Is GM finished?

[Furcifer]

The plan was to transfer government money to the UAW and to leave GM in the stranglehold of the UAW. That plan has now been fully implemented.

I'm not sure where this is coming from. You're the only one I've heard claiming the Bush government was in bed with the unions. I'm not saying you are alone on this, I'm just saying you're the only one I've heard.

And to what end? On a going forward basis the US probably has too much car manufacturing capacity, especially if car companies are forced to pay wages that leaves them uncompetitive with foreign companies.

Please, provide some proof of this claim or stop making it. Several months ago I provided a link showing the average worker at the Camry plant made more than the average GM worker. I'm not saying it isn't possible, I'm just saying no one has proven this to be true.

But those people seem happy enough since they have elected to work at Wal-Mart instead of some place else.

LMFAO. I'd love for you to provide an account of anyone who "elected to work at Wal-Mart instead of some place else". I'd love to hear about someone who turned down an offer at the post office, or teaching or GM to work at Wal-Mart. It should be easy, Wal-Mart is one of the largest employers in the US.

Anyone want to take wagers on me finding 100 accounts of people being treated unfairly by Wal-Mart for every 1 account Dave finds on people "electing to work at Wal-mart"

What has GM done for people in the last thirty years which is remotely as helpful as what Wal-Mart has done? One thing that GM did was charge my 75 year old step mother $450 to change a battery cable on her Cadillac which she eventually sold for a tiny fraction of what an equivalent Honda would have sold for. Don't look for me to be too enthused about GM after that.

What has GM done? How about help create the health and safety standards Wal-Mart seems to violate every chance they get? How about create the class of people who can afford to shop at Wal-Mart on a regular basis? Wal-Mart has a long way to go before the effects of its business practice could ever be measured against what GM has done for this economy.

I one paragraph you managed to compare GM to Wal-Mart and an Accord to a Cadillac (I'm not going to bother pointing out again the issue with the rear mounted battery in the Cadillac to the front mounted Honda ) Apples and oranges.

The problem with all your labor unions are good fantasies is that you are staring at massive empirical evidence that this isn't so and yet you cling to your fantasies even when it requires massive unsustainable government bailouts to keep them alive.

What we are staring at is gross negligence on the part of the government by keeping interest rates low while an unregulated Wall Street made loans to Americans they couldn't afford to repay.

 

[Furcifer]

What, exactly, is your problem? You tried to act like Toyota is in just as bad a shape as GM. They are not. Prior to 2008, when was the last time Toyota posted a loss? Now, look at GM.

I'm just pointing out that GM operated in the black for quite some time before the government got involved. They managed to provide good jobs with good benefits to the average person for decades. Toyota has yet to do this.

In the 90s, I knew people working for the big 3 in Michigan who spent a substantial part of the year laid off (the other part of the year working a bunch of overtime). When was the last time Toyota laid off any full-time employees?

And I know tons people who raised a family with a mother at home, sent there kids to University, went on vacation once a year and are now enjoying their retirement. When was the last time Toyota did this?

How many factories has GM shut down in the past 70 years? Toyota? Yes, the entire industry is hurting right now, but to say that Toyota is not doing significantly better than GM is asinine.

I don't really know or care how many factories have opened or shut. What I care about is the jobs and the money they inject into the economy. Working, laid off or retired. And I'm not saying that Toyota isn't in better shape, what I'm saying is thinking Toyota will remain better off for any significant amount of time in this economy is equally asinine. Things can change very quickly in this business. It will be interesting to see what happens after the restructuring of GM and Chrysler. GM will probably emerge much more competative than Toyota. It's just unfortunate that it comes at a cost to the average working man

No, I don't. Toyota is clearly in much better shape than GM at this point. If you've got information to the contrary, either put up or shut up.

I'm just saying it's at a cost. We've been afforded things the Japanese haven't (I like my 3 bedroom 2 bath home on a 150'x225 lot)' . What's become evident is our way of thinking is going to come more in line with their way of thinking, or living. Sure you're going to get your Camry for $16K loaded, but you're going to get a 75 year mortage when you refinance your home to add on a 4th bedroom for your inlaws )

Cite?

I wish I did. I heard that several years ago on NPR. I've looked in the past for a cite but couldn't find one. I'd look for one right now but my connection is very, very slow. As a very odd coincidence, I should point out I am currently connected to the "GM Renaissance Center" wifi 69.213.193.2, swear to god. I'm not sure if they're still paying for high speed or not

None of which has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

It has everything to do with why Toyota is sitting on some cash right now. Also, you really need to define what you think is sizable. I'm not sure if Toyota would agree with you right now.

Evidence?

Well like I said, my Google is slow, but I provided a link earlier in this thread. From what I remember these were more of allegations than proven fact.

Again, these cars are made in NA. At least the high runners like Camrys, Corollas, etc. I'd bet the local economy in Georgetown, Kentucky is probably benefiting a whole **** load more than the local economies in Michigan right now.

This really isn't about the here and now, it's more about the long term. It benefits no one to sell out an entire industry for momentary gains.

Why don't you explain it to me, since I'm such a moron?

Sorry Zircon, I didn't mean to insult you. It's just that I see a lot of short sightedness in this thread. People seem to forget the contribution to the economy and the hard work the auto workers have done over the last 50 years. There are a lot of misconceptions running rampant as people try to lay blame. People want to champion Toyota and Honda without realizing the benefits they have recieved over the years. Not only from their own government, but the US government, the Canadian government and even the Big 3 themselves. To simply look at the bottom line right now without taking into account what has happened over the last 30 years would be foolish.

 

[Disbelief]

Cite?

Not exactly saying that they won't make a profit, but here is something from before the economic crisis and after a new deal with the UAW had been struck for 2010.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_17/b4081038999094.htm?chan=magazine+channel_news

Toyota is worried. Two sources close to the company say that by late 2009, Toyota's 23-year-old assembly plant in Georgetown, Ky., where most workers are at the top of the pay scale, could have the highest labor costs of any auto factory in the U.S. Toyota says that with bonuses, some of its employees already make more than Detroit's unionized workers. "I think [the Detroit automakers] could easily equal us or even exceed us in terms of having lower labor costs," says Pete Gritton, human resources chief for Toyota in North America. What to do? "There's no single answer," he says.

 

[oggiesnr]

People seem to forget the contribution to the economy and the hard work the auto workers have done over the last 50 years.

The problem is that was then and we live in the here and now. Is Babe Ruth still hitting home runs? He used to, so why shouldn't he be doing it now? The steam engine made a great contribution to the world economy but that was then. Anyone remember the contribution that short hand typists made over the last fifty years?

There used to be a million coal miners in the UK now there's maybe 10,000. The world moves on, we don't drive the cars we did years ago and if the Big Three can't give us what we now need then why should their past history give them a right to exist?

Steve

 

[Furcifer]

The problem is that was then and we live in the here and now. Is Babe Ruth still hitting home runs? He used to, so why shouldn't he be doing it now? The steam engine made a great contribution to the world economy but that was then. Anyone remember the contribution that short hand typists made over the last fifty years?
Steve

Babe Ruth is dead, there are something like 5 million working, retired or laid off autoworkers. Steam engines are still in use and are one of the most efficient engines. A majority of electricity is produced by means of steam engines. But I get what you are saying.

The world moves on, we don't drive the cars we did years ago and if the Big Three can't give us what we now need then why should their past history give them a right to exist?

The thing is we need the jobs to pay for the cars. What's the point of getting a deal on a Hyudai if I don't have a job to pay for it? The beauty of the assembly line was that it created a class of people that could afford to purchase the product they made. It seems like we are just starting things over again, not moving forwards. Toyota and Honda might have some money in the bank right now, but that's where it is, in the bank. It isn't doing the NA economy any good there. And why is it there? Because they didn't give it to their workers or the tax payers where the factories are located.

Anyways, the deals done. GM isn't finished, not by a long shot. GM will emerge from bankruptcy a stronger, more viable company. It just comes at a cost, and that cost seems to be the progress the blue collar worker has made in the last 50 years.

 

[davefoc]

What has GM done? How about help create the health and safety standards Wal-Mart seems to violate every chance they get? How about create the class of people who can afford to shop at Wal-Mart on a regular basis? Wal-Mart has a long way to go before the effects of its business practice could ever be measured against what GM has done for this economy.

Any evidence that people working at Wal-Mart are suffering more work related injuries than other people working in a similar industry?

The class of people that you are claiming that GM created have worked in an industry over a period of thirty years or so that destroyed the entire shareholder equity of what was at one time one of the most valuable companies in the world. They have eaten through a massive influx of bondholder assets. And now they have churned through a massive influx of taxpayer dollars. If you subsidized any worker in the US with that he might be doing pretty well.

If you feel so bad about all the Wal-Mart workers perhaps you would favor giving the same kind of subsidy that the federal government has supplied to the GM workers to the Wal-Mart workers.

And what of the people that bought GM cars? Which of them were better off than the people that bought Toyotas and Hondas? When was the last time that the resale value of a GM product equaled that of a Toyota or a Honda or any one of many other automotive brands. Any thoughts on whether my step-mother is better off with the Honda she owns now than the Cadillac she used to own?

I[n] one paragraph you managed to compare GM to Wal-Mart and an Accord to a Cadillac (I'm not going to bother pointing out again the issue with the rear mounted battery in the Cadillac to the front mounted Honda ) Apples and oranges.

I was thinking of Accura when I said equivalent Honda. And I don't think my step mother gave a crap where GM put the battery as long as she didn't have to pay $450 to get the battery cable fixed when it failed.

What we are staring at is gross negligence on the part of the government by keeping interest rates low while an unregulated Wall Street made loans to Americans they couldn't afford to repay.

Roughly, I agree that this is a large part of what caused the current economic crisis. My claim has never been that GM wasn't hurt enormously by the economic downturn. My claims with regard to this were:
1. GM has been in a downward spiral for thirty years
2. People have been predicting a GM bankruptcy for at least five years.
3. The likelihood was that GM was going to keep spiraling down and it was going to go bankrupt eventually even without a recession.

 

[Furcifer]

Any evidence that people working at Wal-Mart are suffering more work related injuries than other people working in a similar industry?

My remarks were in regards to workers rights, time off, over time, fair pay etc. If anything the autoworker has a much higher chance of injury on the job.

The class of people that you are claiming that GM created have worked in an industry over a period of thirty years or so that destroyed the entire shareholder equity of what was at one time one of the most valuable companies in the world. They have eaten through a massive influx of bondholder assets. And now they have churned through a massive influx of taxpayer dollars. If you subsidized any worker in the US with that he might be doing pretty well.

Bondholders take risks, that's part of investing. Going to work shouldn't be a risk taking endevour. This is where the UAW and CAW split. The UAW wanted a piece of the action, profit sharing. The CAW just wanted to gaurantee wages and a 40 hour work week. I think it was foolish of the UAW to do this because it does leave them open to criticisms like your own. When you see what the company is making and then try to get in on the action you take on some responsibility when the business fails. The profits the UAW made for its employees should have been invested in the company or in pensions.

If you feel so bad about all the Wal-Mart workers perhaps you would favor giving the same kind of subsidy that the federal government has supplied to the GM workers to the Wal-Mart workers.

I don't. If they want it bad enough they can unionize and get it from the company

And what of the people that bought GM cars? Which of them were better off than the people that bought Toyotas and Hondas? When was the last time that the resale value of a GM product equaled that of a Toyota or a Honda or any one of many other automotive brands. Any thoughts on whether my step-mother is better off with the Honda she owns now than the Cadillac she used to own?

Is there an actual question here or are you just stating your opinion? This is all very subjective. There are many models from every car company that do well in resale or do poorly. It depends on the model, the year, the sale demographic, the service history, the recalls etc. etc. You really need to do a side by side comparison. As for your step-mom, with the price of gas these days probably the Honda. Unless she drives like my great grandmother, then the Cadillac, they take curbs better.

I was thinking of Accura when I said equivalent Honda. And I don't think my step mother gave a crap where GM put the battery as long as she didn't have to pay $450 to get the battery cable fixed when it failed.

Legend I assume? Or Integra? NSX?

As for the battery cable, deal with it. That's what happens on high end cars with high end safety features. If Honda starts putting the battery in the trunk it's going to cost the same to replace it as well.

Roughly, I agree that this is a large part of what caused the current economic crisis. My claim has never been that GM wasn't hurt enormously by the economic downturn. My claims with regard to this were:
1. GM has been in a downward spiral for thirty years
2. People have been predicting a GM bankruptcy for at least five years.
3. The likelihood was that GM was going to keep spiraling down and it was going to go bankrupt eventually even without a recession.

If this is true then the shareholders have only themselves to blame now don't they?

 

[Disbelief]

Roughly, I agree that this is a large part of what caused the current economic crisis. My claim has never been that GM wasn't hurt enormously by the economic downturn. My claims with regard to this were:
1. GM has been in a downward spiral for thirty years

Of course they were, since they had the most market share. When the competition started to grow in the US, the most likely to lose market share is the largest holder. The focus of GM on market share instead of on product is probably one of the leading reasons why they lost it.

2. People have been predicting a GM bankruptcy for at least five years
3. The likelihood was that GM was going to keep spiraling down and it was going to go bankrupt eventually even without a recession.

Most of the talk was if GM did nothing, but as I pointed out before, they were making moves to stabilize their balance sheet. The economic crisis made it so the cuts have to be much more dramatic and faster than they ever would have been able to do outside of bankruptcy. Without the crisis, GM would probably not have gone bankrupt, but they had a good chance of continuing a slow decline. With bankruptcy, they have a chance to make necessary cuts and bring capacity and headcount in line with realistic market share.

 

[davefoc]

3. The likelihood was that GM was going to keep spiraling down and it was going to go bankrupt eventually even without a recession.

Most of the talk was if GM did nothing, but as I pointed out before, they were making moves to stabilize their balance sheet. The economic crisis made it so the cuts have to be much more dramatic and faster than they ever would have been able to do outside of bankruptcy. Without the crisis, GM would probably not have gone bankrupt, but they had a good chance of continuing a slow decline. With bankruptcy, they have a chance to make necessary cuts and bring capacity and headcount in line with realistic market share.

Yes GM was making moves to reverse the losses that if they continued would eventually leave the company with a negative net worth.

My suspicion is that what they did was inadequate to stave off a bankruptcy even if one hypothesizes that the current financial crisis didn't happen or was much milder. (Although I think given the actions of the Bush administration a major recession was basically a certainty).

My sense of what was going on with regard to this was this:
1. GM signed a deal that would reduce the cost of new employees but kept old employees on the books at the old rates. In addition GM continued to be on the hook for extensive payouts for an employee that was let go.

2. GM's theory that it would be able to get to a break even with these concessions from the union was based on the idea that it would be able to maintain or increase its gross sales.

3. If GM wasn't able to do that it was going to be screwed because it was going to have a mix of mostly higher paid workers because new lower paid workers couldn't be hired and it was going to have to pay out large sums to reduce its work force. So the positive feedback mechanisms in the union contracts. that had been destroying GM were left in place. In addition, the cost of closing down dealerships and brands would be substantial as GM gross sales continued their downward slide.

4. And in fact there was almost no way for GM to maintain or increase its gross sales because brand loyalty is such an important part of car sales and that it creates a kind of momentum. When a company loses sales not only does it lose the immediate sales but brand loyalty makes it such that it is also losing future sales. The only way to reverse this phenomena and actually gain market share are to offer equivalently good cars for less money or better cars for the same money. But nothing in the union contracts was putting GM in a position to do that. The union wasn't even considering reducing wages to the point that GM would have an advantage over its competitors on labor costs. That left the only thing that GM might be able to surpass its competitors with was genuinely superior engineering or marketing. And superior engineering or superior marketing are not easy things to accomplish in a mature industry with very well established competitors with plenty of cash.

I think that not only would GM have eventually failed even if there had been no recession, I think GM will fail again even after the $50 billion government bailout. The single most important thing to making GM a viable company again was to get rid of the UAW. When that wasn't done in the bankruptcy courts, the failure of GM or at least the continuance of GM as a government basket case may have been assured.

This is not only sad because GM limping along will be bad for most of the people involved including the US taxpayer that has been involuntarily screwed to keep this mess going, it will be sad for the Obama administration that will now almost certainly find itself with an albatross tied around its neck that the Republicans are sitting back ready to use as tool to bash the Obama administration in general. It will of course be hypocritical crap since their guy set this disaster in motion but that won't matter. The Obama administration will take the hit and it may end up costing Obama the election in four years if stuff really goes badly at GM as I think it might.

 

[Furcifer]

4. And in fact there was almost no way for GM to maintain or increase its gross sales because brand loyalty is such an important part of car sales and that it creates a kind of momentum. When a company loses sales not only does it lose the immediate sales but brand loyalty makes it such that it is also losing future sales. The only way to reverse this phenomena and actually gain market share are to offer equivalently good cars for less money or better cars for the same money..

Dave I just think you don't get it. All it takes is 1 product to turn around an entire company, almost over night. Look at the minivan, you have an entire corporation that basically subsisted on 1 product for almost 20 years. You'd be hard pressed to show the minivan was a result of brand loyalty. Chrysler wasn't exactly top of the list in 1986. Sure, the spin offs tend to attract loyal customers, but creating the original market for the product means much more to the company. That's why GM is putting all there eggs in one basket with the Volt, and to some extent the new Camaro. The Mustang may not have been a saviour to Ford, but it certainly didn't hurt them at the time. History is spotted with examples like this, products that are known to swing customer confidence in a manufacturer. I don't think history really supports your idea that gaining market share is by offering "equivalently good cars for less money or better cars for the same money". It's about having the hottest product on the lot.

The single most important thing to making GM a viable company again was to get rid of the UAW.

Only in your own mind. I have yet to hear anyone who actually has any experience in the automotive business support this statement. The single most important thing to making GM a viable company again is a product that's in demand.

 

[Almo]

Dave I just think you don't get it. All it takes is 1 product to turn around an entire company, almost over night.

iMac.

 

[balrog666]

Dave I just think you don't get it. All it takes is 1 product to turn around an entire company, almost over night. Look at the minivan, you have an entire corporation that basically subsisted on 1 product for almost 20 years. You'd be hard pressed to show the minivan was a result of brand loyalty. Chrysler wasn't exactly top of the list in 1986. Sure, the spin offs tend to attract loyal customers, but creating the original market for the product means much more to the company. That's why GM is putting all there eggs in one basket with the Volt, and to some extent the new Camaro. The Mustang may not have been a saviour to Ford, but it certainly didn't hurt them at the time. History is spotted with examples like this, products that are known to swing customer confidence in a manufacturer. I don't think history really supports your idea that gaining market share is by offering "equivalently good cars for less money or better cars for the same money". It's about having the hottest product on the lot.



Only in your own mind. I have yet to hear anyone who actually has any experience in the automotive business support this statement. The single most important thing to making GM a viable company again is a product that's in demand.

And does GM have a new product to turn around the company?

Worldwide? Or even anywhere?

Or how about just in the US, now that they have shed the small- and medium-frame vehicles formerly built in Europe?

And how about Chrysler - same question? What are they going to propose to turn around their decline in market share? Show me any innovative product they can manufacture in the next 12 months to make themselves "viable" in the public's mind? Especially now that even Daimler has written them off as a total loss ...

Please?

 

[mhaze]

And does GM have a new product to turn around the company?

Worldwide? Or even anywhere?

Or how about just in the US, now that they have shed the small- and medium-frame vehicles formerly built in Europe?

And how about Chrysler ....

Now what is your problem? You know that committees have been formed for those companies, comprised of good union workers, persons of sensitivity to environmental issues, and governmental wise men. You know that an individual is worthless and his thinking is weak and ineffective, and that the committee, that paragon subset of the collective, will fashion strong ideas by using the dialectical reductionism of creativity and innovation to most sleazy denominator.

From this will be presented your car of tommorrow, a blend of the venerable Yugo and childrens' tricycles.

Now don't be evil and think.

 

[davefoc]

Dave I just think you don't get it. All it takes is 1 product to turn around an entire company, almost over night. Look at the minivan, you have an entire corporation that basically subsisted on 1 product for almost 20 years. You'd be hard pressed to show the minivan was a result of brand loyalty. Chrysler wasn't exactly top of the list in 1986. Sure, the spin offs tend to attract loyal customers, but creating the original market for the product means much more to the company. That's why GM is putting all there eggs in one basket with the Volt, and to some extent the new Camaro. The Mustang may not have been a saviour to Ford, but it certainly didn't hurt them at the time. History is spotted with examples like this, products that are known to swing customer confidence in a manufacturer. I don't think history really supports your idea that gaining market share is by offering "equivalently good cars for less money or better cars for the same money". It's about having the hottest product on the lot.

What Dave said previously with regard to this:

That left the only thing that GM might be able to surpass its competitors with was genuinely superior engineering or marketing. And superior engineering or superior marketing are not easy things to accomplish in a mature industry with very well established competitors with plenty of cash.

Perhaps I should have expanded on genuinely superior engineering to make it clear that I meant break through products in general.

However, break through products are damn tough to come by in a mature industry. Almo mentioned the iMac. And he might have thrown in the iPod or the iPhone. Kudos to Apple on those products. Break through products like that are damn tough to develop even in a relatively young industry like the computer/cell phone industries. But the car industry is considerably older and GM hasn't had a break through product in a very long time.

We disagree on the Volt. While I might admire the effort, my guess is that this is not going to be a winner for GM. If and when the battery technology has developed to the point that it is a viable product I think lots of other people will quickly have similar cars in production.

As balrog666 asked:

And does GM have a new product to turn around the company?

The US seems to have a viable automobile company with Ford. It might have another with GM someday, although my guess right now is that GM's chances for pulling out of this mess have been substantially harmed because of politically driven government interference and what will be seen as one of the craziest ideas that a government has ever been involved with: Keeping Chrysler alive to further destabilize GM and Ford with subsidized competition from Fiat. Nice.

 

[Furcifer]

And does GM have a new product to turn around the company?

Worldwide? Or even anywhere?

I'm not sure if you're saying the Volt can't do this or if you're saying it's not coming to market soon enough or what? Are you under the impression that a success in the US isn't enough to carry them? I clearly stated the Volt and the Camaro (although the Camaro is more of a US thing) but you've completely glossed over that and carried on by asking what I can only assume are rhetorical questions.

Or how about just in the US, now that they have shed the small- and medium-frame vehicles formerly built in Europe?

The Volt and the Camaro. The plus side to the Volt is that the technology could be scaled down fairly quick if the demand is there (I assume, I'm under the impression the Volt was specifically created larger for the US market and not because of other physical restraints). I'm not sure what you're going on about the small and medium framed vehicles formerly built in Europe for? Do you think they should have kept it and exported vehicles back to the US for sale, or do you think they lost a big European market by doing this? I'm sensing this has to do with what Ford is doing. If that's what you're getting at then I think you need to consider what makes a company money and what doesn't. If you're going to actually scale down and try to make as much money with little effort in the US market the small car market probably isn't where you want to be. High horsepower for the ones that want to go fast and don't care about gas prices and a ultra fuel efficient mid to full size car will probably do this.

And how about Chrysler - same question? What are they going to propose to turn around their decline in market share? Show me any innovative product they can manufacture in the next 12 months to make themselves "viable" in the public's mind? Especially now that even Daimler has written them off as a total loss ...
Please?

What's wrong with the EV line-up? The Circuit looks pretty bad ass and the battery technology is better than the Volt or the Tesla. It's not a matter of doing it in the next 12 months, I'd say it's more a matter of doing it first. With the current economy I'd say at least 24 months is in order. If Chrysler doesn't have a full electric on the market in 24 months they deserve to fail.

 

[IMST]

Add to the Volt and Camaro the Traverse and Enclave. According to the dealers I work with, those things are moving better than anything else. More fuel efficient and less ugly than a minivan and parents in their 30s or so are snapping them up.
Read the end of that last sentence again. It indicates that relatively young people are buying Buicks.

If only they just gave up on some of their ****tier product...

 

[Furcifer]

Perhaps I should have expanded on genuinely superior engineering to make it clear that I meant break through products in general.
However, break through products are damn tough to come by in a mature industry. Almo mentioned the iMac. And he might have thrown in the iPod or the iPhone. Kudos to Apple on those products. Break through products like that are damn tough to develop even in a relatively young industry like the computer/cell phone industries. But the car industry is considerably older and GM hasn't had a break through product in a very long time.

Sorry I glossed over this, my apologies.

We disagree on the Volt. While I might admire the effort, my guess is that this is not going to be a winner for GM. If and when the battery technology has developed to the point that it is a viable product I think lots of other people will quickly have similar cars in production.

We might not disagree as much as you think. I think you are actually right about the battery. I think you might be under estimating effect of being the first. Then again you might be right. Tough to say these days.

The US seems to have a viable automobile company with Ford. It might have another with GM someday, although my guess right now is that GM's chances for pulling out of this mess have been substantially harmed because of politically driven government interference and what will be seen as one of the craziest ideas that a government has ever been involved with: Keeping Chrysler alive to further destabilize GM and Ford with subsidized competition from Fiat. Nice.

I kind of agree with this. I'm just not sure how you could avoid it? Legally at least.

 

[BeAChooser]

Looks like GMAC and Government Motors got another bailout.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34629214/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/

Got to keep those democrat owned and operated unions solvent.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Looks like GMAC and Government Motors got another bailout.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34629214/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/

Got to keep those democrat owned and operated unions solvent.

 

[davefoc]

Looks like GMAC and Government Motors got another bailout.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34629214/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/

Got to keep those democrat owned and operated unions solvent.

I wasn't quite sure what ZirconBlue meant with his response, but since when did the Democratic Party own the unions. I thought the unions owned the Democratic Party.