Miken's Comments

Court Orders Against Gifting Delphi to Platinum

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:56:37 -0400

With the benefit of hindsight, the objection to the Platinum deal seems to be much ado about nothing. In spite of all the whoopla, NOBODY put in a competing bid.

Hilarious!!

Court Orders Against Gifting Delphi to Platinum

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:53:32 -0400

This will end when American labor rates are once again competitive,i.e., will overcome the freight costs to ship here from a low cost country. Not before. Seems so simple to me, but most people still don't get it. It should be obvious to everyone that American purchases couldn't care less where goods are manufactured...they will buy what they perceive as the greatest value TO THEM.

If Americans don't learn this lesson quickly, the middle class will be toast.

On Jun 17 01:50 AM TeresaE wrote:

> The joke is that Delphi is becoming a foreign, or subcontracted,
> "manufacturer."
>
> So, not only is the government gifting them away-just like Chrysler-the
> government is assuming all the risk.
>
> Dear gawd, when does this nightmare end?
>
> Oh, that's right, when the only jobs left have been granted by DC,
> the rest of us will be fighting over WalMart.

What Lies Ahead for Hybrid Car Investors?

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:09:50 -0400

Through a number of factual errors pointed out previously, the author has somehow arrived at the right short term conclusion in my opinion. PHEV's (not BEV's) are the near term right step. We should do a serious grid analysis (done by serious people with no advance agenda) to determine what kind of energy draw will be necessary to accommodate this technology.

I do think that research and infrastructure analysis should continue with hydrogen powered vehicles however.

How Trucks and Tariffs Contributed to GM, Chrysler Failures

Wed, 06 May 2009 16:07:14 -0400

Wayne:

They're sitting on their lots simply because they can't sell them. All three (Toyota, Honda, and Nissan) have tried without success to get into this market and failed.

Please see my other post above.

On May 06 11:58 AM WayneS wrote:

> When I go past a Toyota dealership, all I see are pickups and SUVs.
>
> They must be (were) making a profit on these as this is how they
> are financing their hybrids.
> As long as gasoline is cheap, Americans will buy pickups and SUVs.
>
> Gasoline gets cheaper every year. A stiff tax is the only way people
> will buy the economical vehicles they outwardly claim they want.

How Trucks and Tariffs Contributed to GM, Chrysler Failures

Wed, 06 May 2009 16:03:14 -0400

The theme of the article would be valid if the foreign producers had not failed so miserably in building full sized pick up trucks in this country, thus avoiding the tariffs. The Toyota Tundra, Honda Ridgeline, and Nissan Titan have all failed to sell adequately to reach the top ten in truck sales. Ford has sold 110,336 F Series trucks, GM has sold 124,501 ( combined Silverados and Sierras), and Chrysler has sold 64,522 Rams in the first 4 months of 2009. Each of the foreign manufacturers have sold less than 30,000 units for the same time period.

Actually, I did see a Ridgeline yesterday, it was the blue one.

Chrysler's Bankruptcy: Union-Management Relationships Unlikely to Change in Detroit

Mon, 04 May 2009 19:53:21 -0400

Succeeding is different than existing. I have 40+ years being involved in these matters so I think I have a right to express my opinion without being questioned by you.

No, the UAW did not want the company to fail. On the other hand, they didn't want them to succeed either. The UAW prefers that the company be essentially a breakeven arrangement where all profits are funneled back to the membership which puts the company in a precarious position when the economy tanks, and here we are.

A successful company has adequate cash and liquid assets on hand to whether these times, unfortunately, those assets became a target of the UAW leadership. The UAW is paying for this miscalculation. I do believe that the UAW had a legitimate purpose for many years gaining decent wages and benefits. The problem was that when they achieved these goals, they didn't change their mission and continued to fight for the same goals pricing themselves out of the market in the process. No vision.

On May 03 01:44 PM Thomas C wrote:

> This is the foundation of your argument..?
> " The union had no real reason to see the car companies succeed.
> They just wanted their wages maintained, their pension fully funded
> and their healthcare.”
> To this i say my friend you are a moron. Why would i want the company
> i worked for for 33 yrs to fail ? Union wages and compnsation make
> up 10 % of their total cost. When they were making billions of dollars
> for years, it was not my decision on how to blow the money or what
> prouducts to come out with. All we did was put together what they
> give us together. Have your ever worked a line? Try it and then tell
> me what your worth to them. And this is the best you can come up
> with. No my friend and i use that loosely, you are the parasite here.
> Get a real job that you know even a tad about . Then again you are
> probably a non union worker eh..?

Chrysler's Bankruptcy: Union-Management Relationships Unlikely to Change in Detroit

Mon, 04 May 2009 19:42:44 -0400

The UAW is not a concern of mine. They won't have control on the Chrysler (or maybe GM) BOD. Gettelfinger is correct in saying that the stock is not owned by the UAW, it is owned by the UAW VEBA. Maybe a small but important distinction. The VEBA will be run by a board consisting of 5 UAW appointed members, and 6 independent directors appointed by the courts. The Chairman is going to be Robert Naftaly, former CEO of BCBS PPO.

The concern to me is the government's shares and representation on the Chrysler/GM boards, especially GM. Imagine a scenario where GM wants to make a sizeable investment overseas, after all GM is a multi national company. The fact is that the growth in the auto world is in the Asia Pacific rim, and if you want to be a serious car company, you have to be there. How will a bunch of political hacks loyal to someone other than profit motivation react. Will they see the value of the investment, or will they follow a politically correct path?

Also, will the government hacks exert enough pressure on product development to polarize the portfolio to all smaller/hybrid cars. If a car company had that portfolio in periods of $2 gas like the present, the data shows that they will not sell cars. Prius sales are down over 50% currently.

I also believe they would under estimate the American consumer in that the vast majority of consumers know that hybrids have prohibitively long payback periods.

Like I say, it's not the UAW, it's the U.S. Government to be concerned about.

Credit Default Swaps May Be Playing a Supporting Role in Chrysler Bankruptcy Filings

Sat, 02 May 2009 11:09:07 -0400

DonFurio

It is amazing that ANYONE would try and defend hedge fund traitors, excuse me, traders. The UAW is taking flak for be $15/hour too high compared to Toyota, Honda, etc. Auto CEO's are taking flak for making $10-15 million in decent years, and the fact that 5 hedge fund traitors made over $1 BILLION last year hardly gets any mention. Scandals, too many to mention plague Wall Street from Bernie Madoff to John Thain go on and on. But you're worried about the UAW getting more than their share??

I for one am sick and tired of the financial sector skating by with TRUE bailouts, with out any hope of repayment, while the auto industry constantly gets hammered. I'm sorry we don't live in Manhattan or are some of the beautiful people in CA that can't manage their own state. But you know what, I've been to both places and wouldn't live in either one if you paid me enough to make up for the absurd cost of living.

And by the way, I am not part of the UAW, never have been. In fact, for a career I fought them everyday. The only people I can't stand more than them are you suddenly self righteous financial people who, along with your friends Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank (both from eastern states I might add).

The "Dean" of investment advisors Art Cashin from UBS, predicted that there would be a severe pullback in the markets before Friday...didn't happen. How many people lost money on that charlatan's advice? Nobody in the entire investment community saw this coming with the exception of Peter Schiff. They are all a bunch of frauds. Anybody who listens to these people deserves to lose everything. And don't give me this stuff that Grandma's and Grandpa's have there life savings invested with the hedge funds. There are no rules in that game, so buyer beware.

So go on with your indignant rants about your rights being usurped, I'm not listening.

By the way, if you really are a Don, I would gladly kiss your ring instead of ending up with cement overshoes in the Long Island Sound.

On May 01 04:12 PM DonFurio wrote:

> Miken,
> If you do not believe in the rule of law and claims in bankruptcy,
> that's fine, but besides being one of the pillars of capitalism,
> just understand the consequences, higher credit costs for everyone
> and more restrictive covenants. Lenders will not take equity risks
> for debt returns, it's that simple. The US is still the largest
> economy by far, and if you weren't over-exposed in this cycle, you
> have an opportunity to do just fine the next 5-10 years. Remember
> if you have debt, it's not your money.
>
> I don’t doubt that the unions may have helped workers 40-50 years
> ago, but many companies and employees have long realized that it
> stifles innovation and why pay 10% of your paycheck to “union dues”.
> Yea, maybe you get a higher salary this year, but since the companies
> can’t fire anyone, it becomes much more difficult for anyone to try
> and get ahead because everything is based off of “seniority” or “for
> the good of union”. Think about it, it basically forces companies
> to overpay for people, if the employees were really worth what they
> think, then they should be able to move to the next firm that can
> hire them at that price. Of course the unskilled like it because
> it pays them more than they are worth, however it also causes all
> prices to rise, including cost of living for everyone.
>

Credit Default Swaps May Be Playing a Supporting Role in Chrysler Bankruptcy Filings

Fri, 01 May 2009 14:22:17 -0400

DonFurio

"To me it is ridiculous that the UAW gets anything considering they were a major factor in the collapse (of GM)".

Let me rephrase your comment a little:

"To me it is ridiculous that the hedge funds get anything considering they were a major factor in the collapse of the U.S. economy"

What goes around, comes around.

On Apr 30 09:15 PM DonFurio wrote:

> This is horrific, the lenders who are secured, should be ahead of
> everyone. I hope they do well in court. To me it is ridiculous
> that the UAW gets anything considering they were a major factor in
> the collapse and when other heavily unionized companies went through
> CH 11 including just about every major airline besides AMR and CAL
> (they re-worked the bonds out of bankruptcy court), the employees
> who weren't retired, had to have their pension sent to Federal Pension
> Beneficiary where they will get a fraction of their previously unrealistic
> pension. Besides most of Chr’s cars are quite simply not very good,
> and if you were to live in anywhere besides the mid-west, you would
> have realized that people liked and drove around Toyota’s and other
> foreign cars, and steered away from the Big 3. For far too long these
> companies believed that they could do what they want and people would
> “buy American”, but people were smart enough to go for quality and
> also realize that many foreign owned cars are actually made in America.
>
>
> I have disagreed with this author on other articles, but I feel he
> did a nice job analyzing this situation and the article was well
> written.

Credit Default Swaps May Be Playing a Supporting Role in Chrysler Bankruptcy Filings

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:26:21 -0400

Wolverine:

The Detroit News is reporting that the following three entities did not come to Chrysler's party:

Oppenheimer Funds
Perella Weinburg Partners Xerion Capital Fund
Stairway Cap Management

Whatever you think of their actions, they will face some 'image' issues in the days to come.

www.detnews.com/articl...

On Apr 30 03:34 PM wolverine27 wrote:

> i would love to see the list of hedge funds who voted against this
> deal . some stated they were getting 33 cents and that they could
> get more in courts ......i want those results published.
> poetic justice is if they get less from the courts.
> i still cant believe there are people on this board supporting hedge
> fund billionares......these guys are the problem not the solution.
>
> they use favorable tax codes to skirt taxes which we pick up , so
> when gwynn cries about a sitting president ....please lets not shed
> a tear for this idealogical phony.

GM Forcing More than 1,000 Dealerships to Close

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:07:42 -0400

Do we really even need dealers? The internet is quickly dismantling the non value added practices of the middle man in almost every other industry. Research shows that the vast majority of consumers have already 'built' their car on the internet. They may be something that is simply no longer required.

Regional service centers could be strategically placed to be convenient for warranty work, along with new cars on display for those who want to kick the tires might be all that's required. One thing that has been learned with the Saturn experience is that people would rather know what the price is without having to go to every dealer to find the cheapest price. Then performing the pricing ballet while the sales person 'goes to check with the boss'. Have a financing expert on site and you're good to go.

The other thing that would be avoided is the monthly dance to award dealers with bonuses to do their job, not to mention the sales man complaining about the factory to a customer.

Hmmm.

Why Chrysler Needs to Declare Bankruptcy

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:55:05 -0400

Honest question....why should they care about how many dealers they have? They're just retail outlets. Is there something in the franchise agreement that I don't know about?

German Press: Fiat to Sign Deal with Opel, Not Chrysler

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:13:48 -0400

Fiat and GM Europe (mostly Opel) have a history. One part of the failed GM/Fiat venture that was beneficial was the exchange of powertrain technology. Fiat's small diesel engine technology was one of the things that GM was interested in and vice versa for gas engines. In fact, that's why GM Powertrain located its European headquarters in Turin, Italy.

So there is more of a 'known entity' with Fiat and GM. For the life of me, I can't quite understand why Fiat would be that interested in Chrysler other than the distribution system and ready made entree to the U.S. market. While the European unions (I.G. Metallurgy) are not wall flowers, they at least don't have the mentality that the UAW has in terms of potentially blowing up the company to get what they want. It just seems that Opel would be a better fit.

China Looks to Electrify Our Cars

Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:20:32 -0400

I would like one person to prove to me that ANY hybrid makes economic sense. For example, compare the Toyota Corolla to a Prius. Both within 200 lbs. of each other, wheelbase less than 4" different, basically would be appealing to the same customer from a size standpoint. The Corolla base model is $16,150 and the Prius is $23,375, a difference of $7225. Based on the EPA estimated combined mileage, the Corolla gets 30 mpg and the Prius 46.

At $2 per gallon gas, and driving 12,000 miles per year, it would take 26.0 years to pay off the premium cost for the Prius. At $4 per gallon, it would take 13 years, of course.

An even better comparison would be the Honda Civic and the Hybrid Civic. The regular Civic gets 29 mpg and the hybrid 42. There is a $7545 difference in base price. Using the same calculations it would take 29 years to pay off the premium.

If you want to save the world, by all means, drive a hybrid. If you just want to save money....not a smart idea.

Can GM Really Abandon Trucks and SUVs?

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:32:07 -0400

Cobra:

I guess I wasn't sarcastic enough about taxing the rich. That's the dumbest thing ever. Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. You'll like it.

On Apr 17 11:47 AM Cobra 1 wrote:

> MIKEN: Why is it that the rich should pay more in taxes than anyone
> else? I am not rich, I have a problem with everybody wanting to tax
> the rich at a higher rate, is that what equal taxation is supposed
> to be about?
>
> That represents an opportunity to move more to a socialist society,
> then a democratic one. If we are going to level the playing field,
> then lets get a flat tax at 25% and move on. Ross Perot had done
> the analysis on a flat tax and the government would have approximately
> 8 to 10% more revenues to waste, not that it would slow them down
> from spending more than they take in.
>
> The elected officials in this country think they can operate at a
> loss forever! If our government was a business, they should have
> been declared (morally as well as financially) bankrupt long ago.
>
>
> I hate that people always are going after the rich! General society
> thinks that there should be a redistribution of the wealth. Be careful
> what you ask for, the wealthy are going to move else where, we will
> be left with a middle class that is third world to use someone else
> analogy!

Bankruptcy Probable for GM

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:23:56 -0400

Hey Rolfe:

I can only think of one reason for this article...to promote your lame web site.

If anyone is looking for your opinion or something that you want to say, it's not there.

I don't need a regurgitation of today's news, already got it!

Can GM Really Abandon Trucks and SUVs?

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:15:35 -0400

I agree with you Andy, however, there hasn't been a free market since the government started issuing CAFE standards. This government interference has been dictating what kinds of vehicles car companies have to build to be in compliance for years.

It's very difficult for a car company to profitably build these small cars in the U.S., so the logical thing for the multi national companies to do is build them elsewhere and bring them in. That not only applies to the UAW companies, but the Toyota Yaris, Prius and Honda Fit are built outside this country and imported.

So, as often happens, the government is working at odds with itself. They are driving auto manufacturing away, while pretending to help preserve jobs.

If they REALLY wanted to promote small cars, they should increase taxation on fuel to stabilize it at $4-5 per gallon. You notice how quickly that affected the market place last year. Even that isn't enough to make hybrids financially viable for the consumer though.

But the taxation will never happen because that would require both parties working together without trying to gain political advantage. And it would be repressive taxation since it would be equally leveled on all people. Maybe we could require people to carry a copy of their income tax return and charge a sliding scale so we could assure that we tax rich people to death on this too.

Oh well, I'm sure congress will come up with the best solution possible.

On Apr 17 06:55 AM ANDY K wrote:

> The writer's comment: "Dropping GMC doesn’t make sense from a business
> perspective. Therefore, it would have to be justified on a social
> policy basis. That’s fine..."
> WELL, That's NOT fine. Why must Government meddle in social policy
> as is relates to cars? Why shouldn't the FREE MARKET handle it? I
> personally don't want to live like Europeans. I dont' want to drive
> glorified skateboards.

Fed Considers GM Buy-In: Digging a Deeper Hole

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:40:30 -0400

Another finance person pontificating. I'm going to be ill.

Let me tell you something Tom, you and your Wall Street pal's days are numbered. You have shown us that you cannot manage yourselves, let alone giving the car business advice....keep your advice. You people are always able to explain why today's market went up or down but fall woefully short when trying to predict the future. You are frauds and people like you are trying to perpetuate the illusion that you know something we don't. I for one, am sick to death of hearing it.

When you all fix your own business, give me a call. Another example of the unabashed arrogance of the financial world is criticizing the government for LOANING the car companies money is the complete lack of discussion on the amount of BAILOUTS given to the banks. Hello.....what about that?? How much went to the banks vs the automakers?? Never mind, we know.

GM: An Inside Look

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:44:27 -0400

The amazing thing to me is even in the face of published data, people like this refuse to allow for the fact that, at least GM and Ford, have not only closed the gap, but are better than the Japanese.

Buick was recently named the most dependable brand by J. D. Powers, Ford was recently named best in initial quality by the same organization, Consumer Reports has REMOVED Camry's, Lexus' and Tundra from its automatic 'recommended' list due to engine sludge issues and numerous Tundra recalls (very embarrassing for CR who has long favored Toyota).

I'm afraid that too many people have the "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts" attitude for the domestics to make a very rapid recovery. It is too difficult for the elitists to admit they are wrong, and they end up looking silly to the rest of us.

On Apr 12 03:46 AM epeon wrote:

> I do believe that this interview has put its finger on exactly what
> is wrong with marketing at GM. You can go back as far as Roger Smith
> and find the CEO saying, "trust us, our quality has vastly improved
> and is as good as the japanese now." Of course, that was never true.
>
>
> Today, I believe GM's quality is better. Particularly on their newer
> designs. But, we have been hearing that same song and dance now
> for about thirty years. So, is it really any surprize that no one
> quite believes it?
>
> I think GM is just going to have to hunker down like Ford and prove
> it. They are going to have slash costs, probably through a bankruptcy,
> cut prices and claw for every percentage of market share they can
> get. They need to look at the jap and korean car companies not as
> competitors, but as mortal enemies. That means they have to be absolutely
> relentless. Can they do this?

Why I Take No Issue with the Government Firing GM's Wagoner

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:22:37 -0400

Guess what Chad, people like you are more responsible for where GM is than Rick Wagoner. Until the fiasco that the financial community sprung on us, GM was turning the ship around. You might want to read "Why GM Matters" by William Holstein before you continue to spew.

That's right, the industry that has no ability to regulate itself, that is totally corrupt, and is incapable of foreseeing anything. Yes, you are responsible. It's only fortunate for you that the financial services industry has contributed millions to congress, or your leaders would also be losing their jobs.

I doubt very much whether anyone cares what you think.

Cars: What It Means to 'Buy American'

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:06:34 -0400

Per cent of parts manufactured outside the U.S. is only one metric. If one looks at the entire process from cradle to grave, there is a much more illustrative way to measure content.

From GM's most recent 10-K, and Toyota's most recent 20-K, it shows that even though Toyota sells 33.2% of their vehicles in North America, only 12.0% of their people are here. On the other hand, GM sells 42.7% of their vehicles in NA while employing 47.7% of their people here.

I think this is an even more telling statistic because it goes directly to the number of jobs, whether they may be union represented, management, engineering, purchasing, etc.

While both companies are multi nationals, it's clear which is American based.

I wonder how many Japanese government purchased American cars there are in Tokyo?

George Soros, GM and the next Lehman Brothers

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:44:54 -0400

Of course, in order to really listen to what Mr. Soros says, one would have to take into account what his present holdings are, wouldn't one?

Who knows what he has shorted, puts, etc. I doubt he ever says anything without having some skin in the game.

GM's Tough Treatment Should Be a Model for Other Bailouts

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:53:27 -0400

Treatment of the auto companies vs the banks and Wall Street will never be the same for two reasons:

1. The auto companies are not part of the east coast elitists. They are primarily a mid west concern. If there's any doubt about that, simply look at the market share of the Detroit 3 on the east coast. Even in the face of irrefutable data on quality, market share has not grown. It's simply not cool to drive a domestic car. For proof of that, I can provide a link that shows what the Auto Task Force members are driving for their personal cars.

2. You have to follow the money. I can also provide a link showing how much money the financial services industry has given to congressmen, senators, and Presidents.

So, to expect that there will be similar treatment is not likely.

Why GM Must Shed More Brands

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:13:49 -0400

I would keep Buick too. Very popular in China and growing here. The Enclave is great, and the new LaCrosse is a beauty. With Buick being at the top of the heap for J.D. Powers dependability, it has a good feeling now.

On Apr 05 11:52 AM a. palmer jr. wrote:

> I heard a few days ago that GM is going down to two brands, Chevrolet
> and Cadillac. The rest will be scrapped. I kinda like Buick, not
> quite a Cadillac but very comfortable to ride in. Chevy has a bit
> harsher ride. Other car companies will probably need to cut back
> also. It made no sense to me that Chevrolet and GMC trucks were practically
> the same vehicle but with different nameplates.

Why GM Must Shed More Brands

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:11:34 -0400

I'm not sure what the author's point is, but he has correctly regurgitated the last GM viability plan. No new news here.

The author was a little confused about GM's intentions, however.

"Honestly, GM’s actions don’t currently match what they have announced in public."

"Although each GM nameplate had a display in the same general area – and the fact that Buick had an all-new sedan at their display – the dealers swarmed to Chevrolet and Cadillac. Interestingly enough, it also seems to be where most of the new product offered by the automaker for 2010 (and even 2011) was displayed."

I'm not sure what he's confused about. This is a physical manifestation of exactly what they stated in their viability plan. While they can't totally eliminate the other brands because of their franchise agreement (at least until a bankruptcy proceeding that would eliminate them), it would be foolish to spend a lot of money on phony window dressing of new models.

Ousting Rick Wagoner Won't Solve GM's Problems

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:10:34 -0400

We all are getting kind of tired of hearing this story. You need to come up with some new material.

On Mar 30 12:05 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> He should have gone ages ago. I’ll tell you what GM’s problem is.
> My dad was a lifetime GM customer, religiously buying a new Oldsmobile
> every five years. Once he even flew to Detroit for a factory tour
> and drove his new prize home. Thirty years ago I told him he was
> doing GM no favors by buying their cars, and the only way to force
> them to improve a tragically deteriorating product was to buy better
> made German and Japanese vehicles. This was right after the State
> of California forced auto makers to install seatbelts on new cars.
> Airbags and ABS brake systems were still years away. His response,
> “I didn’t fight the Japanese for four years so I could buy their
> cars.” (He was a Marine). GM’s problem is that my Dad passed away
> seven years ago. Of the original 17 million WWII veterans, 1,500
> a day are dying, and there are only 1.5 million left. All of them
> loved Detroit because it built great Jeeps, Sherman tanks, and half
> tracks that brought them home from harm’s way. Their kids prefer
> German, Japanese, Italian, Korean, and soon, Chinese and Indian vehicles.
> It is no coincidence that GM’s problems really accelerated with the
> passing of the “greatest generation.” During the last 35 years, when
> Japan’s share of the US car market climbed from 1% to 40%, I begged
> GM to mend their ways and build a quality, price competitive product
> that Americans wanted to buy. They answer was always the same: “Nobody
> can tell GM how to build cars.” Maybe someone should tell them.

Doubtful That Chrysler, GM Will Avoid Bankruptcy

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:56:10 -0400

My compliments to the author, I think he/she has outlined the complexities involved very well.

My approach would be to get it settled once and for all. I would gather all the stakeholders together and outline what I need from each one. That includes the UAW, bondholder representatives, suppliers, dealers, etc.

I would give them a couple of weeks, if I didn't get a positive response from all of them I would put myself in Chapter 11, the government be damned.

The people that I feel the most sorry for are the retirees. Oh I know many begrudge the retirees their 'lavish' packages, but don't judge too fast. My 88 year old mother who gets $800 per month from GM doesn't have a 55 foot yacht....but also didn't break the law. There has to be some resolution for these people.

Frankly I couldn't care less about the bondholders or the UAW. If it wouldn't hurt the innocents so much, I wouldn't mind to see both go out of existence.

Turning Accountability into a Potemkin Village

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:20:53 -0400

I think the author is mistaken. The President doesn't want to run GM, not at all. He only wants to:

1. Decide who runs the company
2. Decide how much they are allowed to make
3. Decide what vehicles they are allowed to make (through CAFE standards)

On the other hand, congress will not do their part as almost any other industrialized country has. The auto companies operate in an environment where there is no energy policy. This allows fuel prices to vary from $1.50 to $4.50 in a matter of a few weeks. Car makers can build cars that people want for each of them, but to have capacity waiting for BOTH cannot be sustained by any company.

Second, only American companies bear the burden of health care. Whether you agree to the idea of government sponsored health care or not, our competitors DO NOT DEAL WITH IT. The same arguments apply to pensions as well.

Third, the U.S. has no industrial policy. There is no vision, strategy, or even desire to have a vibrant manufacturing sector.

Well, maybe we can sustain ourselves with financial markets (shuffling around other people's money), service industries (depends on the servicee having some means of paying), and, of course, Starbuck's.

Five Reasons Not to Buy American Cars

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:00:55 -0400

Consumer Reports is not someone that I would take advice from. It is a small group of elitists that decide if it's a car that THEY like. They are led by David Champion who is from that hot bed of automotive excellence, England.

I would prefer to be guided by J.D. Powers. On the latest reliability survey in which Buick beat both Lexus and Toyota (and everybody else for that matter) over 40,000 owners gave their opinions. That means something to me.

On Apr 01 04:06 PM Lewis Bucy wrote:

> Rick, why are you so angry ? I sense this anger in your article
> ...did you have a bad experience at one of the domestic auto makers
> years ago? Times have changed... and I suggest you do your homework...
> Consumers Reports got caught last year ..stating one of the new Ford
> offerings was average ...we all found out lately they didn't even
> test it ...and just stated it based on "historical" info....they
> apoligized ..but hardly anyone noticed....

Five Reasons Not to Buy American Cars

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:52:22 -0400

Here's a another way to look at it.

Toyota sells 33.2% of their vehicles in North America, while employing 12.% of the people here.

GM sells 42.7% of their vehicles here and employs 47.7% of their people here.

Data from GM's latest 10-K and Toyota's latest 10-K.

To think that Toyota's value stream is the same as GM's for a car ASSEMBLED here is the same is dangerously naive. Particularly when you considered that there are obstructionist walls built around their home market.

On Apr 01 02:16 PM babyray wrote:

> 5 reasons not to buy a Honda or Toyota!
> 1. A majority of their operations & employees are in foriegn
> countries
> 2. 65% to 85 % of their parts are coming in from Japan. Yes that
> includes the southern assembly plants.
> 3.Niether company gave a dime to a Sept 11 charity. (GM gave 1 million
> and donated trucks).
> 4. American Companies quality rankings and plant effiency is equal
> to and at times surpasses the foriegn companies. (you wont hear that
> on FOX News).
> 5. Pearl Harbor.