Is GM finished?

[Prometheus]

This is all wrong on so many levels. This is a quaint notion that the Japanese had the technology before us, or theirs was any better. There was as issue of marketability in the US and implementing it while maintaining profit margins to satisfy shareholders. <snip>

Perhaps you misunderstand my point. I did not say the Japanese had anything before us. I pointed out that they have been focused on R&D at least to the point where they have actual working hybrids brought to market for years now while GM does not. If what you suggest is true, then why hasn't that hindered the Japanese companies who are selling hybrids, in the U.S., right now?

As for the rest of your response, I don't see how it's at all relevant.

You did not even attempt to explain why GM couldn't do what the Europeans have done regarding CAFE. It really seems to me that you're just parroting the Big 3 lobbyists who've been belly-aching about CAFE since it was introduced, without providing any substantive argument at all.

 

[Toke]

According to "free marked teori" anyone will be better off buying its cars from the best and cheapest producer.
And there is no penalty to national economics from loosing your industrial base.

So, you can safely let GM fail and let the car production move abroad like so much of your other industri. Its just a big lumb instead of the tickle of the last decades.
(do I come across as a gloating socialist?)

 

[ZenFountain]

So I really want GM to stay around so that I can continue to buy their products.

So I think I'm for the bailout. The marginal increases in my taxes due to the bailout are worth it to me so that the car is available.

The bailout for Detroit is in serious jeopardy.

Democratic Congressional leaders on Thursday said that the executives of America’s foundering automakers had failed miserably in persuading Congress or the public that $25 billion in aid from the government would be well-spent and they gave industry leaders 12 days to come back with a plan showing otherwise.

The House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, and the Senator majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, at a joint news conference, said that any legislative proposal put to a vote this week would fail, and they leveled scathing criticism at the executives...

I don't see how 12 days is going to turn this around for the big three. Which is really quite sad because as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, all three companies have come a long from the crap they produced. Cadillac is once again a prestigious luxury brand, the Chevy Malibu is considered by many to be superior to the Japanese sedans and Ford has good products too, although some of them (such as the Fusion) are built in Mexico. Bankruptcy and falling gas prices will undoubtedly affect the GM's Volt program as well which was their ace in the hole.

However, if this is going to be a bad investment for taxpayer money (it's looking that way) I don't think they should get a dime beyond loans on hard assets like the current retooling program.

 

[Furcifer]

Perhaps you misunderstand my point. I did not say the Japanese had anything before us. I pointed out that they have been focused on R&D at least to the point where they have actual working hybrids brought to market for years now while GM does not. If what you suggest is true, then why hasn't that hindered the Japanese companies who are selling hybrids, in the U.S., right now?

As for the rest of your response, I don't see how it's at all relevant.

You did not even attempt to explain why GM couldn't do what the Europeans have done regarding CAFE. It really seems to me that you're just parroting the Big 3 lobbyists who've been belly-aching about CAFE since it was introduced, without providing any substantive argument at all.

The hybrid market isn't the end all be all of the automotive World. I'm not sure why you, and a few others here think it's that big? Do you think people will buy hybrids if there is a viable electric vehicle? Personally, I can't give snow balls chance in hell about hyrbrids! I'll take a diesel if I have to. But give me an all electric alternative, NOW YOU'VE GOT MY ATTENTION! This is what we've been waiting for. I'll wait, you drive your little obsolete alternative if you want.

Seriously, you're the one that's parroting "Shoulda built a hybrid, shoulda built a hybrid.... BWAAAAAK!"

BTW: I bet you own a Laser Disc player and an HDVD

 

[Furcifer]

As for the rest of your response, I don't see how it's at all relevant.

You did not even attempt to explain why GM couldn't do what the Europeans have done regarding CAFE. It really seems to me that you're just parroting the Big 3 lobbyists who've been belly-aching about CAFE since it was introduced, without providing any substantive argument at all.

I'm not sure Americans were willing to pay EU prices for gas after taxes. Imagine $8 a gallon gas. Get it?

 

[balrog666]

The bailout for Detroit is in serious jeopardy.



I don't see how 12 days is going to turn this around for the big three. Which is really quite sad because as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, all three companies have come a long from the crap they produced. Cadillac is once again a prestigious luxury brand, the Chevy Malibu is considered by many to be superior to the Japanese sedans and Ford has good products too, although some of them (such as the Fusion) are built in Mexico. Bankruptcy and falling gas prices will undoubtedly affect the GM's Volt program as well which was their ace in the hole.

However, if this is going to be a bad investment for taxpayer money (it's looking that way) I don't think they should get a dime beyond loans on hard assets like the current retooling program.

Congress has heard from their extremely angry constituents on this idea and they are not going go to do anything overt at this point, so no business-as-usual bailout is in the offing.

They will let it rest for a couple of weeks and hope that constituent anger settles down to the point where they can pass something stealthily and then blame it's passage on Bush one last, idiotic time.

If not, it's Chapter 13 for GM and the death knell for Chrysler.

.

 

[Prometheus]

The hybrid market isn't the end all be all of the automotive World. I'm not sure why you, and a few others here think it's that big? Do you think people will buy hybrids if there is a viable electric vehicle? Personally, I can't give snow balls chance in hell about hyrbrids! I'll take a diesel if I have to. But give me an all electric alternative, NOW YOU'VE GOT MY ATTENTION! This is what we've been waiting for. I'll wait, you drive your little obsolete alternative if you want.

Seriously, you're the one that's parroting "Shoulda built a hybrid, shoulda built a hybrid.... BWAAAAAK!"

BTW: I bet you own a Laser Disc player and an HDVD

I don't think Hybrids are "that big"--which explains why I never said so. They are one of many possible aproaches taken by other manufacturers, which GM could have taken and didn't. You want an all electric, fine; I'd love one of them too. GM had one, and they trashed it because the battery technology wasn't yet up to task, and likely won't be for some time yet. Hybrids are viable right now. Regardless, whether you talk about hybrids or electrics or deisels or whatever, it's all beside the point. GM is failing because of poor management. Period. Whatever the eccentricities of the market, their competition managed to figure them out and remain profitable.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm not sure Americans were willing to pay EU prices for gas after taxes. Imagine $8 a gallon gas. Get it?

I don't know why you're talking about gas prices. I never mentioned them. Americans certainly would not be "willing" to pay 8 bucks for gas, but we will. Our recent spate of $4 gas barely made a dent in demand, because at present we don't really have a choice available to us.

 

[balrog666]

The hybrid market isn't the end all be all of the automotive World. I'm not sure why you, and a few others here think it's that big? Do you think people will buy hybrids if there is a viable electric vehicle? Personally, I can't give snow balls chance in hell about hyrbrids! I'll take a diesel if I have to. But give me an all electric alternative, NOW YOU'VE GOT MY ATTENTION! This is what we've been waiting for. I'll wait, you drive your little obsolete alternative if you want.

Seriously, you're the one that's parroting "Shoulda built a hybrid, shoulda built a hybrid.... BWAAAAAK!"

BTW: I bet you own a Laser Disc player and an HDVD

Any large manufacturer who wants to stick around for the long haul must pursue a very strong policy of improving production engineering to make manufacturing easier, simpler, cheaper or more consistent. The end product must be constantly improved in terms of production cost, reliability, maintenance cost, and features. The company must constantly look for any techniques, technology, or processes that produce those potential improvements, including watching what their competitors do. Any research that improves manufacturing productivity via simpler or cheaper processes or allows potential technological improvements must be examined and evaluated. So anything that can potentially provide simpler, more reliable, or cheaper products must be tested and evaluated. Even examining potential changes in logistics planning and manufacturing planning to optimize global utilization of their resources and expertise is useful. They have to look for upgrades to their product designs while minimizing or eliminating production or supply errors, as well as continually reducing error tolerances in common parts and manufacturing processes, reducing production parts counts, and minimizing or eliminating parts/subsystem failure modes. Almost every increase in productivity comes from eliminating substandard parts, subsystems subsystem failure modes, and incorporating technological improvements. And every improvement in productivity falls directly through to the bottom line.

That's called industrial research and development. It isn't just about new product lines and new technologies and never has been.

And that's where GM has utterly failed for the last 50 years.

.

 

[Disbelief]

Any large manufacturer who wants to stick around for the long haul must pursue a very strong policy of improving production engineering to make manufacturing easier, simpler, cheaper or more consistent. The end product must be constantly improved in terms of production cost, reliability, maintenance cost, and features. The company must constantly look for any techniques, technology, or processes that produce those potential improvements, including watching what their competitors do. Any research that improves manufacturing productivity via simpler or cheaper processes or allows potential technological improvements must be examined and evaluated. So anything that can potentially provide simpler, more reliable, or cheaper products must be tested and evaluated. Even examining potential changes in logistics planning and manufacturing planning to optimize global utilization of their resources and expertise is useful. They have to look for upgrades to their product designs while minimizing or eliminating production or supply errors, as well as continually reducing error tolerances in common parts and manufacturing processes, reducing production parts counts, and minimizing or eliminating parts/subsystem failure modes. Almost every increase in productivity comes from eliminating substandard parts, subsystems subsystem failure modes, and incorporating technological improvements. And every improvement in productivity falls directly through to the bottom line.

That's called industrial research and development. It isn't just about new product lines and new technologies and never has been.

And that's where GM has utterly failed for the last 50 years.

.

Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about. Did you miss the links I posted showing the efficiency of GM plants? Did you miss how they have been world class in stamping and powertrains for years, and assembly has now caught up? Of course you have, as you would rather pontificate on how bad GM is instead of doing some actual research.

Perhaps you misunderstand my point. I did not say the Japanese had anything before us. I pointed out that they have been focused on R&D at least to the point where they have actual working hybrids brought to market for years now while GM does not. If what you suggest is true, then why hasn't that hindered the Japanese companies who are selling hybrids, in the U.S., right now?

As I stated earlier, GM thought that hybrid technology was more important in mass transit and so made the two-mode hybrid system. Toyota thought it was a great PR move to have one in a car, so they went that route. To say that GM has not worked on hybrid technology or does not have any is false. Since they developed the system for larger vehicles with different powertrains, it took engineering to make it compatible with smaller vehicles.

You did not even attempt to explain why GM couldn't do what the Europeans have done regarding CAFE. It really seems to me that you're just parroting the Big 3 lobbyists who've been belly-aching about CAFE since it was introduced, without providing any substantive argument at all.

Because, they produce far more vehicles in than the Europeans and would ave had subsequent fines. CAFE does not work, as proven by the numbers. Since 1979, the average fuel economy of all vehicles has improved by a mere 5mpg. Is that progress? Don't you think that a gas tax like in Europe would have had a much more profound impact?

 

[Furcifer]

Any large manufacturer who wants to stick around for the long haul must pursue a very strong policy of improving production engineering to make manufacturing easier, simpler, cheaper or more consistent. The end product must be constantly improved in terms of production cost, reliability, maintenance cost, and features. The company must constantly look for any techniques, technology, or processes that produce those potential improvements, including watching what their competitors do. Any research that improves manufacturing productivity via simpler or cheaper processes or allows potential technological improvements must be examined and evaluated. So anything that can potentially provide simpler, more reliable, or cheaper products must be tested and evaluated. Even examining potential changes in logistics planning and manufacturing planning to optimize global utilization of their resources and expertise is useful. They have to look for upgrades to their product designs while minimizing or eliminating production or supply errors, as well as continually reducing error tolerances in common parts and manufacturing processes, reducing production parts counts, and minimizing or eliminating parts/subsystem failure modes. Almost every increase in productivity comes from eliminating substandard parts, subsystems subsystem failure modes, and incorporating technological improvements. And every improvement in productivity falls directly through to the bottom line.

That's called industrial research and development. It isn't just about new product lines and new technologies and never has been.

And that's where GM has utterly failed for the last 50 years.

.

The technology and the research is all there. The problem is GM is carrying an aging workforce that the Japanese and other foreign automakers aren't. Manganging a company through an economic downturn and restructuring isn't as easy as you think. They've improved their quality to rival the competitors despite the myth and stigmas that abound. The Big 3 gambled and lost on bringing a better more viable product to market. Some of the root cause is the CAFE standard, some due to poor managment decions that we now have the benefit of hindsight to evaluate. Most of it is due to poor borrowing practises on Wall street.

Your blanket statement that GM has utterly failed in the last 50 years is simply not true and unsupported.

 

[Furcifer]

Hybrids are viable right now. Regardless, whether you talk about hybrids or electrics or deisels or whatever, it's all beside the point. GM is failing because of poor management. Period. Whatever the eccentricities of the market, their competition managed to figure them out and remain profitable.

So what if hybrids are viable right now? If these compnaies lived in the here and now they would never exist. Far from being short ighted, they rely in prognosticating 3-5 years in the future. As anyone here will tell you, this isn't an exact science. I can make as good a case for GM failing years ago had the management not been as good as it is. They certainly could have made worse mistakes than they did, and they could have made better. Simply echoing the "short sighted" rhetoric isn't enough. An educated approach, detailing what can and should be done in the following few months is far more appropriate.

I can assure you the arguement of hybrids or diesel technology is not besides the point. It has weighed heavily on he minds of many over the last several years in regards to which direction to pursue.

 

[Furcifer]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what would happen if the Big 3 come back in a week and a half and propose a super merger and request the $25 Billion to do so?

Nothing drives like a FOGMER ^tm

 

[balrog666]

The technology and the research is all there.

Perhaps it is. But, if so, it's too little, too late.

The problem is GM is carrying an aging workforce that the Japanese and other foreign automakers aren't.

No, the problem is that the Big Dumb 3's management hasn't planned for even the most obvious changes in worker demographics, market changes, or the results of decades of customer dissatisfaction.

Managing a company through an economic downturn and restructuring isn't as easy as you think.

Are you suggesting that only now has the Big Dumb 3's management failed?

They've improved their quality to rival the competitors despite the myth and stigmas that abound.

I've owned or driven Big Dumb 3 vehicles every year in the last 50. I've known and dealt with people in the Big Dumb 3 engineering departments and a few UAW line workers as well as suppliers. I'm not relying on any so-called myths for my opinions.

The Big 3 gambled and lost on bringing a better more viable product to market.

Again you seem to think the last 5 or ten years is the entire relevant history.

Some of the root cause is the CAFE standard, some due to poor managment decions that we now have the benefit of hindsight to evaluate.

And yet CAFE has been around for 30+ years and every other competitor to the Big Dumb 3 has managed to deal with it successfully ...

Most of it is due to poor borrowing practises on Wall street.

Most of what? Wall street isn't bringing down the Dumb 3 although will make it much more difficult and/or expensive for them to reorganize.

Your blanket statement that GM has utterly failed in the last 50 years is simply not true and unsupported.

GM is insolvent; GM can't pay it's bills; GM has no more credit; so GM has failed. That's how that works.


But what of the CEO testimony of the Big Dumb 3's CEO's? What did you think about the fact that don't have any idea of how much money they actually need? Or that they have no plan to do anything with it other than continue in the same old failed business as usual mode until they are broke again?

Or that "We just cannot be confident that we will be able to successfully emerge from bankruptcy," even assuming they shed their overwhelming debt and labor liabilities (as stated by Nardelli)? Does this sound like a viable business model to you?

.

 

[Toke]

How about your congress/goverment set up an administration to prepare to take over any viable parts after the enivable bankrupcy?

Downside is that bush might be able to pick someone even more incompetent that the current leaders of the big 3.

 

[davefoc]

... When the bulk of US workers depend on gasoline to get to work the entire US economy can be threatened by minor fuel disruptions and those disruptions are almost certain when much of the source of that gasoline is from unstable parts of the world.

False. I can't believe people perpetuate this myth. It takes a second to Google this information and still people refuse to do so.

To tell you the truth I never even thought to question it and it even understates the case in that not only do the bulk of people require oil based fuels to get to work but the huge bulk of US transportation is highly dependent on it also.

So I'm not quite sure what part of what I said was a myth. By bulk I meant majority of workers. Do less than 50% of workers rely on methods of getting to work that don't require oil based fuels?

Or maybe your point was that in an emergency people can easily switch over to other methodologies for getting to work that require drastically less fuel?

I'm sorry, I'm just not sure what you felt that I should look up to demonstrate that I was perpetuating a myth.

ETA: Ah, I think the myth you felt I was perpetuating was that the source of US oil was not principally from unstable areas of the world. I guess that depends on the definition of unstable. Without looking it up I realize that the US gets a lot of oil from Canada and Mexico. It might also get significant amounts of oil from Russia. Arguably not unstable parts of the world.

However, the point still stands I think in that the percentage of US oil supplied from foreign suppliers has increased significantly and even if the US was not getting any oil from the Mideast if the Mideast sources dry up there is still a huge problem for the US in that its foreign supply of oil will be diverted significantly to Europe and possibly Asia as the Mideast sources are shutdown.

 

[balrog666]

BTW, don't take all that as some strident rant - it's just the way I see it.

I can see the possibility of buying another Big Dumb 3 vehicle sometime in the future. But, if they choose not to deal directly with their problems and if they expect us to be happy about bailing out their incompetent management team and the UAW, they can just go pound sand.

 

[balrog666]

How about your congress/goverment set up an administration to prepare to take over any viable parts after the enivable bankrupcy?

Downside is that bush might be able to pick someone even more incompetent that the current leaders of the big 3.

If there are any viable parts, they can spin them off themselves. But they could do that through the bankruptcy reorganization too.

Bush? Bush? He isn't going to appoint anyone just to have them serve 50 days until Obama gets inaugurated.

.

 

[Toke]

Sorry i was thinking of that browne guy at fema, too dumb to leave things to subordinates.

The spareparts factories will be in buissness for years, and there could be some brands/models that are still viable.

I don´t know much of bankrupcy laws.
Guess I suffer from cumpulsive nationalisation syndrome.
Must get socialist somewere in my tithle.

 

[ZirconBlue]

According to "free marked teori" anyone will be better off buying its cars from the best and cheapest producer.
And there is no penalty to national economics from loosing your industrial base.

So, you can safely let GM fail and let the car production move abroad like so much of your other industri. Its just a big lumb instead of the tickle of the last decades.
(do I come across as a gloating socialist?)

For several reasons, including transportation costs and currency fluctuations, most of the foreign competitors have chosed to build their most popular models here in North America. So, the idea that vehicle production would move abroad does not seem very likely to me.