Repper's Comments

Autoworkers' Pay Only Small Factor in Detroit's Problems

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:51:13 -0500

Finally someone broke it down correctly. I'm SO sick of people throwing that $73/hr amount in ignorance, as if it was take-home pay. Most UAW workers are not rich, though historicly much better paid than the general market would dictate. Recent changes in contracts will largely narrow that gap over time, and new proposed emergency concessions will virtually eliminate it in a few years. Finally the UAW will not be a huge yoke on the necks of the big three.

Still, I do think that their high pay and benefits (including retirement legacy costs) accompanied with rediculous work rules, and their historic resistance to productivity improvements are a large part of why the big three struggle in such tough times. I hope that the union finally realizes that holding the company hostage for their own benefit only hurts everyone in the long run. I hope the emergency changes now proposed really do take place, and stay in place.

Big Two Bailout: Likelihood of Success Is Slim

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:35:39 -0500

"According to Professor Edward Altman, famous for his Altman z-score company solvency model, he has calculated that with the recent bailout proposal whereby GM was seeking $18 Billion, even with the temporary infusion of cash, GM will be bankrupt within a year unless they continued to receive new funding. This is not a sustainable model and we should not beguile ourselves into this illusion."

He did not take into account any of the changes proposed. That stat is only accurate if the company made no changes in capacity or cost structure AND if the credit market stays locked keeping the auto market at historic lows. Facts are that the company already has made changes from which they will realize more and more of the cost savings. Also the plans they submitted outline many more changes that will make them more viable. Of course it all relys somewhat on the credit market loosening, so that the auto market will start to ramp back up at least a little. (If the credit markets don't loosen the HUGE TARP bailout was all worthless.)

Big Two Bailout: Likelihood of Success Is Slim

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:27:12 -0500

"#1) People will be hesitant to buy a car without assurances that the company is a going concern.

Well, wouldn't you be more comfortable buying a car from a company that you know is backed by the US government with skin in the game and a more sustainable model? Under the current proposal, we may very well have to eventually cut bait, and consumers know this. GM may never start selling cars at a sustainable rate again under the current proposal."

You make a huge and (IMO) very wrong assumption here. You assume that consumers realize that the vehicles would still be backed and that the company's future is just as healthy. The fact is that typical consumers don't know much about big business and will shy away from any uncertainty because there are so many other options.

Six Myths about the Big Three

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:01:34 -0500

And resale value is ONLY a producet of consumer OPINION about brands, not about actual durability.

On Nov 21 02:56 PM Morvo wrote:

> Oh, and btw -- to all those apologists for the big 3 (particularly
> GM domestic), citing recent articles by consumer reports that essentially
> boil down to "their cars aren't quite the disasters they once were,"
> make sure you read this recent WSJ piece:
>
> online.wsj.com/article...
>
>
> Resale value determines true worth.

Six Myths about the Big Three

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:51:37 -0500

For all you who love to ignorantly spout your cynical distain for your own country's companies, the following applies specifically to GM, but both Ford and Chrysler are similar in the changes they’ve made too.

Think GM has done nothing to improve their business and cost structure? Facts:
• Reduced structural cost by $9 billion from 2005-2007 (down 22%) with plans for further reductions of $5 to $6 billion by 2011 (down ~35%)
• Rightsized manufacturing capacity: From year-end 2004 to year-end 2007, GM removed 1.3 million units of assembly capacity (24% net reduction)
– Further rightsizing planned with reduction of 0.7 million units by year-end 2010 (total net reduction of 36%)
– More than 60% of remaining capacity at year-end 2010 will be dedicated to fuel efficient cars and crossovers
• Streamlined U.S. operations: Total headcount reduced from 177,000 in 2002 to 93,000 today (47% reduction)
• 2007 UAW Hourly Labor Agreement provides basis for competitive manufacturingbase in U.S. by 2010
• Historic agreement with UAW to fund retiree health care obligations with independent VEBA trust, eliminating majority of risk related to U.S. retiree healthcare starting in 2010
• GM leads in manufacturing productivity in 11 out of the 20 North America segments in which it competes (2008 Harbour Report)
– GM also has 5 of the top 10 best rated engine plants in North America, and the #1 transmission plant, all located in the U.S.

Think GM Builds nothing but crappy, gas-gusslers?Facts:
– North America Car of the Year: Chevrolet Malibu and Saturn Aura
– Motor Trend Car of the Year: Cadillac CTS
– European Car of the Year: Opel Insignia
– Green Car of the Year (LA Auto Show): 2-Mode Hybrid Chevrolet Tahoe
– 11 of last 13 U.S. launches have been cars or crossovers
– J. D. Power Initial Quality Survey: In 2008, GM had more segment leaders than Toyota
or Honda, and GM has improved overall survey performance by 25% in last 5 years
– Reduced number of warranty repairs by 40% over the last 5 years, and are on track in 2008 to achieve a further 15% reduction vs. 2007 levels
– 20 GM vehicles with EPA highway fuel economy of 30 mpg or better (most of any manufacturer, domestic or import)
– World leader in bio-fuel vehicles with over 3 million FlexFuel vehicles on U.S. roads today, with commitment to reach 50% of annual GM volume by 2012
– 6 hybrids in U.S. today, and 2 more by year-end 2008 (most hybrid models of any automaker)
– Largest hydrogen fuel cell vehicle test fleet in the world
– Chevrolet Volt (E-REV) production on schedule to begin in 2010

Think GM doesn’t affect the total economy that much? Facts:
- Directly employs nearly 240,000 people
- Provides healthcare to 2 million Americans and pension benefits to
775,000 retirees and spouses
- Supports another 5 million jobs at dealers, parts suppliers and
service providers
- Comprises nearly 4% of U.S. GDP
- More than $225 billion invested in U.S. over last 2 decades,
including $10 billion in 2007 alone
- $12 billion spent annually in U.S. on R&D, exceeding aerospace,
medical equipment and communications
- Purchased $156 billion in U.S. auto parts in 2007, supporting jobs in
all 50 states
- Largest purchaser of U.S. steel, aluminum, iron, copper, plastics, rubber and electronic chips

Six Myths about the Big Three

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:30:53 -0500

You don't know waht you're talking about. THEY DO NOT BUILD "CRAP".
The Cobalt is actually a very good car, with good quality numbers. Ever even looked at one? A Civic is no safer in a crash; that's rediculous.
The writer of this article forgot about the Aveo as well. A direct competitor with the fit.

Look at some FACTS about GM before spout blind insults:
– North America Car of the Year: Chevrolet Malibu and Saturn Aura
– Motor Trend Car of the Year: Cadillac CTS
– European Car of the Year: Opel Insignia
– Green Car of the Year (LA Auto Show): 2-Mode Hybrid Chevrolet Tahoe
– 11 of last 13 U.S. launches have been cars or crossovers, the truck launches were hybrids
– J. D. Power Initial Quality Survey: In 2008, GM had more segment leaders than Toyota or Honda, and GM has improved overall survey performance by 25% in last 5 years
– Reduced number of warranty repairs by 40% over the last 5 years, and are on track in 2008 to achieve a further 15% reduction vs. 2007 levels
– 20 GM vehicles with EPA highway fuel economy of 30 mpg or better (most of any manufacturer, domestic or import)
– World leader in bio-fuel vehicles with over 3 million FlexFuel vehicles on U.S. roads today, with commitment to reach 50% of annual GM volume by 2012
– 6 hybrids in U.S. today, 2 more by year-end (most hybrid models of any automaker)
– Largest hydrogen fuel cell vehicle test fleet in the world
– Chevrolet Volt (E-REV) production on schedule to begin in 2010 - first to market!

On Nov 21 08:58 AM sickofthehype wrote:

> Well the fact of the matter is they DO build crap. Their ignorance
> to staying ahead of the game has caused their demise, and their cheaply
> made products are winning over less and less buyers each year.

>
> Toyota launched their Prius in 2000, almost 9 years ago! Come on!
> These guys were too caught up in the moment selling gigantic SUVs,
> and now look at them. And the small car segment is horrible. Would
> you buy a Cobalt or a Civic? Most would prefer the Civic. Would you
> rather be in an accident in a Cobalt or a Civic, that's the better
> question.
>
> In business you stay ahead of your competitors, and they have failed
> to do so. Now quit the whining and deal with the ramifications.
>
>
> The reason for the 'tone' of the articles about the Big 3 is that
> most people have the same opinion about the current situation. Poor
> management, poor products, failed ingenuity = too bad.

Six Myths about the Big Three

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:19:58 -0500

The leaders of those companies wouldn't have had to. The Japanese government wouldn't have hesitated to help their automakers in a similar situation. They have always been subsidized and protected by their government. not the same here, obviously.

On Nov 21 08:00 AM No Comment wrote:

>
> No doubt these 3 CEOs shouldn't fly on a scheduled airline flight
> - after all - by the time you add the expense of body guards, the
> 20 assistants that they bring along, the extra seats on the left
> and right for their brief case (can't expect them to work with one
> seat), and so on, they might as well have flown on their own jet.
>
>
> Can you imagine what Northwest Airlines would have charged for in
> flight service of congac, caviar, and wine? Just the checked baggage
> surcharge would wipe out any cost savings.
>
> Perhaps the final lesson that Detroit CEOs need to take from their
> Japanese counterparts is how to handle a similar crisis at a Japanese
> company.
>
> Seppuku in front of Congress.

Why Most Americans Don't Mind if the Big Three Fail

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:29:43 -0500

Their message (if you actually heard it) DID outline the significant changes tha have been made in recent years, and how they feel they can be profitable again. It hasn't been "business as usual" in detroit for many, many years.

On Nov 20 12:07 PM rightinsanfrancisco wrote:

> If Detroit's message were that they have made significant progress
> (with credible examples) and that they have a viable plan to be successful
> after this credit crisis, the American public would be glad to help
> them over the hump. But instead, their message is that the sky will
> fall if they go bankrupt. People will invest in something viable,
> but not a failed proposition with their leaders flying their jets
> into Washington and their multi-million dollar salaries.

Automakers: Bailout Arguments, Pro and Con

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:57:16 -0500

I agree that Chapter 11 would be the best way for these companies to reorganize and develop a more competitve cost structure, BUT everyone arguing for chapter 11 fail to realize one major point: They couldn't survive a bankrptcy filing. Finiky consumers with other options will NOT buy cars from them.

Automakers: Bailout Arguments, Pro and Con

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:45:16 -0500

Yes most discussion is GM vs Toyota because they are the biggest players involved, and the comparisons are most direct. Most of the same things could be said of Ford vs Honda etc.

On Nov 20 10:37 AM Killjoy wrote:

> I keep hearing all this talk about GM compared to Toyota....What
> about Honda?!? They had a record year, and i can buy a brand new
> fully loaded car for under $20,000. I'll take that over a hybrid
> that weighs 1k lbs more and that has maintenance twice as expensive
> as non-hybrid more fuel efficient car.

Let the Detroit Automakers Fail

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:22:20 -0500

You know nothing about the industry or what the auto comapnies have been doing lately. You make sweeping comments about being bloated, refusing to change, etc. Just plain ignorance. I hesitated to even grace you with a reply, but I felt someone should call you out.

Why Most Americans Don't Mind if the Big Three Fail

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:00:32 -0500

I'm afraid a depression in this country that would be caused by the immediate fallout of sucha failure would cause a great decrease decrease in demand. Yes some manufacturing would come back, but in whos' hands? Most likely foreign run companies. I'm afraid that would not be good for our countries future either.

I'm very sorry that you had/have such problems with your '96 Ford. It sounds like you got a real lemon, and that sucks. Your expreience will obviously steer you, and those you talk to, away from Ford (and probably other domestics as well). Unfortunately you should realize that there have been a TON of change made over the past decade. Every new generation of vehicle that comes out getts better and better in quality and reliability from any auto maker, and the domestic comapanies have caught up in those areas. but the perceptions caused by past sins will be extremely difficult to overcome.

On Nov 20 09:48 AM rdr4 wrote:

> There seems to be a presumption, on the part of the alarmists, that
> a failure of the big 3 would create an vacuum in the industry.
The
> demand for automobiles and trucks is not going away, it is being
> redistributed. Although it is possible that some other automaker
> might buy a substantial amount of the Detroit big 3 car makers distressed
> property to allow for the increase in their anticipated market-share,
> the foreign automakers seem to feel that the Detroit environment
> does not enhance their potential for producing a cost effective product.
>
> Toyota, VW, Nissan, Honda, etc, appear to share that thought.
>
> I have a 1996 F-350 diesel work truck pick-up, bought new. The glow
> plug condenser goes out every 3 months. The driver seat self destructed
> at 36,000 miles ( I weigh 180). The leaf springs broke although the
> truck was never overloaded. Ford did not even stock the springs.
> The transmission fell apart at 147,000. Now, the heater failed and
> Ford does not stock any replacement, nor is there a part available
> in the aftermarket. Yes, I want more of this, not!
> Supporting Detroit is like holding a dead body above your head while
> swimming across a rampaging river.
>
>
>

Why Most Americans Don't Mind if the Big Three Fail

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:52:43 -0500

A rare, relatively even handed view of what's going on here. Americans do have a warped view of what these companies are now because of everything in their past. Too few of the criticisms I hear about them really hold any water:
1) SUVs were a product of consumer demand. CAFE standards only work if people want to buy small cars. They make every car as efficient as possible while meeting consumre demands (performance, etc).
2) Domestics have fuel economy as good or better than competitors in most if not all segments.
3) Domestic's quality and reliability is as good or better than foriegn competition in most segments.
4) UAW has made some concessions (though perhaps not quite enough)over the past several years.
5) Domestics are mostly ahead of the curve with alternative fuel technologies. (GM just made the mistake of putting their hybrid technology into the trucks they thought people would keep buying rather than having a direct competitor with the prius, but the Volt will leapfrog that.)
It's too bad all the changes they've made and work they've done to become competitive may be for nothing if this whole thing goes bad. And yes, bad for the automakers WILL be bad for the entire country. Yes, they COULD be leaner and more competitive if they shed some of their contractual obligations through chapter 11, but I am one of those that believe a chapter 11 would soon become a chapter 7 due to lack of sales. Those millions of jobs would be hit by that and our fragile economy would surely be in depression.
Also, even if they did stay afloat through a babkruptcy, whatever guaranteed loan(s) that would be needed to get them through a chapter 11 would cost the taxpayers much more than is currently under consideration.
I also believe that if they get some kind of assistance and do somehow make it through the other side of this economic crisis, they can and will be profitable with the changes they have/are making.

Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:16:13 -0500

The problem with the domestic automakers (besides the current economic woes effecting every automaker) is not how they’re currently run, nor lack of innovation, nor the quality, appeal (if you can discount prejudices), or fuel efficiency of their products. They have corrected and continue to improve those things that have been problems in the past. The problem boils down to 2 things:
1) Higher structural costs than competitors including huge legacy costs due to huge increases in health care costs and a huge retirement population.
They have tried to stem these costs by restructuring their labor agreements and benefit offerings, but those changes will take some time to realize.
2) A large portion of the American consumer population and media who refuse to give up promoting the pervasive misconception that US automaker don’t build good products, and they won’t even consider a domestic vehicle when they go to make a purchase.

Now I agree that any cheap loans from the government should come with heavy concessions to help ensure sustainability and payback of those loans (with interest), but don't discount the changes that have already been made by these comapanies. The facts are that they have been working hard doing the right things.

Bust-Up, Not Bailout

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:22:43 -0500

Those advocating Chapter 11 don't realize the reality of the situation. Buying a car is a huge investment for people. They won't buy one from a company that they fear may not come out of bacruptcy, which will then lead to the ultimate failure of the company(s) for complete lack of sales. An airline can continue as normal under Chapter 11 because they're only selling a $200-$1000 SERVICE that is not a long-term investment for a consumer. Not the case for cars.

On Nov 12 12:00 PM kotika98 wrote:

> also, dont forget, bankruptcy does not mean closing the doors forever.
> At least it didnt have to mean that, if they did it a year or two
> ago. Most likely GM would continue like before the next day after
> bankruptcy, only that their pension, healthcare and other obligations
> would be wiped out allowing for a fresh start.

Auto Industry: In for a Penny, In for a Pound

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:58:06 -0500

The previous poster wrote:
"I'm afraid that the Japanese will beat the Volt to market with a plug-in and the Japanese car will be the one to get all the sales. Like it or not, The Big-3 are going to have to find a way to build high quality, attractive, innovative small and medium sized cars that people want. They are also going to have to do whatever it takes to adjust their cost structures to be competitive with foreign products or they will not survive in anything but a booming economy with very cheap gas. It will be hard to compete with Accord, Civic, Camry and Corolla, these nameplates have been out there for 20+ years and the models have been constantly improved. They have a reputation for quality and they are the cars that buyers gravitate to. The closest the Big-3 ever got recently to a car with this kind of following was the Taurus but they let it slip away by not keeping the car updated and competitive. "

You posting was generally well thought out, but you're still infected with the all-pervasive general prejudice that US products are inferior, and that the US automakers haven't tried to brak into those car segments dominated by the Japanese. The "reputation" is the only thing that those models have over their US counterparts. They have not put more innovation or updates in their products than the Big 3 have. They simply have a following who refuse to consider American products bacause of past sins. "Cars that people want" isn't that the trick. Everyone loves to bash the US makers for not being able to produce them while they don't even look at what they've actually done lately. If anything, you'll find that the Big 3 have come up with better products if you do an honest comparison.

As far as the Volt goes. I can assure you that it will come to market as fast as any car company has brought any vehicle to market in the history of cars. I don't know exactly what Honda and Toyota are up to on this front, but I do believe we'll beat them to market.

Bust-Up, Not Bailout

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:35:13 -0500

AMEN!

On Nov 12 11:13 AM TB3 wrote:

> I agree with tired of your bs. The writers (I can't call them analysts
> as they constantly demonstrate that they have done little or nothing
> to understand what it takes to run an auto company nor do they have
> a grasp of what the auto makers are doing today to recover from their
> current financial crisis) would be better off writing about McDonalds
> or Starbucks, companies whose complexities they might be able to
> get their minds around.

Treasury Continues to Harpoon the Real Economy

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:26:46 -0500

This IS an ignorant rant. You may know i LITTLE about finance, but you obviously know nothing about the auto industry.
I'm SO sick of people blasting the products produced by the US automakers. The OBJECTIVE TRUTH is that they are building world class quality cars and trucks with world class fuel efficiency. Compare styling and they blow Toyota away. GM’s products are the benchmark in many segments. Look at the data! And [really] look at the cars!
The problem is the perception that keeps getting perpetuated that they don't build good cars and trucks. Many won't even look at them because of this ridiculous, pervasive misconception.
Yes, they had problems in the 70’s, 80's and early 90's. They got very complacent, and their products suffered. The companies have changed drastically since then, they HAVE BEEN doing the right things, but since so many consumers have written them off for past sins, they are having trouble getting some people to even look at domestic vehicles. Now with this perfect storm of the economy, and their legacy costs they are obviously hurting.
Letting them fail would truly send the economy into deep depression. Apparently most don't realize how much this manufacturing base effects every part of our economy. Yes, it hurts to say we're gonna "bail them out", but all they need is affordable loans to continue on the RIGHT path of building great vehicles and getting ahead of the competition with alternative fuel technologies. The American public would do the most for their economy if they would just CONSIDER buying American. It would help 'themselves' as well because the government can make a good deal of money from these loans (see the Chrysler "bailout" of the early 80s).
Before blindly bashing, please give a real look at the products that are being produced today and educate yourself with the facts. Try visiting gmfactsandfiction.com/.../ . Yes, it is compiled by GM, but all the facts included are from third-party sources to which links are provided. Dispel your misinformed misconceptions about GM and the other domestic auto makers.

Should We Really Bail Out the Big Three Automakers with $73.20 Per Hour Labor?

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:06:05 -0500

Settle Down!
The numbers in this article are alarming and inteded to be alarmist, but they show a skewed view of reality. That figure was including all labor wages, salaries, healthcare and other benefits, AND legacy costs averaged out to the number of workers employed.
The auto companies do have great legacy costs, but they have renegotiated a lot of those costs and average wages and benefit caosts are going way down as a result, including cutting retirees healthcare benefits for those of age to qualify for medicare.
Future costs will be nowhere near that, though undoubtedly still a bit more than Toyota.
On Nov 10 09:39 AM Midas1 wrote:

> Fox News reported this weekend that GM is seeking multibillions to
> fund their retirees' HEALTHCARE costs. BS!!!! No one is giving me
> a free ride on healthcare. I DO NOT WANT MY TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR
> ANYTHING OTHER THAN PRODUCT INGENUITY!! Taxpayers fund Medicare--now
> we're supposed to give GM retirees the "cadillac" of healthcare?
> No way. Let them fail. This money should not go to padding pockets
> of overpaid employees whom the union would only allow a simple job
> task and no cross training. GM is never going to match the quality
> of Toyota or Honda as long as the focus is on what more they can
> do to pacify the stupid UAW. It's time to dump the UAW and infuse
> a dose of common sense into the domestics!!

Aid for U.S. Automakers? Not a Good Start

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:48:09 -0500

Your intentions are good, and I would agree with your premis, but I think you are oversimplifying the issue. In the long run, perhaps 'survival of the fittest' would ulitmately be best, but in the short run failure of the domestic auto industry would send us from this downhill slide into a recession to an allout freefall into a depression.

Now I'll get on my soapbax about people who love to bash the US auto comapanies when they know very little about the industry at all.
The management has been doing all they can do make these comapnies right themselves. The Unions and legacy costs have been a great weight, slowing things down, but the recently restructured contracts can help that in the future.
Cerberus thought that they could come in and fix all the management problems at Chrysler, but they got there and found out that the auto industry is incredibly tough and competitive, and all the chages they would make were already in place. They couldn't do any better.
Truth is, the US auto companies are as well run as any in the world. They have just been hit with a lot of really tough outside conditions in addition to being continually punished by american press and consumers for their sins (complacency) of decades passed.
I'm SO sick of people blasting the products produced by the US automakers. The OBJECTIVE TRUTH is that they are building world class quality cars and trucks with world class fuel efficiency. Compare styling and they blow Toyota away. GM’s products are the benchmark in many segments. Look at the data! And [really] look at the cars!
The problem is the perception that keeps getting perpetuated that they don't build good cars and trucks. Many won't even look at them because of this ridiculous, pervasive misconception.
Yes, they had problems in the 70’s, 80's and early 90's. They got very complacent, and their products suffered. The companies have changed drastically since then, they HAVE BEEN doing the right things, but since so many consumers have written them off for past sins, they are having trouble getting some people to even look at domestic vehicles. Now with this perfect storm of the economy, and their legacy costs they are obviously hurting.
Letting them fail would truly send the economy into deep depression. Apparently most don't realize how much this manufacturing base effects every part of our economy. Yes, it hurts to say we're gonna "bail them out", but all they need is affordable loans to continue on the RIGHT path of building great vehicles and getting ahead of the competition with alternative fuel technologies. The American public would do the most for their economy if they would just CONSIDER buying American. It would help 'themselves' as well because the government can make a good deal of money from these loans (see the Chrysler "bailout" of the early 80s).
Before blindly bashing, please give a real look at the products that are being produced today and educate yourself with the facts. Try visiting gmfactsandfiction.com/.../ . Yes, it is compiled by GM, but all the facts included are from third-party sources to which links are provided. Dispel your misinformed misconceptions about GM and the other domestic auto makers.

Combining the Pickens Plan and an Auto Bailout

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:32:08 -0500

I agree that CNG couls be a good part of a more diversified energy infrastructure, but there are a coupl problems with this article.
1) Not a cent of the $25 billion already approved has made it to any of the auto makers. They have to jump through hoops to get funds approved for specific (green) projects. Which is as it should be, but it doesn't help them with their current cash crisis.
2) CNG is closer to $2 per gallon [equivalent]. (I own a dual CNG/gas fuel GM vehicle. I bought it used; it used to be a fleet vehicle.) Pehaps it could be a little cheaper if people were filling up at their homes with gas from their utility company, but not much. All the filling locations in my area (very sparse) are already owned by the gas company.
3) The auto companies can not magically develop a filling infrastructure, nor a market for such vehicles. They have the technology and will build the vehicles if consumers start demanding them.

Demand More for Your Auto Bailout Dollar; Oil Patch Should Bounce Back Long Term

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:14:58 -0500

Fitzman,
Get real! The products are good, you and many other American consumers just refuse to look at them. Management has been making the right decisions and turning the companies around for the last decade+, but he can't seem to break through the prejudice that the American consumers have due to past sin's like poor quality and slow change in the 80's.

Also, CAFE standards do nothing to drive consumer demand. They only force automakers to build more of what the cunsumers won't buy. The only way to increase general fuel efficiancy is to make the consumers want to drive those types of vehicles (higher gas prices, etc.) People act like the auto companies have chosen to make larger vehicles that use more gas on their own. No auto comapany has held back from making each vehicle they build as fuel efficient as possible for the cost/price the market calls for.

I do agree that alternative fuels are needed for our own economy and the automotive industry in general. And believe me, the US automakers are fighting hard to get ahead of the competition in that arena. The "bailout" loans would be bridging them to be able to do just that.

On Nov 12 09:06 AM The Fitzman wrote:

> Mmarrrkk: you're still missing my point. GM defends itself by saying
> it has been making the cars and trucks that people want. Yet, their
> market share has dropped precipitiously and they are now close to
> bankruptcy. so, do you really *believe* that they have been making
> the cars and trucks that people want? obviously not. so, now they
> need MY taxpayer money. my point is that, if they want MY money to
> bail them out (and let's face it, MY money will go to the pay the
> salaries of the millionaire GM executives that made these bad decisions),
> then I want something out of it. i want to be able to buy a natural
> gas car or truck. i want to be able to buy a home natural gas refueling
> appliance at a decent price. wrt your comments on socialism or whatever,
> look at what is happening now! the bush administration is taking
> over the banking, mortgage, financial, and insurance markets. and
> it's not socialism. socialism for the rich, which is what is going
> on, goes by another name: *fascism*. now you know why the europeans
> held up posters of hitler when bush visited europe. they have seen
> this movie before.
>
> old wizard: of course the democrats have had a hand in the auto industry
> disaster. i already wrote how the clinton administration blew it
> on CAFE standards and caved to the lobbyist from GM and Ford and
> to the unions. the democrats have also had no spine and let bush
> do everything he wanted. so there is plenty of finger pointing in
> all directions. the article was more about what to do now. wrt oil
> imports, people shouldn't get hung up on exactly which countries
> we buy it from. oil is a global market. it doesn't matter much which
> country our dollars directly go to, when the price of oil goes up,
> it benefits the major producers the most: saudi, russia, iran, iraq,
> and venezuela. democrats dont agree with Pickens? Pickens is a republican,
> and he himself says that republicans won't give him the time of day.
> let's face it, the oil strangle hold on congress controls BOTH parties.
> pickens is making great in-roads with the american people and many
> govenors, but congress has been silent on the issue. it's very very
> sad. wrt obama, i think you are dead wrong. sure, he wants a stimulus
> policy right now, and i totally agree, and so do all the people standing
> behind him at the podium. why give all the bailout money to the millionaires
> he is saying. but, note what his agenda is once he gets into office:
> tax reform and an ENERGY POLICY. he gets energy (except for windfall
> profits) and wants to use energy policy related jobs to help pull
> us out of this economic funk. my bet is that obama will craft an
> energy policy that is a bit more sophisticated than simply "drill,
> drill, drill". it's our only hope.
>
> definitely agree on electric mass transit and building out the natural
> gas infrastructure, first on the interstate highway system. also
> agree on solar, wind and nuclear energy feeding an updated and expanded
> electric grid.
>
>
>

Demand More for Your Auto Bailout Dollar; Oil Patch Should Bounce Back Long Term

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:03:31 -0500

longoil, you show that you know very little about teh auto industry. Stay out of the conversation until you do alittle research and find ouut that you're wrong about most of the things you say. GM's been making hybrids for years where it counts, public transport busses and SUVs. The portfolio of hybrids has spread to crossovers and cars as well. In addition, GM's hybrid technology is MUCH better than Toyota's. The problem is misinformed individuals like yourself perpetuating the pervasive misconceptions about the US automakers, so they keep turning a blind eye to the facts, and only consider buying foriegn.

On Nov 09 02:31 PM longoil wrote:

> Why is Toyota profitable and GM and Ford, not ? Toyota makes cars
> in Kentucky using American labor that is non-unionized, but paid
> similar wages to UAW workers. This tells me that problem is not with
> worker salaries, but management incompetence.
>
> The problem with American auto companies is they are risk averse
> and merely make incremental changes to existing technology. The 1928
> Ford Model "A" got 25 mpg using a primitive engine with a carburator,
> distributor based ignition and rear wheel differential. Why is the
> fuel efficency of an average Ford 80 years later only 28 to 32 mpg
> using more advanced modern technology like fuel injection, distributorless
> ignition and front wheel drive ? Toyota is making and selling Hybrid
> cars, GM and Ford are still talking about it.

A Radical Solution for U.S. Automakers

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:44:12 -0500

Nationalizing the industry is a radical idea, but the idea about a bailout being designed to bridge the US automakers into developing alternative fuel vehicles is the reality. They are already heading in that direction. No, the infrastructure is not there yet for dropping the traditional combustion engine completely, but things are going in that direction.
The problem has been the American consumers' collective misconception that these are poorly run companies with shoddy products. They have made a huge turnaround in the last decade+ in quality, productivity, and management, but the American consumers and so many people writing article love to keep punishing them for past sins.
Before blindly bashing, please give a real look at the products that are being produced today and educate yourself with the facts. Try visiting gmfactsandfiction.com/.../ . Yes, it is compiled by GM, but all the facts included are from third-party sources to which links are provided. Dispel your misinformed misconceptions about GM and the other domestic auto makers.

Maybe you're right in saying that American companies won't be able to compete in the traditional market, but that's not because they can't produce quality, stylish, economic vehicles; it'll be because consumers will continue to ignore the facts about those products and continue the trend toward buying more foriegn vehicles.
Yes, legacy costs, and past labor agreements have hurt the financial situation of the Big 3, but recent renegotiations were a big strp in the right direction toward bringing operating costs down for the future.

How to Save the U.S. Economy

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:25:14 -0500

"GM/F/C have sold on price and rebates, not quality, for years. just
> like ATT and MCI, when they ruined long distance by competing on
> price, and TOY/HON have just made fortunes and increased share. Even
> Hyundai is perceived as better than GM now, as a former Auto Loan
> repo guy in a bank, we would never even repo a hyundai 10yrs ago,
> it was not worth it. Now Hyundai is a great car with increasing market
> share."

I'm SO sick of people blasting the products produced by the US automakers. The OBJECTIVE TRUTH is that they are building world class quality cars and trucks with world class fuel efficiency. Compare styling and they blow Toyota away. GM’s products are the benchmark in many segments. Look at the data! And [really] look at the cars!
The problem is the perception that keeps getting perpetuated that they don't build good cars and trucks. Many won't even look at them because of this ridiculous, pervasive misconception.
Yes, they had problems in the 70’s, 80's and early 90's. They got very complacent, and their products suffered. The companies have changed drastically since then, they HAVE BEEN doing the right things, but since so many consumers have written them off for past sins, they are having trouble getting some people to even look at domestic vehicles. Now with this perfect storm of the economy, and their legacy costs they are obviously hurting.
Letting them fail would truly send the economy into deep depression. Apparently most don't realize how much this manufacturing base effects every part of our economy. Yes, it hurts to say we're gonna "bail them out", but all they need is affordable loans to continue on the RIGHT path of building great vehicles and getting ahead of the competition with alternative fuel technologies. The American public would do the most for their economy if they would just CONSIDER buying American. It would help 'themselves' as well because the government can make a good deal of money from these loans (see the Chrysler "bailout" of the early 80s).
Before blindly bashing, please give a real look at the products that are being produced today and educate yourself with the facts. Try visiting gmfactsandfiction.com/.../ . Yes, it is compiled by GM, but all the facts included are from third-party sources to which links are provided. Dispel your misinformed misconceptions about GM and the other domestic auto makers.

On Nov 12 09:10 AM Beabaggage wrote:

> GM/F/C all need to go into bankruptcy with govt assistance to bring
> them into the millenium with PBGC taking over pensions, removing
> legacy costs, hiring Toyota or Honda managers to run it and keep
> the industry vital. Assure payments to suppliers, back warranties
> so people will buy. Cut brands- Mercury, Ford and Lincoln products
> are all the same? who needs all these brands? same with Chevy,Pontiac.
> Cut out the management. Set up an ESOP, let the employees that remain
> participate in growth, work for it.
>
> GM/F/C have sold on price and rebates, not quality, for years. just
> like ATT and MCI, when they ruined long distance by competing on
> price, and TOY/HON have just made fortunes and increased share. Even
> Hyundai is perceived as better than GM now, as a former Auto Loan
> repo guy in a bank, we would never even repo a hyundai 10yrs ago,
> it was not worth it. Now Hyundai is a great car with increasing market
> share.
>
> No one bailed out Steel, it was let to fail in the 70-80s, the survivors
> are strong and can compete.
>
> Stronger dollar will also help kill the autos. CN and MX plants looking
> good now.
> LONG PAL, SWC and ZINC, all which would benefit from a stable industry.
> But when things recover, Hyundai, Hon/Toy/VW all can sell cars and
> will need this Plat/Pall and who cares who buys it. The auto market
> is all about the 3rd world anyway now, not the US.