OT: Will a loan be enough to turn GM around?

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

Myth No. 2 - They build unreliable vehicles

Even in the face of impending financial disaster, THEY STILL CAN'T ADMIT THE FACT THE THE REASON THEY GOT INTO THIS MESS IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE CONSISTENTLY MADE CRAPPIER VEHICLES THAN TOYOTA AND HONDA. Talk about blatant denial!!!

We don't need no water let the motherf#$%&* burn! (or sink lol)

View attachment 11-19-2008-01-42-54--Tuthill.jpg
 
They build unreliable vehicles

Hi Jed,
They build unreliable vehicles alright!

The most unreliable car (Read pile of crap) I have ever had the misfortune of owning was a GM Vauxhall Vectra. JD Power rated it 120 from 120 cars tested, a placing it wholly deserved.
The Vectra cost me dearly as I had to sell it before the warranty expired, no one wanted it as the news was out about their numerous problems. I had to put a 10 month old car into a fleet car auction just to get rid, it lost £11,550 in value.

I bought a Ford Mondeo and have been driving Fords ever since, and my Fords have all been excellent reliable cars.

David
 
This is a bad place for the big three to be in.

I lived in Michigan in 1996 in Kalamazoo when they closed the parts plant and saw the sorrow on peoples' faces when they lost their jobs to Mexico and NAFTA. When you are in the middle of it, you know how important the auto industry is to Michigan. I say hlp them with big, long huge strings attached. One of those being that they do not anx the Union contracs that they have in place currently,-they make more cars like the Chevy Volt--Bring more jobs back to Michigan and stop world outsoursing all of their parts, why is it that we have to ask for this? This is an American car, not a Heinz 57, that would help someone here.No golden parashutes for the CEOs, why should they get rewarded when the lifeblood of the company, the American worker who is up close and personal to what is going on in building cars should get the short end of the stick.My mom was part of a union for the 42 years that she worked for Nabisco and was payed well for her hard work including free health care( they payed for all of it, now Kraft and did not complain about a healthy worker and their family) . The impact if the big three go down in flames will be felt by every person in this country. I personally would never own an American Car just because of their lack of intagrity in the past, they can change if they choose,then i might consider changing my mind. What happened to pride in workmanship for a compay like at the end of WWII when they went out of their way to make a product better. i feel bad that alot of what I have here for applainces is not US made by choice. My bad Maytag expierience had scared me for life against them Or the attitude that KitchenAid gave me when I called them about my mother's range. Where is the costomer service at? Miele bent over backwards to help, they also build a terrific product that for the most part is bullet proof. We should be doing it here again in this country. Get with it! We need some big improvements to the way we do things before people will be persuaded to spend their money here. I am one of them. A truely 100% American built product is all that i ask, is that so hard? Or are they just too tightwaded that they can't see the forest for the trees? Honda just opened a plant in Indiana to build Honda Civics, of which I have owned 3. Honda and Toyota are not asking to borrow money to bail themselves out. Why is that ? Nissan builds cars in Smerna, Tenn, and employ lots of people and well as Honda in Ohio, granted they do build the parts in Japan, the are built here.
 
As a member of a family that has almost always bought American. I do have to say that I disagree with 'everything they make is crap' idea.

The worst car my parents ever owned was an 87 Toyota Pickup, drove well but it was made like a tin can. I hit it in idle speed with my 98 Ford Escort and MANGLED the bumper. Meanwhile my car just had a little black mark on its bumper. My father sold it after that and bought a F150 (cost a little more to operate, but a hell of a lot safer crash rating). I'm very pleased with my Escort. I'm still driving it and see lots of them on the roads.

I still drive the family's Chevy Caprice, notably a large car, that will turn 30 next year. It survived being flooded by a hurricane and still drives strong. My mother drives her 98 Buick daily and hasn't had any issues.

My Grandmother has always bought Ford, and even with 'the worst one' the '81 T-bird, she drove it daily for 12 years without major incident.

I agree Detroit has had its share of lemons and the styles/quality (i.e plastics) isn't what it used to be, but nothing is (even Honda, Toyotas, Maytags and Zeniths). We've haven't had problems with our vehicles. I'd recommend them.
 
Regardless of our feelings,

we have to consider the consequences of our actions here.

It is one thing for me to only buy drive Chevys and Cadillacs (I adore those gay ads Cadillac does and it is my very small, penniless way to reward them for supporting gays). My boycotting Ford for their racist, anti-gay policies here in Europe is of the same motivation, why give my money to people who attack me?

That said, were it my decision (may the gods forefend!) I would do everything in my power to keep both GM and Ford alive.

Not, of course, in their present form and under their current idiot leadership. Nor yet under a 5-year plan and collectivized leadership.

Every coherent thinker I have read over the last few months is in agreement, regardless of their feelings or orientations: If the car makers go under, we will have an economic meltdown against which the 1930's were an era of negative unemployment and a chicken in every pot.

I have no solutions, but I do note that exactly those growth industries of the future involve the processes, technologies, capital machinery and workers, skilled and unskilled which Detroit possesses in abundance.

Americans will never accept mass transit as we have it here in Germany, so be it. But that doesn't mean those areas of the country can't apply 21st century technology to solve their transportation problems where the current one person/car solution doesn't work (anybody driven in Manhattan or Denver recently?).

Solar power is already competitive and available now. Nuclear power plants, even when forced (how ironic that when it is a conservative idea, people think the government should intervene, when it is a liberal idea, the government should butt out) will take years and years to come on line. There is also the problem that we do not have an unlimited supply of fusible materials.

Let GM and Ford build their electric cars. Sure, the current storage technology sucks. It is, however, adequate. They can contribute enormously to mass-production of solar panels and wind-farms, these are no longer specialized technologies but amenable to mass production.

When the atomic power plants come on line, then we can solve the drinking water problem and the hydrogen fuel problem. But that is way down the road in any decent volume. We need solutions now. Our petroleum resources are needed for the many capital good which can not be produced from any other raw material. Wasting them as fuel is a luxury we can no longer afford.

You don't get more milk by whipping Bossy, you only get an angry cow with no or only sour milk. Sure, we'd all like to throttle the idiots at GM and Ford. We don't have that luxury. Better to bail them out and have them produce what people need.
 
Would anyone here WANT to work for an automaker?

I know I would be ready to scream in about 45 minutes if I had put one part in one place in job many times a day! The problem I see is that the automakers are paying people to build a product that people simply do not like to buy - and as, I say above, doesn't do much for humanity. When you listen to what the CEOs have to say, it is bail us out or people will Lose Their Jobs! A bailout to me seems like an expensive make-work program. Now I am going to be Really Mean - these workers have to support their families, but nobody forced them to have a family or to have kids. If they were just by themselves or had a small family they would need their job, but not as badly.

Actually, bankrupcy could be the best thing that happens to the workers in the long term, though it will be hard at first - they can figure out what kind of work they like to do and make it a career.
 
Michael Moore is on Larry King tonight, he is not a fool, and was raised in Flint Michigan. The younger set among us might want to watch, "Roger & Me", if nothing else you will get a sense of deja vu. alr2903
 
my opinion..... no..............

a loan won't fix Detroit automakers. They need to file bankrupcy so that they can attack all of the costs that kill their competitiveness in the world market. They also need to get rid of some piss-poor management staff and practises they've embedded into their companies for forever.

The top management needs to sell their airplanes and they can buy their own private airplane to use. That is what our company President/CEO did. These guys make way to much for what they've accomplished in their industry. Time to clean house.

I'm not saying they should be shut-down, just basically re-structure how they operate. I like Mitt Romney's assessment of the situation. He hit the nail right on the head on that one.
 
And what costs would those be????

Here is what came out during the hearings today:

"At least two of the executives -- Alan Mulally of Ford and Rick Waggoner of GM -- agreed with Gettelfinger's description of the UAW's concessions.

Excerpt from Gettelfinger's comments:

Some commentators have asserted that "overly rich contracts" negotiated by the UAW are to blame for the companies' current situation, and suggested that workers and retirees should be required to take deep cuts in their wages and benefits. This totally ignores the recent history in the auto industry and the facts regarding wages and benefits at the Detroit-based companies.

The truth is that in 2005 the UAW agreed to reopen the contracts mid-term, and accepted cuts in workers' wages and in health care benefits for retirees. Then, in the general 2007 collective bargaining negotiations, the UAW agreed to what industry analysts have called a "transformational" contract that fundamentally altered labor costs for the Detroit-based auto companies. This contract slashed wages for new hires by 50%. Furthermore, new hires will not be covered by the traditional retiree health care and defined benefit pension plans. In addition, this contract stipulated that beginning January 1, 2010 the liability for health care benefits for existing retirees would be transferred from the companies to an independent fund (a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, or VEBA). This agreement has subsequently been approved by federal courts, which have appointed a majority of the trustees who will be independent of the UAW and responsible for managing the VEBA. Taken together, the changes made by the 2005 and 2007 contracts reduced the companies' retiree health care liabilities by fifty percent.

As a result of all these painful concessions, the gap in labor costs that had previously existed between the Detroit-based auto companies and the foreign transplant operations will be largely or completely eliminated by the end of the contracts. Indeed, one industry analyst has indicated that labor costs for the Detroit-based auto companies will actually be lower than those for Toyota's U.S. operations. Thus, the truth is the UAW and our active and retired members have already stepped up to the plate and made the hard changes that were necessary to make our companies competitive in terms of their labor costs.

It is also important to note that union negotiated work rules cannot be blamed for the current problems facing the Detroit-based companies. According to the Harbour Report, the industry benchmark for productivity, union-represented workers are actually more efficient than their counterparts at non-union auto plants. And union-made vehicles built by the Detroit-based auto companies are winning quality awards from Consumer Reports, J.D. Power, and other industry analysts."
 
You tell 'em Matt

I'm a union member (professors, lecturers and teachers can organize over here) and am proud of it.

Without the unions, we would have none of the health, safety and social benefits which, today, we take for granted.
 
They may be winning awards for quality today, but, NONE of the big three have a reputation for quality that can touch Honda or Toyota at this point. And that is truly a disgrace in a country like the US. No, a loan will not save them. That would take a series of loans to do! But unless they re-invent their business processes and product lineup, they're doomed. GM and Ford bet the bank on their truck lines, which, obviously was the wrong bet in the face of rapidly rising gas prices. And that's their own damned fault. We can use the excuse that "demand drives the market", and it does, to a point. But marketing and advertising helps shape the market appetite, and what these companies touted was trucks. It would be funny to see oil companies bail them out!

Now that being said, I have a GM car, a 1998 Buick. It's anything but a piece of junk. It is not an economy car by any means, but it's not a gas guzzler either. It's supremely comfortable, very powerful, and smooth handling and, after almost 150,000 miles still doesn't have a single squeak, rattle or shake. Like any other car though, it's not maintenance free! Sure, I guess I can afford a new car, but why? This one runs just fine, even after 11 years.
 
I'm no fan of GM, Ford, and Chrysler . . .

but it is a huge shame to spend billions of dollars to bail out the finance industry and not spend a nickel on smokestack industries like automakers. Do they need some attitude and management changes? You bet, but the very same thing can be said for the finance industry. It shouldn't be forgotten that American industry was once the envy of the world, and that American carmakers in many respects tought the world how to make and market cars. I've mostly always driven European cars because I prefer smaller cars with manual transmissions and sharp handling chassis, something Detroit mostly ignores. So, I'm not writing as a fan-boy for their American made products, but I do know a lot about automotive history and could make a big list of advances which came from GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

Each year, there are fewer and fewer companies here that manufacture anything, and the message we receive is that it is natural that manufacturing will move to China and India while we concentrate on information technology and financial products. That's all fine except many of those jobs don't pay ordinary workers well, and from an ecological standpoint it makes no sense to transport cars half way around the world if you don't have to. Ford and GM have plenty of good relevant products, they just don't make them here in the US. I say give them a chance, but attach enough strings so that when a profit is made the Treasury gets paid back for the loans.

For many of us there is just no way mass transit will ever be able to provide the flexibility we need to do our jobs and so we'll be buying cars from someone. It would be a pleasure to see some relevant cars in GM, Ford, and Chrysler showrooms instead of a bunch of big over-powered V8 sedans and humongous SUVs. American quality isn't uniformly bad; my sister has a Mazda truck built by Ford in New Jersey. It's nothing but a Ford Ranger with a Mazda badge and it's been very nearly 100% reliable for four years. I wish I could say the same for my VW TDI diesel!
 
Big Three will get their money, the Democrats are not keen to have potentially thousands out of work on their hands. However if one looks carefully, Mr. Obama is keeping a low profile in this matter and almost totally out of it.

Democrats will do the bail out and hope it "works", and or things on the ground economy wise improve, or they will have to go with plan "B".

The 500lb gorilla in the room, and something everyone knows but says nothing about, is that any sort of government action merely prolongs what must happen. If Congress doles out funds, and one or more of these automakers goes into bankruptcy and or comes back in the spring, with their hands out, it is not going to look good for the Democrats,or Mr. Obama. This time they cannot blame GWB.

Barney Frank is itching to turn the US into Soviet Russia, so either way something is going to get done.

L.
 
Meh

I think the Dems have done the right thing so far. They've demanded a loan application, almost a business plan, from the Big Three to delineate just exactly what they are going to do to help prevent another return for more cash.

I think Ford and Chrysler might be able to turn around and made good on the loans. I don't know about GM. So big it can't get out of its own way.

The flap over the private jets was well taken, as well. These execs seem to live in a dream world where it's luxury and perks as usual as they lay off thousands of workers who may lose their homes and more.

As for Barney Frank wanting to turn America into Soviet Russia. A bigger load of BS never has been stated.
 
> As for Barney Frank wanting to turn America into Soviet Russia. A bigger load of BS never has been stated. <

Amen. After 2000, when Foreclosure Phil Gramm successfully gutted virtually all government oversight in the investment services industry, Barney Frank tried for 6+ years to get this regulation reinstated. By all accounts, doing so would have certainly prevented this housing/subprime catastrophe. But a Republican-led U.S. House (Gingrich, Armey, Delay etc) consistently vetoed Frank's efforts.

When Democrats regained control of the House in January 2007, it was one of the first things they did. By May 2007 these regulations were back in place, but the damage had already been done.
 
let them eat sh**t and die!

They have made their own cars let them drive it off the cliff. With their money hungry big bosses in them and the unions in the backseat .. So long assholes!
 
Please don't give money to Bullies... and... Does anyone

One thing I am struck by and other people noticing is the conduct of the domestic auto companies. If they were a person they would be considered a bully. It's not just a matter of the plane rides to Washington, it is the conduct of the companies through American history:
20's - 30'2: Plot to destroy transit systems, they had something to do with it, making America more car dependent.
60's: Resist adding any safety features to cars that could have saved a lot of lives and lessened injuries.
70's: Resist adding emission control.
80's, 90's: Build gas guzzling SUVs, resist building anything efficient, making us more vulnerable to the International Bully, the oil companies and the mid eastern countries who don't like us much.

Japanese and European cars have to meet the same emission and safety standards, yet that did not seem to be a problem for them.

Yet, people continued to buy becuase they believed it when The Bully said it was unpatriotic to buy anything but an American car - and only low lifes take a bus!

Now the threat is give us money or people will lose their jobs. Meanwhile, think about it, does anyone actually WANT to work on an assembly line? It would drive me crazy! People might actually rise to the occasion and figure out what they really want to do and get careers in a job that they really like after all.

I read a post of how a sharecropper from the South came up to Detroit to work on an assembly line, and how he ended up with a large family and big expenses and eventually ended up in an "insane asylum" this was back in hte early 20th century. He missed the fresh air and had to be stuck on an assembly line all day. It sounds like he would have been a lot happier if he had stayed a farmer, I know I would.

The high union wages also enabled many of these workers to have too-large families, where money is never enough and life is always a struggle. I just hope that people today would know better than to fall into that trap: WOrk, work, work, all the time, to drive a big truck, so you feel miserable, so you go to the bar, then have another kid, so you work, work, work, all the time, to go to the bar,------ Stop the cycle!

Congress, it is time to stand up to the National Bully and say no to him - People will rise to the occasion.
 
Imagine if, tomorrow, we stopped trade with all other countries on Earth. I mean everything. This is just a hypothetical, I'm not saying we should do it.

Can anyone claim the U.S. does not have the capability to feed, clothe and house our population? Would we drop dead, rather than make our own shoes and pick our own lettuce?

The Great Depression taught us a lesson I think we've forgotten and need to relearn. The sooner we as a people walk away from our Blackberrys, our microwave ovens and our prostitution to the corporate state, and rediscover what's really important in life, the better IMO.
 
Can anyone claim the U.S. does not have the capability to fe

Actually, yes such claims have been made, by some very respected persons, and are for the most part true.

From the collapse of family farms to massive shifting of various manufacturing overseas (from garments to widgets), the United States produces much less than it did say before WWII. Just in the realm of produce much of what we consume, especially out of season fruits and veggies are imported.

Just look at what happened at the start of WWII, all manner and number of factories, from laundry appliance builders to steam locomotive shops all switched to "war time production", and made items for the war effort. Look around places like the Mid-West,Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states and you will plainly see those factories are long gone.

Even for plants still located in the United States, many parts are supplied from overseas, including things for such "American built" products like Boeing planes.

While in theory it all could be put back together, but it is much easier to turn a factory over to other production, versus building a new one from scratch. Farmland in many areas, has been either allowed to go fallow, or turned over for development. Either way farming and or raising livestock is not easy, it's not like you can move persons from one area, give them land and have them go at it... Farming is like anything else, one has to know what one is doing.

Point of all this palaver is that much of the world was sold a bill of goods, that says because all our economies are so inter-related, war and such isn't possible because each needs the other. Without a stable manufacturing and farming base, a country can hardly turn out war machines, much less feed it's military (and everyone else for that matter), and thus wage a war.
 
I believe the USA is a net exporter of agricultural products. We most certainly can feed ourselves.

The importation of out-of-season fruits and vegetables is simply for the convenience of those who can afford the higher prices involved. Smart people buy produce grown locally - it has a lower carbon footprint because it doesn't have to be transported as far as, say, grapes grown in Argentina in February.

The demise of the family farm has to do with subsidies and taxes that favor large agribusinesses. The outrage is that these agribusinesses use front men to act as small farmers so that they can collect subsidies intended to preserve smaller farms. Never underestimate the ability of a large corporation to find and exploit any loophole no matter how tight it is. The great ripoff of California electricity consumers by Enron et al in 2000 should be ample notice of that trait.

Farming IS hard work but so is manufacturing. I happen to work in light manufacturing, and I am a bit dismayed when I see comments such as "who would want to work on an assembly line, anyway". I've worked also in high tech (IT) and biotech, and I can tell you that these fields have more than their share of tedious and boring, repetitive tasks. Those with the intellectual ability usually are able to rise to levels where the work is more mentally engaging, but there are those among us who prefer to just do the same thing over and over so that they can go home at the end of the day and not think about it, but enjoy their homes, families, friends, etc. We may have outsourced a lot of the tedium to other countries, but automation and shipping costs tends to return it to our shores in different forms and methods.

I recall a lot of talk during the 70's and 80's about the advantages that industries in Japan and Europe had over US industries because the devastation of WWII had necessitated the complete rebuilding of their industrial bases. This meant that their newer factories used more modern technologies and therefore were cheaper to operate and produced better products than our older factories. Well, there's a saying that when you're handed a lemon, make lemonade. Sure, we've exported a lot of our older technology to China and elsewhere. But if we have a need to ramp up our own industrial base, it can be with newer, more modern technologies and factories, and that may well just give us an edge in future international trade. This might be wishful thinking but it's something that may well pan out.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top