Deweyp's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/149053/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/147296-i-was-wrong-about-gm-bankruptcy?source=feed#comment-578198 578198

On Jul 07 11:19 AM User 158164 wrote:

> Somewhere between Davewmart and Detfan is reality. Every recession
> you hear the "the economy will never be the same again" and they
> are right, the economy comes back different, and usually better.
> I remember the late 80's doom and gloom, followed by the 90's unemployment
> so low a blind felon could get a job as a night watchman.
>
> On the other hand, GM is facing world wide competition from Volkswagon,
> Fiat, Toyota, a resurgent Ford, Honda, and now a slew of Chinese
> and Indian companies. If they all take only 2% market share, just
> in sheer numbers of companies it will be a hard row to hoe.
>
> Buy back the stock? Yeah, that was a winning strategy in the 90's
> - $25 Billion in stock buy backs and now that stock is worth zero.
> The smart money spends money on product, not stock buy backs.
>
> GM has some excellent product now, I have a Silverado with ZERO issues
> and I have driven the new Camaro and it is world class. They need
> to keep that quality up.
>
> Most of what I read about the UAW is based on stuff they read before
> the new contract, and even more changes have taken place with the
> crisis. I never met the guy "making $80 an hour sweeping floors"
> in the first place. Most of that crap was just BS anyway. There
> are some horror stories, but I can tell you some horror stories about
> non-union shops also. Somehow a truck a minute spits out the back
> door, so someone must doing some work.
>
> I know there are some retards talking boycotting, yeah that makes
> sense. Put Americans out of work solely because you don't like the
> President and drive down the value of the company so that you the
> taxpayer loses money in some kind of childish hissy fit. Fortunately
> I think those numbers are small and their job at the car wash does
> not buy a new car anyway.
>
> In other words, if you are looking at the future for GM, I think
> you can be pretty optimistic, but realistic.
>
> I think more important to the question is not what will GM do, but
> will this country EVER develop a sensible manufacturing policy that
> will get us back to work.]]> Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:54:33 -0400

On Jul 07 11:19 AM User 158164 wrote:

> Somewhere between Davewmart and Detfan is reality. Every recession
> you hear the "the economy will never be the same again" and they
> are right, the economy comes back different, and usually better.
> I remember the late 80's doom and gloom, followed by the 90's unemployment
> so low a blind felon could get a job as a night watchman.
>
> On the other hand, GM is facing world wide competition from Volkswagon,
> Fiat, Toyota, a resurgent Ford, Honda, and now a slew of Chinese
> and Indian companies. If they all take only 2% market share, just
> in sheer numbers of companies it will be a hard row to hoe.
>
> Buy back the stock? Yeah, that was a winning strategy in the 90's
> - $25 Billion in stock buy backs and now that stock is worth zero.
> The smart money spends money on product, not stock buy backs.
>
> GM has some excellent product now, I have a Silverado with ZERO issues
> and I have driven the new Camaro and it is world class. They need
> to keep that quality up.
>
> Most of what I read about the UAW is based on stuff they read before
> the new contract, and even more changes have taken place with the
> crisis. I never met the guy "making $80 an hour sweeping floors"
> in the first place. Most of that crap was just BS anyway. There
> are some horror stories, but I can tell you some horror stories about
> non-union shops also. Somehow a truck a minute spits out the back
> door, so someone must doing some work.
>
> I know there are some retards talking boycotting, yeah that makes
> sense. Put Americans out of work solely because you don't like the
> President and drive down the value of the company so that you the
> taxpayer loses money in some kind of childish hissy fit. Fortunately
> I think those numbers are small and their job at the car wash does
> not buy a new car anyway.
>
> In other words, if you are looking at the future for GM, I think
> you can be pretty optimistic, but realistic.
>
> I think more important to the question is not what will GM do, but
> will this country EVER develop a sensible manufacturing policy that
> will get us back to work.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142583-fuel-systems-solutions-conceptualizes-a-better-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-544704 544704

On Jun 12 01:39 PM ART005 wrote:

> Deweyp, I don't think you have a technical background:
> 1. Natural gas cars do exist. Fueling systems exist.
> 2. Adding regenerative braking to a natural gas car is not a technological
> hurdle.
> 3. PHEV (plug-ins) are a huge unknown based on world supply of battery
> materials, operating range, life/cost cycle, charge rate capacity,
> weather sensitivity, and all around market demand. The market/gov
> has to decide if PHEV are going to be light productive vehicles unable
> to meet current crash standards or PHEV will meet crash standards
> and give up most benefits of elec. car technology.
> 4. Almost 10 years ago practical analyst called for the bankruptcy
> of GM based on simple revenue vs. income charts. Union reps held
> their positions encouraging outlandish compensation and Execs. signed
> the contracts to keep the place going long enough for them to collect
> a few more years of million dollar salaries. The whole thing was
> a predicted scam publicized 9 years ago. Sorry you didn't get the
> memo! Details above in NakedJayBird.
> 5. GM had a 40 years head start on U.S. automarket. They blew that
> and everything else. Don't tell U.S. families paying their bills
> what social engineering now has to be done for U.S. auto industry
> to pretend they haven't destroyed themselves. U.S. auto industry
> doesn't build Nat Gas cars because they think they don't have to.
> Me thinks they doth protest too much!!
> 6. When you try to justify the value of an industry that killed itself,
> each auto worker you describe in your first post should ask themself
> would they pay themselves the rate to do the work for themself the
> rate they were being paid? The same applies to alot of U.S. workers.
>
>
> On Jun 12 01:10 PM Deweyp wrote:]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:32:05 -0400

On Jun 12 01:39 PM ART005 wrote:

> Deweyp, I don't think you have a technical background:
> 1. Natural gas cars do exist. Fueling systems exist.
> 2. Adding regenerative braking to a natural gas car is not a technological
> hurdle.
> 3. PHEV (plug-ins) are a huge unknown based on world supply of battery
> materials, operating range, life/cost cycle, charge rate capacity,
> weather sensitivity, and all around market demand. The market/gov
> has to decide if PHEV are going to be light productive vehicles unable
> to meet current crash standards or PHEV will meet crash standards
> and give up most benefits of elec. car technology.
> 4. Almost 10 years ago practical analyst called for the bankruptcy
> of GM based on simple revenue vs. income charts. Union reps held
> their positions encouraging outlandish compensation and Execs. signed
> the contracts to keep the place going long enough for them to collect
> a few more years of million dollar salaries. The whole thing was
> a predicted scam publicized 9 years ago. Sorry you didn't get the
> memo! Details above in NakedJayBird.
> 5. GM had a 40 years head start on U.S. automarket. They blew that
> and everything else. Don't tell U.S. families paying their bills
> what social engineering now has to be done for U.S. auto industry
> to pretend they haven't destroyed themselves. U.S. auto industry
> doesn't build Nat Gas cars because they think they don't have to.
> Me thinks they doth protest too much!!
> 6. When you try to justify the value of an industry that killed itself,
> each auto worker you describe in your first post should ask themself
> would they pay themselves the rate to do the work for themself the
> rate they were being paid? The same applies to alot of U.S. workers.
>
>
> On Jun 12 01:10 PM Deweyp wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142583-fuel-systems-solutions-conceptualizes-a-better-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-544127 544127 No one I know in the auto industry wants to rip the tax payers off. The full intention was for 100% payback once GM and Chrysler is back on their feet. Hopefully Ford will not need assistance as it appears auto sales are on the mend.]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:10:10 -0400 No one I know in the auto industry wants to rip the tax payers off. The full intention was for 100% payback once GM and Chrysler is back on their feet. Hopefully Ford will not need assistance as it appears auto sales are on the mend.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142583-fuel-systems-solutions-conceptualizes-a-better-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-543968 543968

On Jun 11 11:41 PM american-born wrote:

> Sorry --- for writing a little long --- I have a lot more to say
> -- like too many American soldier have fought for more than seems
> to be happening in their and our Country ---- I'm gone]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:33:49 -0400

On Jun 11 11:41 PM american-born wrote:

> Sorry --- for writing a little long --- I have a lot more to say
> -- like too many American soldier have fought for more than seems
> to be happening in their and our Country ---- I'm gone]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141869-the-failure-of-general-motors-is-a-failure-of-government-policy?source=feed#comment-536970 536970

On Jun 08 08:51 AM colion wrote:

> Your title is not quite correct. As you note in the article, the
> problem is not just a government failure (which in turn reflects
> us the voters) but also of GM management. One aspect of this incompetence
> was accepting union contracts with ridiculous benefits. GM, like
> so many other companies and industries, looked to inflation to keep
> them above water and hide their actions.]]> Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:50:53 -0400

On Jun 08 08:51 AM colion wrote:

> Your title is not quite correct. As you note in the article, the
> problem is not just a government failure (which in turn reflects
> us the voters) but also of GM management. One aspect of this incompetence
> was accepting union contracts with ridiculous benefits. GM, like
> so many other companies and industries, looked to inflation to keep
> them above water and hide their actions.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141706-auto-manufacturing-an-industry-whose-time-is-up?source=feed#comment-535546 535546 Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:21:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/141608-gm-s-use-of-bailout-money-what-else-aren-t-they-telling-us?source=feed#comment-534704 534704 Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:07:00 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/140284-gm-bankruptcy-probability-using-options?source=feed#comment-524280 524280

On May 29 07:23 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> It's going down. The imminent demise of General Motors (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> will be a nail in the coffin for the commercial real estate market,
> which I believe will be the financial crisis of 2009. Some 2,000
> dealers are being axed, dumping hundreds of millions of square feet
> on to a market that least wants it. These were the guys who sponsored
> the local baseball team and Girl Scout cookie sales, and their absence
> will rip the hearts out of hundreds of American communities. Much
> of this is prime space, near dense populations, with great frontage,
> adjacent retail space, completed site work, mitigated environmental
> work, and already zoned for commercial use. Some might get turned
> into mini malls, but I’m afraid more will end up as indoor climbing
> walls and paintball battlefields. Commercial real estate sales are
> off 73% this year, while vacancies have catapulted to 16.7%. Banks
> have seized 464 properties so far in 2009, including $7 billion worth
> in March alone, and thousands more are on the brink.]]> Sat, 30 May 2009 14:08:25 -0400

On May 29 07:23 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> It's going down. The imminent demise of General Motors (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> will be a nail in the coffin for the commercial real estate market,
> which I believe will be the financial crisis of 2009. Some 2,000
> dealers are being axed, dumping hundreds of millions of square feet
> on to a market that least wants it. These were the guys who sponsored
> the local baseball team and Girl Scout cookie sales, and their absence
> will rip the hearts out of hundreds of American communities. Much
> of this is prime space, near dense populations, with great frontage,
> adjacent retail space, completed site work, mitigated environmental
> work, and already zoned for commercial use. Some might get turned
> into mini malls, but I’m afraid more will end up as indoor climbing
> walls and paintball battlefields. Commercial real estate sales are
> off 73% this year, while vacancies have catapulted to 16.7%. Banks
> have seized 464 properties so far in 2009, including $7 billion worth
> in March alone, and thousands more are on the brink.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140225-some-facts-in-the-gm-propaganda-race?source=feed#comment-522756 522756 Actually the Aztek is a really nice vehicle but it didn't appeal to many folks because of styling. The same could be said of a few models from Honda and Toyota. I know folks who bought a new Aztek every year until the model was dropped. If you had ever driven one you would never compare it to a Pinto or Vega.


On May 28 10:39 PM conceptwizard wrote:

> Obamas new fuel targets will be a challenge along with making cars
> people want. Pick 6 models make them well and warranty them strong.
> They make a few models now that sell. Keep the prices down. I still
> believe the business model they have will be obsolete before they
> start. In order to compete on a world market you have to have wages
> competitive to the median. The wages & benefits here compared
> to other parts of the world are way higher. Ford & GM can build
> the same car at half the cost outside the country, they have been
> for some time. This is an attempt to maintain a dying business model
> by saving votes using taxpayers hard earned money. If they are going
> down this road they might as well throw out the competition via protectionism.
> At least that way we would be guaranteed our money back.]]> Fri, 29 May 2009 10:01:59 -0400 Actually the Aztek is a really nice vehicle but it didn't appeal to many folks because of styling. The same could be said of a few models from Honda and Toyota. I know folks who bought a new Aztek every year until the model was dropped. If you had ever driven one you would never compare it to a Pinto or Vega.


On May 28 10:39 PM conceptwizard wrote:

> Obamas new fuel targets will be a challenge along with making cars
> people want. Pick 6 models make them well and warranty them strong.
> They make a few models now that sell. Keep the prices down. I still
> believe the business model they have will be obsolete before they
> start. In order to compete on a world market you have to have wages
> competitive to the median. The wages & benefits here compared
> to other parts of the world are way higher. Ford & GM can build
> the same car at half the cost outside the country, they have been
> for some time. This is an attempt to maintain a dying business model
> by saving votes using taxpayers hard earned money. If they are going
> down this road they might as well throw out the competition via protectionism.
> At least that way we would be guaranteed our money back.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140085-chrysler-travesty-hearings-continue?source=feed#comment-522149 522149 Chevy Malibu, Chevy Volt, Jeep, Dodge Challenger and above all the 2010 Camaro). These are acknowledged product winners. The morass C & GM currently find themselves in is purely financial and is in no way a result of the product they have brought to market. To be sure F has shown many successful products and I am sure they have more in the pipeline, but let's not confuse economic problems with product issues and, we should not assume that F has solved all their economic problems as well. There is a reason Ford's major supplier (Visteon) filed chapter 11 today and it is an economic issue just as it was for GM's major supplier Delphi. The American auto industry is truly the best in the world and once these issues are resolved and the economy improves, they will be back on top, no matter what the Asian guys tell you. ]]> Thu, 28 May 2009 20:10:56 -0400 Chevy Malibu, Chevy Volt, Jeep, Dodge Challenger and above all the 2010 Camaro). These are acknowledged product winners. The morass C & GM currently find themselves in is purely financial and is in no way a result of the product they have brought to market. To be sure F has shown many successful products and I am sure they have more in the pipeline, but let's not confuse economic problems with product issues and, we should not assume that F has solved all their economic problems as well. There is a reason Ford's major supplier (Visteon) filed chapter 11 today and it is an economic issue just as it was for GM's major supplier Delphi. The American auto industry is truly the best in the world and once these issues are resolved and the economy improves, they will be back on top, no matter what the Asian guys tell you. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/138440-obama-s-new-mileage-standards-let-s-wait-and-see-how-the-final-rules-shake-out?source=feed#comment-511324 511324 Wed, 20 May 2009 11:20:09 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/137615-death-of-an-american-icon?source=feed#comment-503346 503346 Thu, 14 May 2009 08:38:01 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/137425-our-nation-s-risk-of-default?source=feed#comment-502163 502163 Wed, 13 May 2009 11:51:47 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/137049-weekly-street-sentiment-sell-side-is-passive-aggressive?source=feed#comment-500499 500499

On May 12 07:33 AM User 412289 wrote:

> gm will be .10 by weeks end]]> Tue, 12 May 2009 11:40:19 -0400

On May 12 07:33 AM User 412289 wrote:

> gm will be .10 by weeks end]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136732-japan-government-says-economy-improving-oh-really?source=feed#comment-497564 497564 Sun, 10 May 2009 10:05:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/136666-uaw-it-should-be-giving-up-more?source=feed#comment-497509 497509 Sun, 10 May 2009 09:24:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/133894-politically-powerful-unions-a-new-class-of-senior-debt?source=feed#comment-482475 482475

On Apr 29 09:02 AM Bibble wrote:

> Turn about is fair play. While GM was paying huge dividends and making
> huge overseas investments with money that should've beeen set aside
> for retirees, plants were closing, COLA was delayed, health care
> was rising and union leadership went right along with the company.
> Now when the ramifications of not properly funding their obligations
> comes home to roast, the same folks who benefited from that slight-of-hand
> are whining again because they can't simply throw the workers who
> made decades of windfalls possible in the trash can? The union's
> hairCUTS began well before the latest and most severe ones of 05,
> 06, 07, 08 and 09.
>
> "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only
> the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not
> first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the
> higher consideration." - Abe Lincoln]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:12:01 -0400

On Apr 29 09:02 AM Bibble wrote:

> Turn about is fair play. While GM was paying huge dividends and making
> huge overseas investments with money that should've beeen set aside
> for retirees, plants were closing, COLA was delayed, health care
> was rising and union leadership went right along with the company.
> Now when the ramifications of not properly funding their obligations
> comes home to roast, the same folks who benefited from that slight-of-hand
> are whining again because they can't simply throw the workers who
> made decades of windfalls possible in the trash can? The union's
> hairCUTS began well before the latest and most severe ones of 05,
> 06, 07, 08 and 09.
>
> "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only
> the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not
> first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the
> higher consideration." - Abe Lincoln]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133486-gm-exchange-shows-treasury-s-true-colors?source=feed#comment-481161 481161 Having no alternative but to agree to the Ford negotiated contract, the eventual destruction of GM began. Most people outside the industry say it was foolish for GM to agree to the contract Ford negotiated, but if they had not, they would have suffered a devastating strike by the UAW that would have led to the same destruction, only faster. It was a no-win situation for GM and we are witnesses to that today. The destruction of this once great company is among the most horrific events America has ever faced and I believe it will not end here. Asian nations understand this and will slowly continue their attack on our economy through currency manipulation, import barriers and outright overt monetary support of their own industries. We as a nation need to wake up to this reality now, before we lose any more manufacturing industries.]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:04:32 -0400 Having no alternative but to agree to the Ford negotiated contract, the eventual destruction of GM began. Most people outside the industry say it was foolish for GM to agree to the contract Ford negotiated, but if they had not, they would have suffered a devastating strike by the UAW that would have led to the same destruction, only faster. It was a no-win situation for GM and we are witnesses to that today. The destruction of this once great company is among the most horrific events America has ever faced and I believe it will not end here. Asian nations understand this and will slowly continue their attack on our economy through currency manipulation, import barriers and outright overt monetary support of their own industries. We as a nation need to wake up to this reality now, before we lose any more manufacturing industries.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130020-segway-and-gm-s-puma-addresses-the-problems-of-tomorrow?source=feed#comment-456577 456577

On Apr 08 01:03 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> You've got to be kidding. General Motors (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> has 6,500 dealers in the US and Toyota Motors has 2,000, but Toyota
> (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) sells more cars than GM. And
> you want to save this company? Just as only Nixon could go to china,
> only Obama can dispatch GM. The launch yesterday of its Segway-GM
> hybrid, the Puma Pod, just highlights how pitiful their efforts have
> been. The sooner GM goes to corporate Heaven (or Hell), the better.]]> Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:06:32 -0400

On Apr 08 01:03 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> You've got to be kidding. General Motors (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> has 6,500 dealers in the US and Toyota Motors has 2,000, but Toyota
> (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) sells more cars than GM. And
> you want to save this company? Just as only Nixon could go to china,
> only Obama can dispatch GM. The launch yesterday of its Segway-GM
> hybrid, the Puma Pod, just highlights how pitiful their efforts have
> been. The sooner GM goes to corporate Heaven (or Hell), the better.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129750-bankruptcy-lets-capitalism-run-its-course?source=feed#comment-454667 454667 If you are going to attempt monday morning quarterbacking at least find out the score .]]> Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:20:38 -0400 If you are going to attempt monday morning quarterbacking at least find out the score .]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128518-obama-to-automakers-ultimatums-with-teeth?source=feed#comment-446289 446289 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:41:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128518-obama-to-automakers-ultimatums-with-teeth?source=feed#comment-446284 446284 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:40:00 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128595-auto-sector-flow-through-industry-assistance?source=feed#comment-446251 446251 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:26:25 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128405-the-fate-of-general-motors-rick-wagoner?source=feed#comment-445751 445751

On Mar 30 12:18 PM rrbatch wrote:

> No one here has mentioned the comparison of GM and Chrysler to FORD!
> Maybe Ford will have its comeuppance yet, but so far it has managed
> to avoid the financial meltdown and beggary of its U.S. competitors.
>
>
> I don't find much to admire in the Great O's approach to governing,
> but his Auto Task Force came through this morning with an admirable
> analysis and rejection of the "restructuring" plans submitted by
> GM and Chrysler. They called spades spades, set firm timelines for
> corrective action, and offered constructive responses to the political
> issues of destitute Michigan communities and credibility of warranties.
> Kudos to the Task Force!
>
> Let's not forget either that GM and its competitors turned out cars
> for years that its customers wanted to buy. Even Toyota, Nissan,
> and Honda introduced big SUVs - just before the oil prices of last
> summer caused the market to change its perception of what cars should
> be. The industry won't be transformed by any technological breakthroughs
> - just good design to provide the roomy vehicles that the U.S. market
> wants with incremental improvements in mileage at affordable cost.
>
>
> It's well known what technical changes will make vehicles more efficient:
> lighter-weight materials (more composites), hybrid drives, and turbo
> chargers. (Forget about an all-electric car - this is a silly stunt
> for GM and companies like Tesla.) All of these changes come at a
> cost, and it will be interesting to see who can engineer them into
> affordable and attractive vehicles to come. But be patient - the
> lead times for these changes will still be five years or more.]]> Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:56:04 -0400

On Mar 30 12:18 PM rrbatch wrote:

> No one here has mentioned the comparison of GM and Chrysler to FORD!
> Maybe Ford will have its comeuppance yet, but so far it has managed
> to avoid the financial meltdown and beggary of its U.S. competitors.
>
>
> I don't find much to admire in the Great O's approach to governing,
> but his Auto Task Force came through this morning with an admirable
> analysis and rejection of the "restructuring" plans submitted by
> GM and Chrysler. They called spades spades, set firm timelines for
> corrective action, and offered constructive responses to the political
> issues of destitute Michigan communities and credibility of warranties.
> Kudos to the Task Force!
>
> Let's not forget either that GM and its competitors turned out cars
> for years that its customers wanted to buy. Even Toyota, Nissan,
> and Honda introduced big SUVs - just before the oil prices of last
> summer caused the market to change its perception of what cars should
> be. The industry won't be transformed by any technological breakthroughs
> - just good design to provide the roomy vehicles that the U.S. market
> wants with incremental improvements in mileage at affordable cost.
>
>
> It's well known what technical changes will make vehicles more efficient:
> lighter-weight materials (more composites), hybrid drives, and turbo
> chargers. (Forget about an all-electric car - this is a silly stunt
> for GM and companies like Tesla.) All of these changes come at a
> cost, and it will be interesting to see who can engineer them into
> affordable and attractive vehicles to come. But be patient - the
> lead times for these changes will still be five years or more.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128416-general-motors-ceo-gets-the-axe?source=feed#comment-445716 445716 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:57:23 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128330-how-bailouts-are-messing-with-capitalism?source=feed#comment-444274 444274

On Mar 29 09:49 AM Miken wrote:

> With regard to the auto companies, I believe that everyone is overlooking
> the fundamental issues. I don't think there is any doubt that the
> current Wall Street fiasco has damaged the ability of the American
> based, and even foreign based companies to survive. But even before
> the Wall Street mismanagement, the American companies were in a state
> of decline. The central question should be why the American companies?
>
>
> I don't think the simplistic answer is management or unions. I believe
> the simple answer is a view of the people running the country, and
> those on both coasts that a healthy manufacturing sector is passe
> and not important. The reasons I have drawn that conclusion are
> the following:
>
> 1. There is no articulated industrial policy. What do we think a
> manufacturing base should look like? What are the policies that
> should shape our industrial policy? Have we developed the infra
> structure to support our vision? There apparently is no appetite
> in Washington, or anywhere else in the country to have a dialogue
> on this.
>
> There certainly is in countries that are emerging as the new manufacturing
> base in the world order. In countries such as China, Mexico, South
> Korea, Japan, Thailand, etc. there is a very clear priority given
> to the manufacturing sector because they recognize the economic value
> stream connected with making things.
>
> 2. More fundamentally, is a manufacturing base important? Or should
> the country try to exist on retailers, services, and shuffling other
> people's money around (Wall Street)? I don't think so. See the
> value stream discussion in item 1.
>
> 3. What is our energy policy? The beginning of the current crisis
> for the American based auto companies was the sudden spike in gasoline
> prices because we have continued to let ourselves vulnerable to foreign
> despots and royal families whims to control energy prices. At $1.50
> per gallon, customer preferences are significantly different than
> at $4.50 per gallon. Were the American companies asleep at the wheel,
> or were they better at building larger cars and trucks than the foreign
> companies? Were they callous or were they giving the customers what
> they wanted? The evidence suggests the latter. Toyota, Honda, Nissan,
> BMW etc. all where trying desperately to break into the truck market
> without much success.
>
> When our foreign dependence allowed a drastic change in energy costs,
> not only were the American companies caught off guard, but others,
> especially Toyota was closing plants delaying start ups, etc.
>
> I don't care if prices are high or low, the auto companies can exist
> in either scenario. When Washington decides to address this, it
> will help them develop better strategies. After all, most of the
> American companies have world wide operations that were doing just
> fine making small economical cars using a variety of fuels from CNG
> to ethanol.
>
> Too long for a post, sorry, but I don't buy the simplistic answers
> to the question, "what's wrong with Ameican companies?".]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:34:41 -0400

On Mar 29 09:49 AM Miken wrote:

> With regard to the auto companies, I believe that everyone is overlooking
> the fundamental issues. I don't think there is any doubt that the
> current Wall Street fiasco has damaged the ability of the American
> based, and even foreign based companies to survive. But even before
> the Wall Street mismanagement, the American companies were in a state
> of decline. The central question should be why the American companies?
>
>
> I don't think the simplistic answer is management or unions. I believe
> the simple answer is a view of the people running the country, and
> those on both coasts that a healthy manufacturing sector is passe
> and not important. The reasons I have drawn that conclusion are
> the following:
>
> 1. There is no articulated industrial policy. What do we think a
> manufacturing base should look like? What are the policies that
> should shape our industrial policy? Have we developed the infra
> structure to support our vision? There apparently is no appetite
> in Washington, or anywhere else in the country to have a dialogue
> on this.
>
> There certainly is in countries that are emerging as the new manufacturing
> base in the world order. In countries such as China, Mexico, South
> Korea, Japan, Thailand, etc. there is a very clear priority given
> to the manufacturing sector because they recognize the economic value
> stream connected with making things.
>
> 2. More fundamentally, is a manufacturing base important? Or should
> the country try to exist on retailers, services, and shuffling other
> people's money around (Wall Street)? I don't think so. See the
> value stream discussion in item 1.
>
> 3. What is our energy policy? The beginning of the current crisis
> for the American based auto companies was the sudden spike in gasoline
> prices because we have continued to let ourselves vulnerable to foreign
> despots and royal families whims to control energy prices. At $1.50
> per gallon, customer preferences are significantly different than
> at $4.50 per gallon. Were the American companies asleep at the wheel,
> or were they better at building larger cars and trucks than the foreign
> companies? Were they callous or were they giving the customers what
> they wanted? The evidence suggests the latter. Toyota, Honda, Nissan,
> BMW etc. all where trying desperately to break into the truck market
> without much success.
>
> When our foreign dependence allowed a drastic change in energy costs,
> not only were the American companies caught off guard, but others,
> especially Toyota was closing plants delaying start ups, etc.
>
> I don't care if prices are high or low, the auto companies can exist
> in either scenario. When Washington decides to address this, it
> will help them develop better strategies. After all, most of the
> American companies have world wide operations that were doing just
> fine making small economical cars using a variety of fuels from CNG
> to ethanol.
>
> Too long for a post, sorry, but I don't buy the simplistic answers
> to the question, "what's wrong with Ameican companies?".]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128265-gm-execs-fill-up-on-the-taxpayer-s-dime?source=feed#comment-443481 443481 Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:48:41 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128265-gm-execs-fill-up-on-the-taxpayer-s-dime?source=feed#comment-443274 443274 This perk is considered part of their annual compensation and is a standard throughout most industries. After watching all of the proceedings in Washington and the carping from those who look at what everyone else has, I am reminded of the goings on in the communist countries where "the people" decided who had too much and who should get it. Have we arrived at that point now, or are we still the America that rewards those who succeed after putting forth the effort to get an education and work themselves up the corp ladder. These folks do not work an eight hour day. They often arrive at work before 6AM and work well into the evening when everyone else is home watching sports. What we do not need is more bloggers searching through every company's business, pulling little nuggets out of context, without explaining the whole story, just to get published and unduly raise the ire of readers. Let's get back to being part of the solution, rather than slinging mud in every direction to see if something sticks.


On Mar 27 10:20 PM observer1 wrote:

> The GM 8th levels and unclassified executives get a vehicle to use
> for "free", yes they pay imputed income for the use of the vehicle,
> but it is a GREAT deal. Most of the use is commuting, not company
> trips or anything else but family use. Any argument to that is baloney.
> Their spouse can use the vehicle as well. It is normally an Escalade,
> Suburban, or Cadillac (premium vehicle). They can use as much gas
> as needed, including filling up on friday night, driving to the cabin,
> and back, then filling up on monday morning. Free car insurance,
> free maintenance, tires, you name it. If the PEP car breaks, the
> company car office gets them a new one. When the vehicle has "miled
> out" , the executive can use this vehicle as their "drive and buy"
> (or lease, as it use to be) and this becomes their wifes car. They
> purchase or lease this vehicle at deep discount as PEP 1,2 or 3 depending
> on the miles. Not a bad deal. I am sure anyone would like that
> deal too, just not if the company is broke and others are being fired
> or losing their health care (so much for leadership).
>
> Actual "manufacturers" test vehicles are not PEP cars as some have
> stated above. They are "M" plated and are for testing only, no spouses
> or personal trips, a completely different deal. They should knock
> off the PEP cars, not the true test "M" plate vehicles. The PEP
> cars are mostly just commuter cars. The PEP drivers fill out an
> evaluation form that is often cursory at best. Some of the comments
> are laughable almost, you can tell a bunch of these people are pencil
> pushers that are clueless about vehicles. This has been a complete
> example of wretched excess for years, that quite frankly should have
> been eliminated long before some poor low level GM saps insurance
> benefits got cancelled.
>
> let em eat cake
> .]]> Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:51:20 -0400 This perk is considered part of their annual compensation and is a standard throughout most industries. After watching all of the proceedings in Washington and the carping from those who look at what everyone else has, I am reminded of the goings on in the communist countries where "the people" decided who had too much and who should get it. Have we arrived at that point now, or are we still the America that rewards those who succeed after putting forth the effort to get an education and work themselves up the corp ladder. These folks do not work an eight hour day. They often arrive at work before 6AM and work well into the evening when everyone else is home watching sports. What we do not need is more bloggers searching through every company's business, pulling little nuggets out of context, without explaining the whole story, just to get published and unduly raise the ire of readers. Let's get back to being part of the solution, rather than slinging mud in every direction to see if something sticks.


On Mar 27 10:20 PM observer1 wrote:

> The GM 8th levels and unclassified executives get a vehicle to use
> for "free", yes they pay imputed income for the use of the vehicle,
> but it is a GREAT deal. Most of the use is commuting, not company
> trips or anything else but family use. Any argument to that is baloney.
> Their spouse can use the vehicle as well. It is normally an Escalade,
> Suburban, or Cadillac (premium vehicle). They can use as much gas
> as needed, including filling up on friday night, driving to the cabin,
> and back, then filling up on monday morning. Free car insurance,
> free maintenance, tires, you name it. If the PEP car breaks, the
> company car office gets them a new one. When the vehicle has "miled
> out" , the executive can use this vehicle as their "drive and buy"
> (or lease, as it use to be) and this becomes their wifes car. They
> purchase or lease this vehicle at deep discount as PEP 1,2 or 3 depending
> on the miles. Not a bad deal. I am sure anyone would like that
> deal too, just not if the company is broke and others are being fired
> or losing their health care (so much for leadership).
>
> Actual "manufacturers" test vehicles are not PEP cars as some have
> stated above. They are "M" plated and are for testing only, no spouses
> or personal trips, a completely different deal. They should knock
> off the PEP cars, not the true test "M" plate vehicles. The PEP
> cars are mostly just commuter cars. The PEP drivers fill out an
> evaluation form that is often cursory at best. Some of the comments
> are laughable almost, you can tell a bunch of these people are pencil
> pushers that are clueless about vehicles. This has been a complete
> example of wretched excess for years, that quite frankly should have
> been eliminated long before some poor low level GM saps insurance
> benefits got cancelled.
>
> let em eat cake
> .]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128265-gm-execs-fill-up-on-the-taxpayer-s-dime?source=feed#comment-443261 443261

On Mar 27 09:26 PM Hrworker wrote:

> Just another perk for the TOP HEAVY GM (non-productive) SALARY LABOR.
> They need to make DEEP cuts in that area. I bet GM could get rid
> of half of its current Salary workforce and not see any affect in
> production. Ross Perot told them back in the 80tys and all they did
> was buy him out to keep his mouth shut. Until GM makes these cuts
> it will go nowhere.]]> Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:18:53 -0400

On Mar 27 09:26 PM Hrworker wrote:

> Just another perk for the TOP HEAVY GM (non-productive) SALARY LABOR.
> They need to make DEEP cuts in that area. I bet GM could get rid
> of half of its current Salary workforce and not see any affect in
> production. Ross Perot told them back in the 80tys and all they did
> was buy him out to keep his mouth shut. Until GM makes these cuts
> it will go nowhere.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128061-obama-s-auto-task-force-lacks-expertise?source=feed#comment-442761 442761

On Mar 27 04:41 AM Dronic wrote:

> Experience of a failing design is worse than starting from a clean
> slate. This auto industry is run by execs who think they are smart
> enough to keep the industry afloat with their antiquated techniques.
> The car industry continues to move at snails pace with technology
> and thought this would keep them afloat. The thought of concealing
> new technology to get consumers to buy obsolete technology has backfired.
> After crushing the all electric such as GM's 1996 EV1 the industry
> is finally getting what it deserves. I wish there were networks
> other than local public networks that showed all Americans the documentaries
> that revealed such deception.
> I really encourage all readers to view the documentary " Who Killed
> the Electric Car". Make your assessment afterward.]]> Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:37:24 -0400

On Mar 27 04:41 AM Dronic wrote:

> Experience of a failing design is worse than starting from a clean
> slate. This auto industry is run by execs who think they are smart
> enough to keep the industry afloat with their antiquated techniques.
> The car industry continues to move at snails pace with technology
> and thought this would keep them afloat. The thought of concealing
> new technology to get consumers to buy obsolete technology has backfired.
> After crushing the all electric such as GM's 1996 EV1 the industry
> is finally getting what it deserves. I wish there were networks
> other than local public networks that showed all Americans the documentaries
> that revealed such deception.
> I really encourage all readers to view the documentary " Who Killed
> the Electric Car". Make your assessment afterward.]]>