General Motors

[dnno1]

because toyota is losing less than the detroit big three... and toyota isnt looking for money from their government.

non american companies are obviously doing better than american companies....

They took money from Australia, so I wouldn't doubt that they would ask Japan for one if they needed it (i.e. if they were to go bankrupt). BTW, Toyota doesn't solely build cars. They are involved in other industries as well. Look, even Toyta, Honda, and Nissan (Japan's Big 3), want to see the US Big 3 get bailed out so that ought to tell you something.

 

[Kelly]

I could have swore I was responding to your latest post that basically summed up your opinion in three statemets, which I debunked. Your saying that Toyota is showing a loss is only contradicting what you just said. How could it be quality and wages if the entire industry is hurting? Yes, these companies have to do something and, if you were listening to the congressional hearings, you would have seen that they do have plans do just that -- and the unions have been making consession and will still be making them in the future. I don't know why you complaining since I think everbody got the message about a month ago.

I give up........you don't read posts, and its impossible to discuss this with someone that does not understand that there is going to have to be reorganization.....

You have totally missed the point of pretty much every post that does not agree with you.....

BTW, why am I still complaining.....simple. My president has stopped listening to his legislature, my legislature has FINALLY started listening to their constituents but only after they have spent over a trillion of their constituents money even though 77% of their constitutents said don't do it......I'm still complaining because we have laws set in place, that were just changed to smooth out Ch. 11 restructuring of companies....we have companies doing it all the time and coming out strong. Without Ch 11 restructuring we would not have Southwest Airlines for just one example. So, I will continue to complain until SOMEONE in my government understands that it is "AT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE" ....

 

[dnno1]

I give up........you don't read posts, and its impossible to discuss this with someone that does not understand that there is going to have to be reorganization.....

I understand that. What I don't understand is why some people keep mouthing off such stupidness as "let them fail" or "they are making too much money" or "they make crap that people don't want to buy" when it is far from the truth. Once again, we need an (American) automobile industry in this country for both economic and strategic reasons. Allowing them to fail would not only destroy the U.S. economy, but would be the start of the decline of the U.S. as a world power and maybe take us back to a pre-industrial revolution state. We don't make crap that people don't want to buy either. We are out selling all the foriegn auto makers here in North America and it is only due to trade restrictions that we are not outselling them abroad. Finally, the salaries of CEO and labor capital in the American auto industry is competitive with the foriegn auto plants here in the States. If it weren't then you would see people jumping over to the other company for better pay. Common sense should tell you that.

You have totally missed the point of pretty much every post that does not agree with you.....

The only one that has missed the point is you and the others who foolishly think that these companies should fail.

BTW, why am I still complaining.....simple. My president has stopped listening to his legislature, my legislature has FINALLY started listening to their constituents but only after they have spent over a trillion of their constituents money even though 77% of their constitutents said don't do it......I'm still complaining because we have laws set in place, that were just changed to smooth out Ch. 11 restructuring of companies....we have companies doing it all the time and coming out strong. Without Ch 11 restructuring we would not have Southwest Airlines for just one example. So, I will continue to complain until SOMEONE in my government understands that it is "AT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE" ....

What is really sad is that when the re-write his history, they are going to say that he single handedly saved the automobile industry here in America. I think he did that on purpose for that reason.

 

[Kelly]

Dnno1 when companies are not run effectively and efficiently, they need to fail. When people say "let them fail" they aren't just mouthing off......it is simply "economic speak" for let them file Ch 11, restructure, work on and fix the problems that got them to this point, and either come back as another company...ie TWA fails, we get Southwest Airlines......and move on. Will people lose their jobs....yes, that's life, happens everyday. It is not the governments job to reward bad business. In good times, these companies gave away their shorts.....now they are in the middle of the street butt naked. Instead of going back in the house and getting a pair of their own shorts, they want me to bring them a pair of mine. Well, I call ******** to that.

And no, Bush is not going to get credit for ANY of the positive that comes out of this, Obama will benefit from all the positive, and the negative will flow off his teflon skin right into the trash with Bush's legacy.

 

[XpunkRocker]

we live in a communist system. the government decides if a company survives or not. the people have no choice in the matter.

what you think we live in? a capitalist system? HA!

 

[deathfromabove]

Dnno1 when companies are not run effectively and efficiently, they need to fail. When people say "let them fail" they aren't just mouthing off......it is simply "economic speak" for let them file Ch 11, restructure, work on and fix the problems that got them to this point, and either come back as another company...ie TWA fails, we get Southwest Airlines......and move on. Will people lose their jobs....yes, that's life, happens everyday. It is not the governments job to reward bad business. In good times, these companies gave away their shorts.....now they are in the middle of the street butt naked. Instead of going back in the house and getting a pair of their own shorts, they want me to bring them a pair of mine. Well, I call ******** to that.

And no, Bush is not going to get credit for ANY of the positive that comes out of this, Obama will benefit from all the positive, and the negative will flow off his teflon skin right into the trash with Bush's legacy.

we seem to be forgetting what has caused most of the finacial trouble, no credit and no loans. one worker at a dealership was quoted as saying out of thirty potential buyers last month none could get a loan. he said last year at this time all thirty would have qualified.

i will admit general motors has engaged in some pretty crappy/shady business practices. but if the banks were not hording cash and actualy loaning money to consumers the automakers would not be in nearly as much trouble as they are. they have huge manufacturing and operating costs that can not just be adjusted overnight and when all the money dissapears they are left with massive overhead.

and in better times if the automakers needed a bridge loan to stay afloat they could easily borrow from any number of commercial banks. but the banks are not lending to anyone right now. there is no cash. again if the banks were not in trouble the auto companies would not be in this dire of a situation.

sure, detroit has made plenty of mistakes. they need to change alot of their practices. but most of the trouble they are having is not due to something they did or did not do.

oh one more point. to those of you who say to just let them fail. do you honestly think a collapse wont cost us (the taxpayers) much more than 15 billion? just covering the insured pensions and the cost to the economy from job losses will eclipse that amount.

i just want to add: in principle i am completely against the government keeping failing companies afloat. i was also against the finacial bailout. but these are not typical times.

 

[XpunkRocker]

but what about all the other companies? why company has gone down 40% since the recession. most of my clients are small businesses and they don't have the money to afford my services. but i am not asking for government money. I created new projects, raised the money for them, and am launching them to be a new source of income to expand my business. i am not asking money to keep me afloat. just ginving me money won't do anything. giving me money wont bring back my clients. money or no money, i would still have to be competive and outsmart the recession. these auto companies failed before the recession and they are failing now. they aren't changing anything except for asking for money. They can have all the money in the world, it wont make people buy their cars.

 

[deathfromabove]

you have to admit, it is alot easier for you to retool your business than the big three which have massive operating costs and need time (and cash) to reorganize.

and the money comes with a time frame. reorganize by march or you are done.

and these companies were not failing before the banking crisis. thats not even close to true.

 

[Kelly]

Oh yes, we are all going to have to pay for this in on way or another......

My retirement took a hit when the government did not bail out Bear Stearns.......and my 403 b has been taking hits as far as the stock market.....it happens, and I get mad about why was AIG bailed out and others not, why this .....why that.....but in the end, when I screw up on my checking account I don't expect anyone to come to my rescue. I screwed up.

 

[XpunkRocker]

you have to admit, it is alot easier for you to retool your business than the big three which have massive operating costs and need time (and cash) to reorganize.

and the money comes with a time frame. reorganize by march or you are done.

and these companies were not failing before the banking crisis. thats not even close to true.

Not really. i have a much smaller budget, and i am doing it on my own pretty much. Any help i get is part time workers who are working for free.

Big time companies can retool very easy. I know, because i have been apart of it before. All they have to do is hire third party consultants/specialists to improve their products, marketing, manangment, etc.

Right now, i am heading the products, the advertising, the selling, circulation, managment, marketing, art work, etc. Until my project makes an income, i can't do anything.

And these companies have been failing before the banking crisis. if you have read the paper, these companies have lost thousands and thousands of jobs in the past 8-10 years. so don't tell me the banking crisis is the only factor. these companies would be in trouble with or without the banking crisis.

 

[deathfromabove]

im sorry but i disagree with everything in that post.

 

[XpunkRocker]

you disagree that GM and ford have lost thousands of jobs before the banking crisis? that isn't an opinion, that is a fact. they lost thousands of jobs and closed a ton of plants in 2001, and they contitued to do it to the present. if you think they were not losing jobs in 2001, then i don't know what to say.


So, you REALLY think that a multibillion dollar company has a harder time than me at redsigning their business? that has got to be the most craziest thing i ever heard. that is pretty much saying that a major hollywood studio has more trouble at retooling than a smaller studio. which is insane. the smaller studio has a bigger chance of failing just because they are so small and have so little money.

explain to me, how does a business with lots of money have more trouble adapting than a smaller business? a smaller business has no room for error. one mistake, and the business closes like that. a big business can afford mistake after mistake.

 

[Scarlet spidey]

 

[deathfromabove]

you disagree that GM and ford have lost thousands of jobs before the banking crisis? that isn't an opinion, that is a fact. they lost thousands of jobs and closed a ton of plants in 2001, and they contitued to do it to the present. if you think they were not losing jobs in 2001, then i don't know what to say.


So, you REALLY think that a multibillion dollar company has a harder time than me at redsigning their business? that has got to be the most craziest thing i ever heard. that is pretty much saying that a major hollywood studio has more trouble at retooling than a smaller studio. which is insane. the smaller studio has a bigger chance of failing just because they are so small and have so little money.

explain to me, how does a business with lots of money have more trouble adapting than a smaller business? a smaller business has no room for error. one mistake, and the business closes like that. a big business can afford mistake after mistake.

you are doing everything yourself in your business right? if you want to change direction it is up to you and you alone. big companies have shareholders, thousands of employees, dozens of factories and contracts with employees, other manufacturers, and an obligation to everyone who owns stock in said company. that is part of the problem. they are too large to just stop and turn on a dime. i have been saying for years that they should downsize and make themselves more efficient.

imagine general motors as a huge frieght train and a small business as a small car. it takes that train miles to stop becuse it has more mass and more inertia. the small car on the other hand can stop in a few feet.

i have run my own business. yes a mistep can be a huge setback. but if you are a smart business person one mistake should not destroy your company. now i will admit that a big comapany can often make many mistakes and still survive. that wasnt my point. my point was it takes longer for a huge business to change its trajectory than a small business.

and yes ford and general motors have been losing jobs for a while. but only recently have they been this close to collapse.

do i want poor business rewarded? no. but i dont think our economy can weather the collapse of the auto industry. the fact that the rest of the world's automakers dont want gm and chrysler to bite it should tell you something. the whole industry is so intertwined that a collapse would be catastrophic.

wall street was given a blank check. this is not the same situation. if gm and chrysler cant reorganize themselves by march they lose the funds. no such perameters were given to the banks. this is not a bailout.

oh and to say we have a communistic economic system shows that

a. you dont know what communism is

b. if we had a communistic economy you would not be a small business owner. capitalism allows you to be in the position you are in.

we do have a somewhat managed ecomomy. huge difference.

 

[dnno1]

Dnno1 when companies are not run effectively and efficiently, they need to fail. When people say "let them fail" they aren't just mouthing off......it is simply "economic speak" for let them file Ch 11, restructure, work on and fix the problems that got them to this point, and either come back as another company...ie TWA fails, we get Southwest Airlines......and move on. Will people lose their jobs....yes, that's life, happens everyday. It is not the governments job to reward bad business. In good times, these companies gave away their shorts.....now they are in the middle of the street butt naked. Instead of going back in the house and getting a pair of their own shorts, they want me to bring them a pair of mine. Well, I call ******** to that.

Filing chapter 11 for an auto manufacturer is the kiss of death since 80 percent of their customers will not buy vehicles from them (no that would be dumb and not running your business effectively). In addition, nobody is giving out loans right now, so it would be difficult to file chapter 11 and expect to get debtor in possession financing. They can restructure without using that word bankruptcy by getting a loan from the government (Just like Chrysler did some 30 years ago).

And no, Bush is not going to get credit for ANY of the positive that comes out of this, Obama will benefit from all the positive, and the negative will flow off his teflon skin right into the trash with Bush's legacy.

Only time will tell about that. My bet is that somebody will try to do that some of these knuckleheads out there will fall for it hook line and sinker.

 

[dnno1]

Not really. i have a much smaller budget, and i am doing it on my own pretty much. Any help i get is part time workers who are working for free.

The difference is, you have a much smaller budget. I could say the same, but I am not self employed (I am getting by on a much smaller budget than the Big 3). So long as I keep getting a steady income I will do well. The fact is that a company like GM operates all over the world on a near $200 billion budget. So long as they sell enough cars they will get buy. Add the fact that all around the world there is a financial crisis, people are loosing their jobs and can't get the financing to buy a brand new car, and see if you can get by. Not even Toyota can do that.

Big time companies can retool very easy. I know, because i have been apart of it before. All they have to do is hire third party consultants/specialists to improve their products, marketing, manangment, etc.

Not when you need cash and can't get financing.

Right now, i am heading the products, the advertising, the selling, circulation, managment, marketing, art work, etc. Until my project makes an income, i can't do anything.

That's what I mean.

And these companies have been failing before the banking crisis. if you have read the paper, these companies have lost thousands and thousands of jobs in the past 8-10 years. so don't tell me the banking crisis is the only factor. these companies would be in trouble with or without the banking crisis.

They had been loosing money (at least GM and Chrysler) but they still had cash. As soon as that is gone, that is when they fail.

 

[XpunkRocker]

you are doing everything yourself in your business right? if you want to change direction it is up to you and you alone. big companies have shareholders, thousands of employees, dozens of factories and contracts with employees, other manufacturers, and an obligation to everyone who owns stock in said company. that is part of the problem. they are too large to just stop and turn on a dime. i have been saying for years that they should downsize and make themselves more efficient.

Actually it has taken me longer than a normal company would be able to do it.

What i am actually doing is starting a local sports magazine. I have designed most of the artwork myself, because i could only afford one artist. Most of my writers have english degrees, but are right out of college because that is all i could afford. plus i write a lot of the stories and i come up with them as well. I don't have anyone working in circulation, so i am doing that all by myself. Which means i set up the bases, i deliver the magazines, and i keep track of relations. i also don't have a sales team. I got out and i sell the advertising myself. Then i organize the product, i make all the decisions, and so on.

it takes much longer. Sure, i can make the decision faster. but to actually make it happen, it takes forever. A big company can hire people to do all that and delagate it. They can create a sales team, a circulation team, and an editorial team to do all this at once. I am doing it by myself. i have to do each one, one at a time. it has taken forever. Not to mention i am still doing the rest of the stuff my company does. so yeah, i am at a disadvantage. The little guy does have an uphill battle more than the big guy.... anyone who has run a business knows that.

imagine general motors as a huge frieght train and a small business as a small car. it takes that train miles to stop becuse it has more mass and more inertia. the small car on the other hand can stop in a few feet.

Imagine moving each of those cars one at a time. You take one car, and move it 20 miles. then you go back, and move the next car 20 miles. and so on. Less people means you move a lot slower.

i have run my own business. yes a mistep can be a huge setback. but if you are a smart business person one mistake should not destroy your company. now i will admit that a big comapany can often make many mistakes and still survive. that wasnt my point. my point was it takes longer for a huge business to change its trajectory than a small business.

Yes, it takes longer to make a decision, but it is much quicker to actually make it happen. They have all the lawyers and people to help them. and they have the funds. every time i make a decision, i have to go out and raise the money, by working!

and yes ford and general motors have been losing jobs for a while. but only recently have they been this close to collapse.

And the cause of being "close to a collapse" is because of 10 years of failure. This didn't happen overnight, so don't tell me that they are victims of a bad market. it is more than that. they are a stupid company and have 10 years of mistakes. this is what happened.

do i want poor business rewarded? no. but i dont think our economy can weather the collapse of the auto industry. the fact that the rest of the world's automakers dont want gm and chrysler to bite it should tell you something. the whole industry is so intertwined that a collapse would be catastrophic.

it doesn't tell me anything. It is all PR. if the foriegn makers said anything bad, they would be throwing themselves under a bus.

wall street was given a blank check. this is not the same situation. if gm and chrysler cant reorganize themselves by march they lose the funds. no such perameters were given to the banks. this is not a bailout.

But basically this is gong to screw the companies. If they aren't reorganized by march, they lose the money. So they will have to pay back money they already spent? the only way to pay that back would be to shut down.

oh and to say we have a communistic economic system shows that

a. you dont know what communism is

b. if we had a communistic economy you would not be a small business owner. capitalism allows you to be in the position you are in.

That comment was just me being sarcastic. But deciding what companies fail/don't fail is a part of communism, like it or not. If you want a capitalist tactic, we would let the law of supply and demand take the wheel, and that would decide if they fail or not.

So letting the government decide if there companies succeed or fail IS a communist tactic. but no, we are not a communist society. that last part was a joke on my part.

But i know very well what communism is and how it works. I have my degree in political science, i have worked in politics awhile, and i have had much success in it. The guy that ran for president under the socialist party was actually someone i pulled off the street and i put him on tv. that is how he actually started. I was the one that discovered him and groomed him. And he is a straight up communist, even though he claims to only be a socialist. but i have had much success in politics for someone my age. i make things happen.

 

[dnno1]

 

[XpunkRocker]

last guy i would trust on the issue. not to mention he isn't even sure what he is going to decide on.

 

[deathfromabove]

Actually it has taken me longer than a normal company would be able to do it.

What i am actually doing is starting a local sports magazine. I have designed most of the artwork myself, because i could only afford one artist. Most of my writers have english degrees, but are right out of college because that is all i could afford. plus i write a lot of the stories and i come up with them as well. I don't have anyone working in circulation, so i am doing that all by myself. Which means i set up the bases, i deliver the magazines, and i keep track of relations. i also don't have a sales team. I got out and i sell the advertising myself. Then i organize the product, i make all the decisions, and so on.

it takes much longer. Sure, i can make the decision faster. but to actually make it happen, it takes forever. A big company can hire people to do all that and delagate it. They can create a sales team, a circulation team, and an editorial team to do all this at once. I am doing it by myself. i have to do each one, one at a time. it has taken forever. Not to mention i am still doing the rest of the stuff my company does. so yeah, i am at a disadvantage. The little guy does have an uphill battle more than the big guy.... anyone who has run a business knows that.




Imagine moving each of those cars one at a time. You take one car, and move it 20 miles. then you go back, and move the next car 20 miles. and so on. Less people means you move a lot slower.



Yes, it takes longer to make a decision, but it is much quicker to actually make it happen. They have all the lawyers and people to help them. and they have the funds. every time i make a decision, i have to go out and raise the money, by working!



And the cause of being "close to a collapse" is because of 10 years of failure. This didn't happen overnight, so don't tell me that they are victims of a bad market. it is more than that. they are a stupid company and have 10 years of mistakes. this is what happened.



it doesn't tell me anything. It is all PR. if the foriegn makers said anything bad, they would be throwing themselves under a bus.




But basically this is gong to screw the companies. If they aren't reorganized by march, they lose the money. So they will have to pay back money they already spent? the only way to pay that back would be to shut down.




That comment was just me being sarcastic. But deciding what companies fail/don't fail is a part of communism, like it or not. If you want a capitalist tactic, we would let the law of supply and demand take the wheel, and that would decide if they fail or not.

So letting the government decide if there companies succeed or fail IS a communist tactic. but no, we are not a communist society. that last part was a joke on my part.

But i know very well what communism is and how it works. I have my degree in political science, i have worked in politics awhile, and i have had much success in it. The guy that ran for president under the socialist party was actually someone i pulled off the street and i put him on tv. that is how he actually started. I was the one that discovered him and groomed him. And he is a straight up communist, even though he claims to only be a socialist. but i have had much success in politics for someone my age. i make things happen.

apples and oranges.

do you realize how long it takes to design a car and bring it to production? a bit longer than writing a sports page.

besides even if gm were pumping out electric cars they would still be unable to sell cars given the current credit crisis.

no sales=no cash. with previously mentioned fixed (and large) overhead costs you will eventually run out of money if no one can buy your product.

they can not just print fewer copies or reduce pages for example. you cant just shut down factories and reduce/change production models at a moments notice.

the wheel has to keep turning. to make changes to this process takes a lot longer than you think.

i understand in principle the distaste some have for our government meddling in a free market. but this isnt about rewarding the automakers for not adapting (no one would argue that they didnt see a paradigm shift coming). its damage control. with the economy in its current state a collapse of our auto industry would be catastrophic. if these companies can be made viable again they should be given the chance to do so.

 

[XpunkRocker]

it is not apples and oranges. it is basic managment.

if i was developing and producing cars, they would have an upside over me.

just like a major magazine has an upside over me now.

you missed the point. just because a magazine is bigger than mine, doesn't mean it is slower to make. mine takes longer.

if i was one person making a car, it would take me longer. i don't have an assembly line. so that is where you failed. it doesn't take longer for a bigger company. it takes longer for the little guy. plain and simple

and since you had nothing against with the rest of what i said, i will assume you agree with it. and that more than works for me

 

[XpunkRocker]

besides even if gm were pumping out electric cars they would still be unable to sell cars given the current credit crisis.

no sales=no cash. with previously mentioned fixed (and large) overhead costs you will eventually run out of money if no one can buy your product.

But 10 years of failure? people were able to buy their cars 10 years ago. they choose not to. it is not a matter of "can't" it is a matter of "wont"

If your company fails for 10 years, what are the hopes that they will turn it around? i am going to let you in on a secret.... companies that are in that bad of shape for 10 years have problems. i don't see how this money will fix their problems. all it will do is keep them afloat for an extra year and that is it.

they can not just print fewer copies or reduce pages for example. you cant just shut down factories and reduce/change production models at a moments notice.

Management is still they same. They overpay the CEOs and the people who are making the mistakes. The company IS making mistakes. A LOT of them. and the people who make them get bonuses and promotions. that is the biggest problem in these companies. 10 years of that sloppy managment has made them put out a bad product, lose sales to competition, close down plants and lose jobs, etc.

how is this bailout money supposed to fix 10 years of mistakes by march? you keep saying it will take a long time to fix all this stuff. But you think they will be in good shape by march?

no. 5 years from now, if the companies still exist, they will be hurting bad. with or without this money and it won't matter if the recession is still here.

 

[rdh007]

I get that the Big Three have a horrible business model and thus they've been doing horribly, but the banking industry doesn't seem that much farther ahead and we didn't blink at bailing them out. I'm trying to figure out what makes the banking industry different from the auto industry (aside from the obvious; that one bilks people out of their money by charging too much for an inferior product and the other one bilks people out of their money by changing numbers on a screen), and the only thing I can see consistently is white collar workers.

 

[rdh007]

Management is still they same. They overpay the CEOs and the people who are making the mistakes. The company IS making mistakes. A LOT of them. and the people who make them get bonuses and promotions. that is the biggest problem in these companies. 10 years of that sloppy managment has made them put out a bad product, lose sales to competition, close down plants and lose jobs, etc.

It is my belief that in addition to restructuring worker contracts to be consistent with what Toyota, etc. workers make here in the U.S., the bailout money should include a provision that anyone with the title of Vice-President or President in the companies that take money should be fired immediately and not allowed to have any position in a company that even supplies the auto industry. They should be blacklisted.

 

[dnno1]

If I saw that I could work in warmer weather for similar benefits I would leave my company and go work there. There has to be some incentive to stay. I don't think it is in a company's best interest to lower a person's wages to be more competitive. That is actually a good way to lose your workforce to your competitor.