The picture is bleak. They may go out of business. Bush and his crew of geniuses have declined to help and arguably, they should not. Obama has criticized helping the "rich," so it appears that his crew might not consider a bail out either.
My question is what mistakes did GM make to get where it is. Did they fail to compete? If so, how? Is it just "the economy?" Is it unfair import policies? If so, in what way. Did they pay their people too much all along and fail to change with the times?
At one time they had the trade support of millions of American buyers.
They couldn't compete in design and quaility in my opinion. They have way too many product lines. The unions and retirements have cost them a lot of money.
But, they will never go out of business completely. They are already talking about selling off the Hummer line, and also the Saturn line, and they are also talking with Chrysler about a merger, so they will never be completely gone, just smaller.
__________________
I love Christmas lights. They remind me of the people who voted for Obama. They all hang together; half of them don't work, and the ones that do, aren't that bright.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do
not understand, no explanation is possible.
A golf course is a willful and deliberate misuse of a perfectly good rifle range.
Personally, I think a bankruptcy reorganizing would be the best way to go for GM. If it is good for everybody else, it should be good for them. Reorganization is not necessarily a bad thing, and in the long run I don't think GM is going away, but they would come back stronger for it.
Will it happen that way? I don't think so. Obama is so beholden to the Unions, I think they will get bailed out. In the process, they will make cars like the war machine made tanks in WWII. Obama will use them as a great experiment to make enviro. friendly cars, (or call them that) and the attempt will be to nationalize the auto industry. Unionauto workerswill in a sense become wards of the state, but they will work for it, and that is Obama's idea of job creation.
I may not be 100% right on every detail, but I think Obama is thinking along these lines.
C. Davis
__________________ Am I greedy because I don't want to give you what is mine?
or
Are you greedy because you want to take what is not yours?
Personally, I think a bankruptcy reorganizing would be the best way to go for GM. If it is good for everybody else, it should be good for them.
That was my reaction at first. Then I heard of survey done which reported that over 80% of Americans would immediately remove all GM vehicles from their list of potential purchases in the wake of bankruptcy. Of course, that makes perfect sense. Why would you buy a vehicle for which there might be no parts or service availability when you need them the most?
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,133
RE: General Motors...an American icon?
I think their fall from profitability is similar to the total economic collapse that the banking industry has experienced. Times were good, wages were up and profitability was almost guaranteed. GM as well as many other large corporations lived on leverage and borrowed against anticipated earnings. They had a majority of the business and allowed the unions to drive up costs under the guise that they were making huge profits. The unions got paid more and executives received exorbitant compensation for running the company. Over time, foreign imports had higher quality and were viewed as a better buy for American consumers. GM is no longer the largest car maker and is too top ended to allow for bad times. When profits can only be gleaned with record sales then it is a good indication the company has been poorly run. I am afraid that even with a bailout it will be the beginning of the end for GM and Ford. With finances falling down the drain, I wonder how GM could have even begun to consider buying out Chrysler. I say let them succeed or fail based on their own business practices.
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
It's the quality and the unions. GM uses just-in-time manufacturing (an idea from the ***s). A strike is more likely to work under that system, and it's the nail in the coffin if all what's being sold is a polished turd. No one is going to want that "just-in-time".
The big three in Detriot are all in trouble because they failed to make a competetive product from 1978 through 1998. The ***anese beat them on quality, price, and fuel efficiency. Their sales suffered as a result. No innovative engineering, nothing exciting, just the same crap year after year with a few addtional bells and whistles. Then when Dodge came out with the new Ram pickup and it looked so darned retro but so darned cool everyone went bonkers, GM still took a beating.
GM has put out mediocre products for thirty years, nothing exiciting, nothing innovate. They are the tuna casserole of the auto industry. Time for them to go under.
GM had a quality problem for quite a while. For example out construction company bought five new Chevy pick-ups, in five years we put 12 transmissions in those pick-ups. They just wouldn't hold up. The next time around we bought all new Fords. You can't build trucks like that and expect people to return for more.
The Unions are hurting all the American auto makers as some have said. I don't think there should be a bail out, it's time people and companies take the credit or the fall for their ability to satisfy the consumers. If the Unions won't negotiate reasonable contracts they should just be out of a job like the average American worker.
General Motors...an American icon?
No one is going to want that "just-in-time".
