# GM Bankruptcy - thoughts?



## MA_PE (Jun 1, 2009)

GM Bankruptcy


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jun 1, 2009)

I'd be pretty pissed right now if I had stock in Ford. They now have a competitor that has access to financing at substantially reduced rates. How long 'til the federal government starts rolling out tax incentives and subsidies for purchasing vehicles manufactured by Government Motors?


----------



## Supe (Jun 1, 2009)

Flyer_PE said:


> I'd be pretty pissed right now if I had stock in Ford. They now have a competitor that has access to financing at substantially reduced rates. How long 'til the federal government starts rolling out tax incentives and subsidies for purchasing vehicles manufactured by Government Motors?



Conversation with my father last evening:

I was looking to buy my father's truck off him, since he wanted a new one anyways. He goes searching everywhere up North, and dealer prices on GM trucks are through the roof! They wouldn't come down at all. Dealer's reply: everyone panicked and assumed that GM would stop making trucks, so they're selling them left and right without any haggling.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 1, 2009)

Flyer_PE said:


> How long 'til the federal government starts rolling out tax incentives and subsidies for purchasing vehicles manufactured by Government Motors?


No incentives. You must buy the 2012 Government Motors Trabant 601!







It is European and far superior to Amurican iron.


----------



## MGX (Jun 1, 2009)

I hereby dub the blue cloud of smoke following any running Trabant as the smokestack of liberty!


----------



## snickerd3 (Jun 1, 2009)

why can't they be treated like any other business and have to take drastic measures or close up. Over extending oneself is never a good idea. Krispie Creme overextended themselves opening stores all over, then had to cut back big time to stay in business.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jun 1, 2009)

Supe said:


> Conversation with my father last evening:
> I was looking to buy my father's truck off him, since he wanted a new one anyways. He goes searching everywhere up North, and dealer prices on GM trucks are through the roof! They wouldn't come down at all. Dealer's reply: everyone panicked and assumed that GM would stop making trucks, so they're selling them left and right without any haggling.


Interesting. I've been running GMC products since 1994 and have been thinking about picking up what will probably be my last GMC truck this Summer. I'm just as likely to try to get another 10 years out of the '99 Sierra I have now.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jun 1, 2009)

snickerd3 said:


> why can't they be treated like any other business and have to take drastic measures or close up. Over extending oneself is never a good idea. Krispie Creme overextended themselves opening stores all over, then had to cut back big time to stay in business.


I think the thing is, from what I've heard from the 'experts', is that if GM and Chrysler go down, that not only will you have all those people there out of work. But also the dealerships, repair shops, parts mfrs, etc. and that the net effect on the economy would be devastating.

I have no problem if the big wigs who ran it into the ground are in hot water, but it sucks for all the working class stiffs that would suddenly be out of work.


----------



## humner (Jun 1, 2009)

VTEnviro said:


> I think the thing is, from what I've heard from the 'experts', is that if GM and Chrysler go down, that not only will you have all those people there out of work. But also the dealerships, repair shops, parts mfrs, etc. and that the net effect on the economy would be devastating.
> I have no problem if the big wigs who ran it into the ground are in hot water, but it sucks for all the working class stiffs that would suddenly be out of work.


As a union worker for most of my life, I personally do not feel sorry for the "working" class stiffs. I have not seen so much slacking time then union workers. GM needed to regroup, but not in a way that the fox is guarding the hen house. Personally GM is now way down at the bottom of vehicles I will buy.


----------



## MGX (Jun 1, 2009)

I work in a union shop (I am not a union member; maybe I'm "management"). I can't possibly feel any sympathy for how GM and Chrysler have been run into the dirt.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2009)

For me, it is somewhat surreal now that I live about 1.5 hrs outside of Detroit. There have been so many jobs lost already that the additional cuts, while tragic, aren't going to lead to what some have speculated as a complete collapse of civilization as we know it. Things will cut back and then re-grow ... as things have always progressed.

A few weeks ago, I listened to a local newspaper columnist who was invited as the keynote speaker at a dinner I attended. He regaled us with some great stories of memorable news articles, but what stuck with me most was how he talked about THIS community. While things were certainly gloomy people still lived their lives and acts of charity were still visible. I think I am most angered by the fear mongering journalists who feel the need to turn everything into the apocalypse - they prey on that fear in people and sell papers (or other media) by those means. It saddens me because while many of us are hurting ... the end of the civilized world as we know it is not at hand .. because there are plenty of people, despite the printed bullshit that is out there, that lead normal lives.

JR


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 1, 2009)

BTW, how can they make good decisions without a Hispanic woman lwayer on the Auto task Force?


----------



## snickerd3 (Jun 1, 2009)

VTEnviro said:


> I think the thing is, from what I've heard from the 'experts', is that if GM and Chrysler go down, that not only will you have all those people there out of work. But also the dealerships, repair shops, parts mfrs, etc. and that the net effect on the economy would be devastating.
> I have no problem if the big wigs who ran it into the ground are in hot water, but it sucks for all the working class stiffs that would suddenly be out of work.


with dealerships being forced to close, some of which should never have been opened in the first place. For example, I work in the "big" city for the area. There is a chrysler dealership in town, but then there are also at least 6 other chrysler dealerships within a 30-45 minute drive in smaller towns. WHy do you need so many? I actually think the independent machanic shop/repair place will get a stronger footing in the market. Just like gasoline, cars will always need repairs. The parts manufactures will still have places to sell parts to, just not a dealership price.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jun 1, 2009)

^ That's true. I own a Honda and was recently searching for a different dealer to take mine to for repairs, as the local one is becoming disreputable. There are 5 within 45 minutes of me. Granted, its the metro Boston area, but its still a lot.


----------



## Fluvial (Jun 1, 2009)

Read this rather interesting article on why GM failed.

The thing about business is, if you don't keep up with technology &amp; trends, then the market will run off and leave you.

I also agree about the number of dealers. There are too many here.


----------



## CbusPaul (Jun 2, 2009)

I believe this administration has forgotten that businesses are designed to make money. They are not designed to employ people. Throwing money at GM merely to keep people employed is completely missing the free market principles that made the US strong in the first place.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 2, 2009)

Maybe corporations that are 'too big to fail' should be broken up. Just a thought. I see both sides of that one and I'm not sure which side I'd advocate.


----------



## MA_PE (Jun 2, 2009)

CbusPaul said:


> I believe this administration has forgotten that businesses are designed to make money. They are not designed to employ people. Throwing money at GM merely to keep people employed is completely missing the free market principles that made the US strong in the first place.


Agreed that "businesses are designed to make money" but at some point, how much money is too much? and at whiose expense? I'm far from a hard core liberal, but there is such a thing as fair and equitable. Just because you're able to fleece somebody doesn't make it OK. Also, mega-corporations ARE in the business of keeping people employed and the government should act towards that end. Unemployed people need to resort to public assistance programs and the government (and employed taxpayers) ends up paying with no productive work being performed.

Again I don't think I'm a liberal, but I can see the need/benefit of government assitance programs. It's the abuse of these programs (and the expense of trying to police them against abuse) that tick me off.

"free market" is a relative term. Before the unions formed the abuse of the workers by the corporate owners was akin to slavery. It's a difficult thing to balance.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 2, 2009)

MA_PE said:


> Also, mega-corporations ARE in the business of keeping people employed and the government should act towards that end.


I think a similar paradigm is what caused GM's downfall. They stopped being a corporation that built cars and started being a health care/retirement program that used car sales to fund the system.


----------



## CbusPaul (Jun 2, 2009)

How was GM fleecing anybody? With the contracts that the UAW was getting, I'd say it was the other way around. Don't you think the union has at least some culpability in not having as many jobs as they had. And how much money should they get paid for operating a wrench, which I'm sure any one of us can do.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Jun 2, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Maybe corporations that are 'too big to fail' should be broken up...


Sounds similar to what happened to Ma Bell. Just for a different reason. I don't disagree with you, Cappy.


----------



## MA_PE (Jun 2, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I think a similar paradigm is what caused GM's downfall. They stopped being a corporation that built cars and started being a health care/retirement program that used car sales to fund the system.


True to a fault. The "old way" was to take care of dedicated employees who had provided years of service to the mothership. this system (just like social security) works as long as your generating enough revenue to sustain it. Times change. Through the miracles of modern medicine, people are living longer and newer (more expensive) treatments are available. This translates to providing more benefits for a longer period of time. This evolution was parallel to advancements in manufacturing techniques so the work was easier and less people were needed. Unions fought at both ends; we can't get rid of people and we can't reduce benefits. The company's policies (just like the government's) didn't change with the times.



CbusPaul said:


> How was GM fleecing anybody? With the contracts that the UAW was getting, I'd say it was the other way around. Don't you think the union has at least some culpability in not having as many jobs as they had. And how much money should they get paid for operating a wrench, which I'm sure any one of us can do.


My fleecing comment was directed to your blanket statement that the primary function of a business is to make money. If you get away with it, fleecing people makes a lot of money. As far as GM is concerned, they could be accused of "fleecing" people during the late 70's and early 80's where the quality of the product deteriorated and the prices skyrocketed. It was this period where the American buying public lost faith in the Amercan manufacturers and started touting the benefits of Toyota and Honda. American market share plummeted and they never got it back.

FWIW: I see the same thing with Kia and Hyundai compared to Toyota and Honda. I think the two former are making a bargain priced quality product, they're standing by them for 10yrs/100k. Toyota and Honda are living on public opinion and trying to maximize sales dollars.

just my :2cents:


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 2, 2009)

MA_PE said:


> Through the miracles of modern medicine, people are living longer and newer (more expensive) treatments are available. This translates to providing more benefits for a longer period of time.


Then another thing that probably needs to be discussed is prolonging the time before retirement.


----------



## CbusPaul (Jun 2, 2009)

I think the generation of workers just out of school will be lucky to get any retirement at all.


----------



## Supe (Jun 2, 2009)

CbusPaul said:


> I think the generation of workers just out of school will be lucky to get any retirement at all.


Yep. All I've got thus far aside from traditional savings is a 401k that continues to lose money.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 2, 2009)

CbusPaul said:


> I think the generation of workers just out of school will be lucky to get any retirement at all.


I'll be lucky if I get it and I'm 43.



Supe said:


> Yep. All I've got thus far aside from traditional savings is a 401k that continues to lose money.


I hear you. I've lost 50% of my retirement savings twice in the last ten years.


----------



## CbusPaul (Jun 2, 2009)

It would be nice if they privatized social security and we could get the 6.2% for ourselves and maybe some of the company match. But at this point, the Ponzi scheme would fall apart if they privatized so I'm just dreaming.


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Jun 2, 2009)

Fluvial said:


> Read this rather interesting article on why GM failed.
> The thing about business is, if you don't keep up with technology &amp; trends, then the market will run off and leave you.
> 
> I also agree about the number of dealers. There are too many here.



GM management made many many horrible mistakes, but the Union Contracts they had where by you got no benefit from building more efficient production lines, because you had to pay people you laid off never made any business sense. In effect the Union screwed themselves AND GM. But it is still on the Management for signing the contract.


----------



## MGX (Jun 2, 2009)

I heard a news report of talks about selling Hummer to a Chinese company.

I certainly don't expect GM or Chrysler to ever return to the same place of prominence; I understand the 'car czar' is a 31 year old who didn't finish law school. This is excellent news for Toyota and Honda.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 2, 2009)

Toyota and Honda had pretty bad May sales..38 and 39% drop respectively.

It ain't just GM and Chrysler.


----------



## roadwreck (Jun 2, 2009)

MGX said:


> I heard a news report of talks about selling Hummer to a Chinese company.


That's what is being reported.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/02/news/compa...sion=2009060207

That just seems messed up.


----------



## MGX (Jun 2, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Toyota and Honda had pretty bad May sales..38 and 39% drop respectively.
> It ain't just GM and Chrysler.


Not today but in the future. With federal mismanagement and interference GM and Chrysler will probably be suited only to produce vehicles for the consumption of the federal government leaving Toyota and Honda free to produce for-profit vehicles.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 2, 2009)

MGX said:


> Not today but in the future. With federal mismanagement and interference GM and Chrysler will probably be suited only to produce vehicles for the consumption of the federal government leaving Toyota and Honda free to produce for-profit vehicles.


Oh, I see. Concur.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jun 2, 2009)

^The next step will be to impose large taxes on the non-government owned/managed car manufacturers to "level the playing field". Protectionist policies have failed everywhere they've been tried.


----------



## MA_PE (Jun 2, 2009)

MGX said:


> Not today but in the future. With federal mismanagement and interference GM and Chrysler will probably be suited only to produce vehicles for the consumption of the federal government leaving Toyota and Honda free to produce for-profit vehicles.


and we know the gubberment ain't "car guys" or at least they can't admit it.

They must restrict themselves to functional, efficient transportation. i.e. NO FUN STUFF!


----------



## MGX (Jun 2, 2009)

I've worked on government projects and now appreciate where $600 hammers come from.

$80K Cobalt/Malibu anyone?

I heard a quip from Michael Moore that the feds should confiscate GM's factories to make buses and trains. :ghey:


----------



## FLBuff PE (Jun 2, 2009)

MGX said:


> I've worked on government projects and now appreciate where $600 hammers come from.
> $80K Cobalt/Malibu anyone?
> 
> I heard a quip from Michael Moore that the feds should confiscate GM's factories to make buses and trains. :ghey:


That's the way Europe does it...must be better.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 3, 2009)

MA_PE said:


> They must restrict themselves to functional, efficient transportation. i.e. NO FUN STUFF!


Unfortunately for us car enthusiasts, 95% of the populace sees their car as an appliance to get from one place to another in comfort.



MGX said:


> I heard a quip from Michael Moore that the feds should confiscate GM's factories to make buses and trains. :ghey:






FLBuff PE said:


> That's the way Europe does it...must be better.


Well played, sir! Well played!

I do wonder if the gov will make cars less comfy and convenient to try and 'persuade' us to use mass transit. If they do, it will really blow up in their faces. Although most people see their car as an apppliance, they love the freedom they get from it.


----------



## SuperAlpha (Jun 4, 2009)

awaiting the new government mandates forcing the competetors out of business....only .gov approved vehicles allowed, and only GM vehicles get approval......communism has a foothold....


----------



## MGX (Jun 4, 2009)

I saw GM's commercial on TV last night; GM apologizing for sucking so hard but to please buy their stuff because they're working so hard. This convinces me to stop being a Ford guy not one bit.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 4, 2009)

It wasn't all that great, was it? We watched it with heads shaking. And we're an all Chevy family right now.


----------



## jeb6294 (Jun 4, 2009)

SuperAlpha said:


> awaiting the new government mandates forcing the competetors out of business....only .gov approved vehicles allowed, and only GM vehicles get approval......communism has a foothold....


As a Fed. employee, I will be interested to see if all of our fleet cars start turning into GM's.

Wonder if I'd get the big employee discount if I go to a dealer and show them my ID badge?


----------



## MGX (Jun 4, 2009)

As a taxpayer, I want a company car. I'll take a Challenger SRT-8 in red please. Please delete the Obama bumpersticker.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 5, 2009)

Shoot, if they were giving them out, I'd take my Challenger SRT8 in B-5 (Democrat) blue, manual, and they could even leave on Obama's bumpersticker.


----------



## Fluvial (Jun 5, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I do wonder if the gov will make cars less comfy and convenient to try and 'persuade' us to use mass transit.


That'd be totally impractical for large portions of the country, which have no mass transit. I don't see it happening.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 5, 2009)

Fluvial said:


> That'd be totally impractical for large portions of the country, which have no mass transit. I don't see it happening.


You forget that most of these brainiacs making policy live in mega cities and don't realize there is a world outside where mass transit makes no sense.


----------



## Fluvial (Jun 5, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> You forget that most of these brainiacs making policy live in mega cities and don't realize there is a world outside where mass transit makes no sense.


I shoulda known better than to apply logic to Washington decisions!


----------

