slowdown

Why GM Is Ready for a Rebound

You haven't been following the story....Ford was able to stay afloat because they mortgaged everything and I mean everything...they are living on borrowed money and have been. Great for them. I'm glad that they didn't have to borrow money from the FED's. At some point they are going to be in the same boat as GM was because they have huge debt that the new lower sales volume won't support and they still have the legacy costs that GM has shed. Sales will never regain to the level they were a few years ago because we all took huge hits to our annual household incomes. This is far from over. You don't want to buy a GM product because the Fed decided to save the country from something worse then what has already happened??? Fine...don't...but at the very least buy a Ford while they are still free of your ownership.

On Jul 10 05:43 PM kohalakid wrote:

> Gee, don't get all huffy.
>
> I didn't say anything about Japan being better. Maybe you need to
> learn to understand written words. I'd gladly buy a Ford. The quality
> of Ford products is now close to if not better than many foreign
> brands.
>
> My complaint is with the way the government threw billions of dollars
> of taxpayer money at an inefficient company that couldn't fix itself.
> Ford has been able to make those changes without handouts from the
> American taxpayer.
>
> GM and Chrysler should have had to figure it out on their own, with
> the employees, shareholders, creditors and bondholders all fixing
> their problem without all the political crap that was involved and
> will follow.
>
>

Why GM Is Ready for a Rebound

If you are a resident of another country (not the US)...then fine...you should purchase products made in your own country to support those that work and live in your country. If you live and work in the US - you should support the US economy by purchasing products made in this country. If you choose not to - don't whine when you are out of a job. I've learned my lesson. I won't even buy hamburger unless it states "product of USA" on the label.


On Jul 10 04:55 PM kohalakid wrote:

> I would not own a GM vehicle even if it was 25% cheaper than other
> brands.
>
> The whole GM episode was an insult to the American taxpayer.

Toyota Plans to Mass-Produce Plug-in Prius in 2012

As I read all of the technical gobbledy gook and flip back and forth between bytes of various articles and studies on battery powered cars….I have to wonder who will be buying them.
My sons graduate from college this year with four-year degrees. They will earn a starting salary of around $40k per year. They will likely have health care but no pensions..so will have to put money away for old age…ideally…10% of their income. They will have to be “do it yourselfers” just as their Grandfathers and Fathers were/are.

We will be retiring or forced into lower paying jobs in the next few years (yes age discrimination is alive and well in this country). We will go back to being “do it yourselfers” (personally…we already are) due to income limitations.

That said – the bulk of the population will be purchasing one vehicle that can:
- Haul two adults, two kids, the family dog, the travel trailer or camping equipment and the fishing boat (the days of hotels and flights are over – we go back to camping).
- Carry a payload or pull a trailer capable of hauling everything from lumber to bricks (these young kids are buying small starter homes that need repairs and so are we).

For those that need two vehicles, the second will likely be a cheap driver that will get one person back and forth to work. The average person will commute to work or live and work in small rural communities. Like myself – my kids and their friends, view living in big city trappings as unattractive, dangerous, unhealthy, too confined and far, far too expensive.

So…what’s the intent here. As far as I can tell…these cars will be too expensive to own and operate for the average family and they will not meet their needs. I really want an answer because from my spot in the back seat…we are heading down the wrong path. If the intent is to force a change to my lifestyle – I’m getting back in the driver seat and my answer is – NO!
You all need to go back to the drawing board. And this time…instead of waiting for some other country to figure out the answer for us…start working on the solution ourselves. Since our household incomes have been dramatically reduced – the solution needs to be a low cost alternative fuel that allows us to maintain our previous standard of living. From everything I have read – the electric vehicle isn’t it.

'Too Big to Fail' Should Not Exist

Well..of course I have to disagree with the whole article. Every company listed is a US based company...does that mean that Toyota for example is not too big to fail? Seriously...Or is it okay that Toyota become the only automotive company in the world because the Bank of Japan subsidizes it. How does the US keep companies in other countries from becoming too big to fail? How does the US keep the failure of the Bank of Japan and Toyota from destroying our economy?

'Too Big to Fail' Should Not Exist

We don't have a free market - globalization took care of that the moment we opened our borders and allowed other countries to dump goods here.....whether it's a communist country that artificially controls wages of laborers or one that manipulates currencies and practices protectionism...the free market only exists here in the US and is at the expense of our jobs.


On Jul 06 10:32 AM lars wrote:

> 100% Agree'd. The larger issue here is that ~50% of Americans (those
> of us in the U.S.) have some how been blinded into thinking that
> our society needs government intervention and policy around it. We
> are rapidly drifting from our free-market principles, thus our freedom.
> Why should the "tax payer" be "forced" into doing anything by the
> government? That is what should be on the minds of all free-thinking
> citizens of this country. Socialist tactics will be the doom of this
> once great nation.

Taxpayers: Beware GM's Decision to Build Compact in Michigan

I think you are describing Japan.


On Jul 06 10:40 AM Leftfield wrote:

> slowdown: If we could all take back half our income taxes, last 30
> years, or better yet, not pay for all that government waste in the
> first place, this country would still be #1. I believe primarily
> it's lawyers and government that have nearly destroyed this country
> more than anyone else. I think that getting government and lawyers
> out of the way would lower the stupid legal, tax and regulatory burdens
> to restore us to the great way of life we have largely lost in the
> last 40 years. When one earner could support a family better than
> two can now.
> If we created low-tax and regulatory enterprise zones in distressed
> areas like Flint and Detroit the example of prosperity created would
> disrobe the stupid pretensions of our overpaid leaders who would
> rather take over GM and make it part of their crony capitalism schemes.
>
> We need to wake up and vote out our failed incumbents over and over
> even if they seem to be giving some of us handouts so we can get
> back on our feet again.

Taxpayers: Beware GM's Decision to Build Compact in Michigan

By whom???? Last I knew (and since it is one of my plants) the Springhill plant is a UAW plant earning the same wages that a plant in Michigan earns.

On Jul 06 11:37 AM relaplan1 wrote:


> A lot better cars are made in Tennessee.
>
>

Taxpayers: Beware GM's Decision to Build Compact in Michigan

BTW...you must be a lawyer - check out the cost that Delphi has paid for it's five year bankruptcy and what GM has paid for it's 30 day bankruptcy and then let's talk about stupid decisions. I think Wagoner did exactly what he should have. Spent money restructuring instead of lawyering.


On Jul 06 09:21 AM Leftfield wrote:

> A quick word for User 158164: We are in an advanced state of dying
> by a thousand cuts. Take the Depts. of Energy and Education. After
> the "stimulous" bill is factored in, they total well north of $100
> billion this year. They have accomplished nothing towards their stated
> goals and in fact hinder the progress that could be made if their
> wasted employees would get productive jobs and the money went towards
> real accomplishment and investment. Our system is choking on this
> stuff; these are only two examples.
> GM is now in the purview of the real impresarios of smoke and mirrors.
> These are suits who always have "plausible deniability" for their
> wealth-destroying, self-serving deeds. Rick Waggoner's last stupid
> act was not to proceed to bankruptcy. Now GM is a ward of government,
> I know, all decisions are "for the good of the country" or whatever
> the party line is. As they are increasingly perceived as Government
> Motors they will sell mostly to government and to government and
> union employees. But we will still pay. Yuck.

Taxpayers: Beware GM's Decision to Build Compact in Michigan

How about this - GM is simply borrowing some of the money (not even half) that its retiree/employees have paid into the federal government in INCOME TAXES over the course of the last 30 years. So...yuck all you want. There are still enough of us left that can claim married and 10 and not pay any taxes at all.


On Jul 06 09:21 AM Leftfield wrote:

> A quick word for User 158164: We are in an advanced state of dying
> by a thousand cuts. Take the Depts. of Energy and Education. After
> the "stimulous" bill is factored in, they total well north of $100
> billion this year. They have accomplished nothing towards their stated
> goals and in fact hinder the progress that could be made if their
> wasted employees would get productive jobs and the money went towards
> real accomplishment and investment. Our system is choking on this
> stuff; these are only two examples.
> GM is now in the purview of the real impresarios of smoke and mirrors.
> These are suits who always have "plausible deniability" for their
> wealth-destroying, self-serving deeds. Rick Waggoner's last stupid
> act was not to proceed to bankruptcy. Now GM is a ward of government,
> I know, all decisions are "for the good of the country" or whatever
> the party line is. As they are increasingly perceived as Government
> Motors they will sell mostly to government and to government and
> union employees. But we will still pay. Yuck.

The Government's Empty GM Threat

quick math - let's say that the average GM worker paid $6,000.00 a year over the course of a 30 year career in federal income taxes. I beleive the last number I heard was that there were 450,000 GM retirees that the company is still supporting. That said - 450,000 retirees times $6,000.00 times 30 years is just about $81 bln. Which taxpayers are getting screwed? Those of us that earned a living and paid taxes in for those last 30 years? I think that GM employees (current and past) are just borrowing back what we already paid in.


On Jul 04 08:49 AM casey00001 wrote:

> In the Old GM all the investors and bondholders got screwed. In the
> new GM the taxpayers got screwed.

Why I'd Buy Toyota, The #1 Automaker in the U.S.

Really...better in what way? You need to define better..and define it with statistics. I want the details of what better is...is it safer? I don't think so...I think we led the way in building safer vehicles. Certianly not more fuel efficient- we had those too...no one wanted them.


On Jun 27 05:28 PM JAY BOSLIN wrote:

> You are an accountant, Cliff, remember that. While I can't stand
> GM cars (and I've owned a few) specifically, and american cars generally,
> this time it IS different. Toyota veered right down the same road
> with their own 5+ litre vehicles chasing $ from dumb americans. Toyota
> has problems too.
>
> GM, F and C always went for the easy money because it was so easy
> taking money Republicans (as you say, conservatives) and from younger
> people who thought muscle cars were good cars. Old, fat, rich guys
> now pay hundreds of thousands for those "classics."
>
> Europe and Japan always made BETTER cars and that was their goal
> EVERY single year--not different fenders, BETTER cars.
>
> Now GM, shorn of massive debt and without Rick Wagner and his incompetent
> Board, know what has to be done, will put real car people in place
> and WILL turn it around.

Why I'd Buy Toyota, The #1 Automaker in the U.S.

Interestingly enough…. my husband and I went to the Sloan Museum’s (Flint, Michigan) annual autofest today. This event draws thousands of cars/trucks from every era - birth to present. It is absolutely amazing to see the progress we have made in the auto industry from the turn of the century hand crank starting Model A/T’s to this year’s Chevy Camaro and Challenger. We stopped to look at a Nash Metropolitan, which is a small car built in the mid 50’s. The placard in front of the car said it got 40 mpg. Funny how you all talk about how revolutionary the Japanese auto makers have been in developing cars like the Prius when the reality is we already had them once…. only a small percentage of people wanted them back then just like today. These small cars fuel efficient cars will not meet most peoples needs today just like they didn’t back then. Like today – it was not profitable (Toyota loses money on every Prius it sells) to build them on a small scale. Ford, GM and Chrylser lose money on their small cars just Toyota does. NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WANT THEM! There isn’t enough volume to leverage lower cost components. The Japanese were able to be profitable by manipulating currency and have been unsuccessful in this economy so are losing money. As the author pointed out – Toyota was sinking money into plants that were going to produce large trucks and SUV’s because those are the vehicles of choice in this country. I don’t see that changing.
I remember my Grandfather telling me a story about gas being very expensive when he and his brothers were young. They couldn’t afford to put gas in the car they had so they used kerosene instead until the price of gas came back down. What they didn’t do was buy a small tin can on wheels…just like today.

Hummer: Too Dirty Even for the Chinese

It's not okay...and as usual...the author puts a negative slant on what the article stated. The primary reason the Chinese Government is pushing back on the idea is because they feel the company doesn't have the necessary skill and experience to run an auto manufacturing operation. The secondary reason was because the vehicles don't fit in with the Governments push for cleaner air. Really...this was a stupid statement because the intent is to continue to build the Hummers here for at least the next two years. I highly doubt they would import them to China.


On Jun 26 04:07 PM Mister Jimmy wrote:

> "Too Dirty Even for the Chinese"? Why is it OK to disparage a race
> of people in that manner?

Is U.S. Starting a Trade War?

No...acutally they don't apply to international trade....California doesn't place a tarrif on goods made in other states that price them above California made products like other countries (Japan/China) do to our export goods. California does not require manufacturers (ie NUMMI) to adhere to local content laws (ie Mexico requires manufacturers to utilize Mexican suppliers for 70% of the vehicles content) if they want to build cars in California. These rules are trade restrictions/barriers that are meant to protect the home country. The problem is...we don't have those same rules and so we have trade deficits and lose jobs to other countries. Until we recognize that there is no such thing as free trade and start demanding reciprocation or restricting trade...we are going to continue to lose jobs and wages.


On Jun 24 08:41 AM Stephen Metzger wrote:

> It is depressing to see the ignorance of many of the respondents
> to Mr. Brouwer's article. His example of California vs. Michigan
> is meant to describe the economic benefits of trade and they, as
> he says, are fully applicable to international trade. You cannot
> hide this fact by saying the difference is that we are Americans
> and those others are "fereners". Trade restrictions only benefit
> special interests, placate the ignorant, and lower living standards.
> And, Mr. Brouwer is also right in comparing current trends with those
> of the 1930s. We are repeating the same mistakes of that decade in
> both domestic and international policy. Of course, we have a President
> who has little understanding, much less appreciation of American
> history--even recent history. (Nothing important occurred until he
> was born, and even then, some very unimportant things happened, because
> he was only nine years old.)

Why I'd Avoid Toyota, The #1 Automaker in the U.S.

So let me see if I have this right...Toyota loses money on every Prius they sell (yes they do) and you think a hybrid Cobalt (that GM would sell at a loss) would have kept them out of bankruptcy? Why???


On Jun 23 11:44 PM buddhabill wrote:

> Toyota expects to sell 160k Prius' this year. What's the projection
> for the $40,000 hybrid pick-up? 20k?
>
> It's a nice 'halo' product that did nothing to keep GM from bankruptcy.
>
>
> How many EV1's could have they sold? Or hybrid Cobalts?
>
> GM once had the clout to push product through their 7000 dealerships
> - with some leadership they could have been ahead of the whole EV/Hybrid
> thing....that is the real crime.