chance that their warranty wouldn't be honored or they couldn't get spare parts.

Look, I have to go type a paper, so we will take this up again tomorrow.

The bank bailout is done through the printing press, China shut the door on lending, and they are the world's biggest creditor. One word for you: hyperinflation. Though I expect a temporary deflationary period prior to this.

Yet again we repeat the same schtick. Chrysler's bailout worked... in the short term. Now it needs another bailout again. Then you probably going to restate this topic again later on.

Please go argue with The Guard, he'd probably appreciate this more than I do t:

 

[Anita18]

ABC News on the bailout - bankruptcy would allow GM to drop unprofitable brands and allow the emergence of others "like the Chevy Volt."

They then showed the first concept version of the Volt and I was like, "Ack, why does it look like a piece of s***?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chevrolet-Volt-DC.jpg

It reminds me of this.

 

[The Senator]

Michigan needs to worry about their crappy football teams.

Michigan needs to consider detaching itself from the Midwest and relocating some place South. Maybe people will stop moving out of the state if it's warmer there.

 

[Backdrifter]

ABC News on the bailout - bankruptcy would allow GM to drop unprofitable brands and allow the emergence of others "like the Chevy Volt."

They then showed the first concept version of the Volt and I was like, "Ack, why does it look like a piece of s***?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chevrolet-Volt-DC.jpg

It reminds me of this.

That's the concept design. The Production vehicle looks much nicer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/ChevyVolt2011ProductionCar.jpg

 

[Anita18]

That's the concept design. The Production vehicle looks much nicer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/ChevyVolt2011ProductionCar.jpg

It looks a lot more formulaic, actually. It's lost a lot of the sportiness. I certainly wouldn't have minded it keeping the sportiness that the concept car had, but the headlights and windows were just so squinty on the concept that it looked kind of ridiculous.

 

[The Senator]

That's the concept design. The Production vehicle looks much nicer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/ChevyVolt2011ProductionCar.jpg

But still... this vehicle is supposed to be "revolutionary" when it really isn't. It only seats four people because the engine takes up too much room-- the Mini Cooper electric model seats the same amount of people and is twice as small (it also costs the same). It only gets 40 miles per gallon, on average-- the Honda Civic Hybrid and Toyota Prius get 50 miles per gallon, on average, and will probably cost the same or less than the Volt. Also, it takes MORE energy to run this vehicle, considering it requires an external electric charge to reap the full benefits of its hybrid capabilities.

Again, GM wasted years designing this vehicle when cheaper, more efficient hybrid models have been released by foreign manufacturers. If this is the best they can do... why do they deserve my money to help them survive?

 

[Paradoxium]

An advanced Ford assembly line in BRAZIL, check out the video.

http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

They are not allowed to build it in America because the UAW would not allow such supplier integration

 

[Anita18]

It only seats four people because the engine takes up too much room-- the Mini Cooper electric model seats the same amount of people and is twice as small (it also costs the same).

It's smaller than a Mini Cooper? My boss has one and he drove us all last week for donuts and that thing is TINY. I don't ask for that much leg room, but damn, I was majorly lacking in leg room sitting in the backseat!

 

[Holiday]

Shouldn't how the car runs be more important than how it looks? That's why were in this mess. American would rather have a gas guzzlin' mustang than an eco-friendly car that looks like a shoe.

 

[chaseter]

I would throw a conspiracy in the ring and say that these companies were in cahoots with the big oil companies making gas guzzling vehicles and now that oil has dropped massively and we are also in an economic slump...bad business is back to bite them.

 

[Anita18]

Shouldn't how the car runs be more important than how it looks? That's why were in this mess. American would rather have a gas guzzlin' mustang than an eco-friendly car that looks like a shoe.

I'm taking a car design class now. It kind of goes with the territory.

BTW, the teacher thinks that all SUVs are butt-ugly.

 

[Holiday]

Good because SUVs are ugly.

And I hate when people say, "Oh gosh. I just feel so safe in my suv...". Why can't they just become better drivers?