Is GM finished?

Just thinking said:
This is most odd. On the one hand, you believe it wise for shareholders to put up more money so that they don't lose what they have already invested, yet you feel it unwise (or unnecessary) for the workers to put up any effort to keep their incomes viable, which includes for many a good amount of future earnings.
Click to expand...

No, I don´t.
I am trying to point out that if GM was really about to turn profitable the shareholders would be the first to know and try to save their investment.
Since only the workers are being asked to picht in, it is more likely just an attempt to get as much out of the company before collapse.
My company just tried a similiar ripoff.
Basicaly we were to go down 10% to save jobs, meanwhile they were busy hireing ukrainians.

And what's more odd is that I think you have something major backwards; it's the company that owes solvency to its shareholders, not the other way around. (Notice here I didn't use the word investors, as you might try and include workers in the mix. Not so, as they have already been fairly compensated through wages. How have shareholders been fairly compensated?)
Click to expand...
Workers get wages and can lose their job.
Shareholders compensation can be more rewarding and a bit more risky.
And yes I know the company should pay both, not get payd.

Let's say that you want to invest a good deal of money and you use a broker giving him free reign; this is not unusual. He places a large percentage into the big 3 US automakers --- after all, they've been good performers in the past. Now the stock values go down --- and when you get back to your broker (after shares lost over 80% of their value) you find out he never sold the stocks of the automakers. He let you ride them down to peanuts. And what's better, in his defense he claims he believes in being a loyal supporter of the big 3 --- and asks you for more money. What do you do? Do you ...

a) give him more money with a smile on your face?

b) wring his neck for him?

c) sue the pants off of him for not being loyal to you?
Click to expand...

d) listen to his sales talk about how bying just a bit more stock could refloat the company and THIS time it will make a profit. And the more you buy the bigger the profit, look it´s real low now.

Workers tend to be loyal to their company and might fall for it.
 
I thought this guy had some insightful things to say:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/12/19/how-the-feds-will-govern-gm-and-chrysler.html

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/11/12/one-way-for-chrysler-to-exit-the-scene.html

I just had time to read these two articles but he linked to several more that sounded interesting. I particularly liked the idea of renaming Chrysler to Jeep. Unfortunately, I don't think it would help much unless it made Chrysler more attractive in a sale and I don't think it does that.

I am hard pressed to see any reason to put money into Chrysler at all. I suspect the main driving force was Bush who just doesn't want one more disaster on his watch. So now he's given them enough money to make it into Obama's watch.
 
Toke said:
Workers get wages and can lose their job.
Shareholders compensation can be more rewarding and a bit more risky.
And yes I know the company should pay both, not get payd.
Click to expand...

And that's how the free market works. Each has its own risks and rewards.

d) listen to his sales talk about how bying just a bit more stock could refloat the company and THIS time it will make a profit. And the more you buy the bigger the profit, look it´s real low now.
Click to expand...

After losing 80% or more of its value? Sure, the stock may surge ... even tripple in value from its current position. But that's still a net loss for you. You would need a good more to put into it in the hopes of recovering your losses. It sounds (to me) too much like betting at the casino. After losing almost all your money you go and bet it all on 13 black. Not everyone goes this route.

Workers tend to be loyal to their company and might fall for it.
Click to expand...

At this point, just what have they got to lose?
 
And that's how the free market works. Each has its own risks and rewards.
Click to expand...
No disagreement there.

Wether you pick d) depends on what you think of the company´s changes.
If it does work you will benefit from further investment.

The workers have a few paychecks to loose. If they are up to their eyeballs in mortgage and credit card debt it would make a big difference for a few months.

If you don´t belive in the company, and don´t want the stockholders to loose money, how can you ask the workers to part with their money?

Because they have an EVIL union, or are easy marks?
 
Roadtoad said:
Anything after '75? Bite me.
Click to expand...


Nope, wouldn't touch it http://www.corvettecanada.ca/new/09zr1.htm


FYI, this is basically 2009, your 96' Corsica is 14 years old, not 5. Did you mean 15 years then junked? You lost me there. In any event it was a Corsica, the type of car you bought, drove for 7 years then gave to your 17 year old son to drive into the ground. I mean really, it was/is a beater car. I can't remember if you said you bought it new or not? I'm just saying your Corsica probably saw a little harder driving than the same year Lexus. Same goes with my Olds, probably saw a little easier life than your Corsica and is essentially the same car (right? that's an M-body if I'm not mistaken with the 3.1L not the 4 cyl.)
 
Just thinking said:
And that's how the free market works. Each has its own risks and rewards.
Click to expand...

Where does the concept of lending money to people who can't pay it back, then bailing out the banks with tax money figure into the Free Market? I'm just curious how you can have a Free Market but throw $700 Billion into the equation.
 
Where does the concept of lending money to people who can't pay it back, then bailing out the banks with tax money figure into the Free Market? I'm just curious how you can have a Free Market but throw $700 Billion into the equation.
Click to expand...

A good question, but slightly out of context.
The context being worker/shareholder.
 
Toke said:
A good question, but slightly out of context.
The context being worker/shareholder.
Click to expand...


I know, my apologies. I've recently become disillusioned by the term Free Market. Ranks up there with Free Energy these days.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Nope, wouldn't touch it http://www.corvettecanada.ca/new/09zr1.htm


FYI, this is basically 2009, your 96' Corsica is 14 years old, not 5. Did you mean 15 years then junked? You lost me there. In any event it was a Corsica, the type of car you bought, drove for 7 years then gave to your 17 year old son to drive into the ground. I mean really, it was/is a beater car. I can't remember if you said you bought it new or not? I'm just saying your Corsica probably saw a little harder driving than the same year Lexus. Same goes with my Olds, probably saw a little easier life than your Corsica and is essentially the same car (right? that's an M-body if I'm not mistaken with the 3.1L not the 4 cyl.)
Click to expand...

You know, you seem to be hell bent on ignoring most of what people are posting here.

Yes, the '09 Vette looks to be a pretty damn hot car. No way in hell I can afford one, but it's a fast automobile. Good for you if you can buy it.

Yes, I am driving a beater. I don't make much money, and what I do make, I have to take a major portion of it and apply it to non-reimburseable expenses. I am a trucker. Not everything I spend my money on is something I can write off on my taxes. Welcome to my world.

I got the car very used. It's very old. It has lots and lots of miles on it. But even when it was new, IT WAS STILL JUNK! The car cannot be repaired by anyone when it's new, except the dealer. WTF!?!? And even now, there's some things the mechanic we use cannot fix, because the GM jackoffs in Detroit won't sell the frigging tools to independent mechanics! THAT IS A BETRAYAL!

If you want to defend GM, knock yourself out. Most of us look at the trash (garbage is far too elevated a description) that GM pumped out and thrust on us, which they thought we'd keep accepting. Sorry. And yes, I DO blame the unions for part of this, because they allowed shoddily built cars to roll, did a sorry job of building these cars, and then continue to want premium pay for second rate work. Bull(rule10).

So the union guys are just trying to keep food on the table? Me, too. But the difference is that when there isn't work for me, I go out and put in applications for jobs and get back to work. I don't generally have a lot to fall back on. (I'm presently on unemployment because our State ASSembly has decided that we don't need to take the money set aside for road and highway repair and use it that way. Bastards.)

The GM board operated in a short sighted, greedy fashion. The union is doing the same. Fine. Let them sink. They do NOT deserve a bailout. If anything, their greed ought to leave them with the wrecking balls parked outside, waiting for the end of the very last shift. They flipped us off for years. Now, let them pay for their arrogance.
 
Roadtoad said:
... our State ASSembly has decided that we don't need to take the money set aside for road and highway repair and use it that way. Bastards.
Click to expand...

One has to wonder ... just how much of our highway system and bridges are in the state they are in due to this form of swindling?
 
davefoc said:
I am hard pressed to see any reason to put money into Chrysler at all. I suspect the main driving force was Bush who just doesn't want one more disaster on his watch. So now he's given them enough money to make it into Obama's watch.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought when I heard the numbers -- with their current burn rate, the money is just enough to make GM and Chrysler Obama's problem.
 
George Will had something to say about this:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will121808.php3

The gist:
Ford: Good
GM: Maybe
Chrysler: Toast

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Total industry sales in America this year — about 10.5 million, down from 17 million in 2005 — are, on a per capita basis, the lowest since World War II. There is zero likelihood of industry sales sufficient for three U.S. companies to share them profitably with "transplants" — factories producing cars with foreign nameplates. A 1979 bailout enabled Chrysler to survive to announce yesterday a month-long sabbatical from manufacturing. It almost certainly will not survive. [/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
Roadtoad said:
And yes, I DO blame the unions for part of this, because they allowed shoddily built cars to roll, did a sorry job of building these cars, and then continue to want premium pay for second rate work. Bull(rule10).
Click to expand...

Meh, this statement is nonsense. It's like saying the roads are terrrible due to truck traffic, you should have filled your potholes or stopped driving on them altogther, instead you kept on truckin' and look what's happened.

On a note to that effect, I see the Union has requested a seat on the GM board in order to effect change. I'm not sure of the particulars but I can tell you that having the Union on the board, while possibly a conflict of interest at times, would certainly allow you and others here to make the above statements. This was never the case in the past.

I'm not defending GM, I'm supporting the industry in realization of the impact the loss would create. When the economy was strong there was a movement of market share away from the Big 3 to the imports due to the unfair advantages given to them both in the US and by the parent countries. To say the imports were building a better car more efficiently that people wanted is slightly correct. But it doesn't justify the collapse of the NA economy if you take a close look at what was done and being done. What I'm saying is that they deserve the opportunity to weather the storm as much as or even more than the banks that initiated this event. Let's get through this and then see where we are at and make some decisions. Panicing and throwing money at the problem isn't the solution, I agree. But neither is letting them fail because the "Free Market" says so.
 
Roadtoad said:
And yes, I DO blame the unions for part of this, because they allowed shoddily built cars to roll, did a sorry job of building these cars, and then continue to want premium pay for second rate work. Bull(rule10).
Click to expand...

Meh, this statement is nonsense. It's like saying the roads are terrrible due to truck traffic, you should have filled your potholes or stopped driving on them altogther, instead you kept on truckin' and look what's happened.

On a note to that effect, I see the Union has requested a seat on the GM board in order to effect change. I'm not sure of the particulars but I can tell you that having the Union on the board, while possibly a conflict of interest at times, would certainly allow you and others here to make the above statements. This was never the case in the past.

I'm not defending GM, I'm supporting the industry in realization of the impact the loss would create. When the economy was strong there was a movement of market share away from the Big 3 to the imports due to the unfair advantages given to them both in the US and by the parent countries. To say the imports were building a better car more efficiently that people wanted is slightly correct. But it doesn't justify the collapse of the NA economy if you take a close look at what was done and being done. What I'm saying is that they deserve the opportunity to weather the storm as much as or even more than the banks that initiated this event. Let's get through this and then see where we are at and make some decisions. Panicing and throwing money at the problem isn't the solution, I agree. But neither is letting them fail because the "Free Market" says so.
 
Warning: The following will be Slightly stupid and offtopic, but...

If we were to let things pan out and GM were to fail, in a few years wouldnt something else take there place?
Wouldn't someone benefit from their Failure incredibly, and now obtain some of the power over the market that GM once had?

Natural progression of sorts...?

I know very little on how this works and will continue to ask questions until i feel i have the entire picture grasped.
 
I am just basically thinking wouldnt a more successful product producing company replace them and fill the void left by GM's terrible business practices?

To me it just seems the nature of business, and prolonging it is sort of unfair to the businesses who are doing all the right things and making the better choices. These Companies should be at the forefront and should be receiving money to help continue their better ways.
I feel the money could be better spent on successful companies then those that are failing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom