Just seen NEW GM commercial!!!

[HeatherR]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Then why did they get rid of Rick Wagoner and chose Fritz Henderson as his replacement?

Call me crazy, but choosing a company's CEO is a hands on way to run a company.

You are aware Fritz has been replaced too? And I doubt the current CEO would have been the current admin. 1st choice politically...

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

Let me say it again: The American Government is not running GM any more than they're running every other business with rules and regulations.

I disagree. They have proven that they will interfere if they are not seeing the results they want to see. They've hand picked a few board members including Whitacre who is obviously running the show. Had there been no govt. interference, GM's CEO would have been yet another guy who's grandfather used to sweep the floors in Flint somewhere.

Is it a co-incidence that John Montford (who worked with Whitacre for 10 years at AT&T) is Senior Advisor, Government Relations and Global Public Policy?

I am pretty sure the govt. does not get this involved with every other business with rules and regulations.

[bigearl]

I think my issue with the ad is that it feels like a play on words while Whitacre is trying to do this folksy we understand your angst people speech. Then he has this big party where they're dropping streamers and announcing it paying off "the loan" implying that was the only money they received.

There's no use trying to change what's already happened. GM was definitely working on some interesting products before the loans/bankruptcy and all that, but it's pretty clear they needed to make a clean break at the highest levels if they really want to be competitive. I think GM is in a much better position now and will have an easier time making things work because of the government interference- maybe it would be better to call it an intervention?

It's a mystery to me though how people can say that GM is now 100% free of government influence? I'm a capitalist at heart but even I'm thinking that it may not be such a bad thing if the government is holding the rudder in this case. I don't think the government is making day to day decisions, but I think they hired people who share their viewpoint and are open to suggestions from the treasury and exec branch about their direction. Keep in mind with 61% share, the Government is currently the largest stock voting block.

Hope it stays civil. The old thread was pretty good until 1 person dominated the last page and a half getting it closed. And even if you disagree with me, keep in mind I'm still driving a Chevy that I bought after the bailout. I think GM is going the right way in general.

[fbodfather]

Originally Posted by Hylton

I disagree. They have proven that they will interfere if they are not seeing the results they want to see. They've hand picked a few board members including Whitacre who is obviously running the show. Had there been no govt. interference, GM's CEO would have been yet another guy who's grandfather used to sweep the floors in Flint somewhere.

Is it a co-incidence that John Montford (who worked with Whitacre for 10 years at AT&T) is Senior Advisor, Government Relations and Global Public Policy?

I am pretty sure the govt. does not get this involved with every other business with rules and regulations.

It is certainly your privilege to disagree.

Do you work at GM daily?

The fate of Mr. Wagoner was sealed by both the board and the Obama administration. So in that sense, you are right in that there were decisions made.

Washington is not running the day-to-day operations.

Believe me -- I am a 'free-markets' kinda guy. I do not like government interference....the government has NEVER run anything efficiently -

....there are those who feel that Washington is calling all the shots. They are not....
(.......well.....in the case of regulations - you betcha they are)

-- they are not runnning the day to day operations.

The bottom line? No matter WHAT GM (or Chrysler) does - it will be met with anger from one group or another.

There ARE messages in that commercial - go back and watch it again. We are committed to meeting and exceeding your expectations. I think the Equinox and the CTS and the Camaro and the LaCrosse and the ZR1 (etc) are proving that we've changed - and that we offer some of the best cars and trucks available.....



...........but then, what the heck do I know?........

[fbodfather]

By the way - -GM -- Ford - Chrysler - Toyota - Honda -- etc?

They will NEVER be free of Government influence one way or another -

As Peter D. says " ain'tgonnahappen.com "

[Craig]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Actually the UAW was the main reason they (and Chrysler) wound up facing bankruptcy. Paying a high school grad ~$73/hr to build cars is a business strategy doomed to fail.

Well it's really all part of the same puzzle. Overpaying union employees means there is that much less money available for the product. I read numerous times that legacy costs alone were adding over 2 grand to the price of every GM vehicle, making it all but impossible to deliver a competitive product at a competitive price.

The union situation is another big problem I have with the way the bailout was handled. The UAW got about a third of the company while bondholders who loaned GM money in good faith got 10%, a pretty paltry amount at best when you consider what they were owed.

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

It is certainly your privilege to disagree.

Do you work at GM daily?

The fate of Mr. Wagoner was sealed by both the board and the Obama administration. So in that sense, you are right in that there were decisions made.

Washington is not running the day-to-day operations.

Believe me -- I am a 'free-markets' kinda guy. I do not like government interference....the government has NEVER run anything efficiently -

....there are those who feel that Washington is calling all the shots. They are not....
(.......well.....in the case of regulations - you betcha they are)

-- they are not runnning the day to day operations.

The bottom line? No matter WHAT GM (or Chrysler) does - it will be met with anger from one group or another.

There ARE messages in that commercial - go back and watch it again. We are committed to meeting and exceeding your expectations. I think the Equinox and the CTS and the Camaro and the LaCrosse and the ZR1 (etc) are proving that we've changed - and that we offer some of the best cars and trucks available.....



...........but then, what the heck do I know?........

I never said they are involved in day to day operations. You stated that "the govt. is not running the company anymore than they are running every other business...". Last time I checked, the board of directors sets policy and direction for the Executive team. If you want to assume that that has no influence on a company then fine.

Since when does someone need to be working at GM to talk about THIS issue?

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

By the way - -GM -- Ford - Chrysler - Toyota - Honda -- etc?

They will NEVER be free of Government influence one way or another -

As Peter D. says " ain'tgonnahappen.com "

I agree with this.

I know you work for GM, and I don't know where in the hierarchy you are. I look at someone like Dr. Cynthia Telles though who just joined GM's board 2 weeks ago. She may be wonderfully talented, but she does not appear to be someone who would end up on GM's board without some level of political manipulation or chroneyism (sp). I could be wrong of course, I only read the facts in the WSJ and interpret them as I see fit.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by Craig

I read numerous times that legacy costs alone were adding over 2 grand to the price of every GM vehicle, making it all but impossible to deliver a competitive product at a competitive price.

About 5 years ago I heard an economist saying that GM was either going to have to pull a rabbit out of a hat or face bankruptcy within 5-10 years because of the legacy costs.

[Kyle2k]

Originally Posted by Hylton

And you couldn't PM him this opinion because?

Maybe I should have- I don't want to cause a fuss on the forums....

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

By the way - -GM -- Ford - Chrysler - Toyota - Honda -- etc?

They will NEVER be free of Government influence one way or another -

As Peter D. says " ain'tgonnahappen.com "

Don't be such a pessimist. We just need to educate people and get those who will work to this goal to run for office and/or vote for those who do.

:flag2:

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

Supermans -

There is simply too much misinformation out there --

a few thoughts: (and up front, I need to disclose a few things: 1. - these are my views and not necessarily those of the company for whom I work ...

2. the older I get, the more I realize what I DON'T know - and --

3. Most people don't know much about what's really happened to this industry over the past 40 years - -and it isn't 'simple' - rather, it's hugely complicated.....

Now - there is more misinformation out there than there is good information.

The loan was paid in full with interest.

There was no money out there to be raised due to the credit crunch - so we gave YOU the taxpayer 60+ percent of the company in exchange for working capital.

The Obama administration is not involved in the day-to-day running of the business.....and in fact, there's a good argument that looking closer at the auto industry opened many eyes in Washington - something that sorely needed to happen.......

There are several industry experts and financial experts that feel that YOU the taxpayer, may have made a good investment.

Go look at Ford Stock and what's happened to it over the past year.....and they don't have the cost savings that GM does......

It's very likely that GM will start to make some serious money - and soon. Further, once the IPO goes out, the government can then sell the stock -- and hopefully it will be a very good investment.

Now - many have said something along the lines that "GM should have been forced into bankruptcy and the government should not have loaned them money." OK - that would have resulted in Chapter 7 in all likelihood simply because there were no avenues to borrow money. You can go into bankruptcy -- but the reality is that the auto industry is a VERY capital intensive business. If the banks aren't loaning money - -something's gotta give.......and so it was a case of getting loans from the goverment and in return, giving the government a percentage of the business -- or starve for capital -- and that usually means chapter 7.

Ford, on the other hand, had mortgaged everything including the staplers on the desks a few years ago -- when funds were still available to borrow on the open market - and whoever made that decision is a genius or lucky or both........so they were able to weather the downturn. (.. i sure hope whoever it was that made that decision was given a good sized bonus -- he/she deserves it!)

Keep one thing in mind as you look at this entire situation:

Americans bought approx. 16 million new cars and trucks a year until the bottom fell out due to the housing market and the drying up of capital. Now - that 'pie' of 16 million units per year over a 4-5 year period kept getting sliced up by more and more competition from overseas competitors.....and in some cases, competitors that have, for all intents and purposes - a closed market. Suddenly, that 16 million units a year drops to 9 million units a year - and no one can sustain that drop for an extended period of time.

Now - some would say "well - -you signed the contracts with the unions!" - and it isn't quite that simple. Go look at the summer of 1998 to see what happened to the economy when there was a strike.

Should you buy a GM car or truck? I'll let the others on this board give their opinions...... I'd like you to consider GM and Ford and Chrysler as your provider of all your transportation needs........

By the way -- speaking of giving money away -- you might want to look at the deal that Mr. Shelby of Alabama gave to a couple of foreign car manufacturers -- and they don't have to pay it back!

I guess if I were to give advice:

>go drive our cars and trucks - and then go talk with those who have bought our cars and trucks in the past couple of years......

>remember - -it's YOU -- the taxpayer - who have invested in GM and Chrysler.....

And finally - -perhaps it's prudent to keep an open mind until you get all of the facts.


(......oh -- and one last fact: The stock you refer to at 75 cents or whatever is for the OLD GM - not the new one........)

Fbodfather,

Read this article and then comment whether or not GM's advertising department along with top GM and Obama admin officials were implementing propaganda or in nicer terms deceptive advertising with the GM commercial? You already defended in your post above the commercial and it's main statement that the loan has been paid back in full with interest. What will it take for you to be willing to stand up against this type of deceptive advertising or will you defend every move your own company does, even if it is propaganda and deceptive. thanks..

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-92788939.html

GM named in deceptive advertising complaint filed with FTC
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
05/04/10 2:22 PM EDT
General Motors Co. on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 said it lost $4.3 billion in the last half of 2009 as it struggled to emerge from bankruptcy protection, repay government loans and cope with a severe downturn in U.S. sales.

A prominent conservative Washington activist think tank has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against General Motors' nationally advertised claim that it has repaid its government bailout loan "in full, with interest, five years ahead of schedule."

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) argues in its FTC filing that GM's claim is misleading to consumers, and factually inaccurate, and therefore violates the Federal Trade Commission Act.

"Most consumers would reasonably interpret GM’s ads as meaning both that GM has paid back all the money that it received from the government, and that those repayments were made with its own funds rather than with other government funds.

"Neither of these interpretations is accurate. While GM might argue that its ads are literally correct, they are deceptive within the meaning of the FTC Act because they leave a misleading impression with consumers."

The problem, according to CEI in its complaint, as well as a wide swath of financial and political analysts and media outlets, is simple: GM's repayment of one of its government loans was made with funds the company received from another government loan as part of its $49.5 billion bailout deal last year.

The bailout included $49.5 billion committed to GM through the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Automotive Industry Financing Program. The government got back from in return for the bailout a controlling 60.8 percent common equity stake in GM, plus $2.1 billion in preferred stock, and $7.1 billion in additional GM debt.

Treasury officials put $17.4 billion of the $49.5 billion in an escrow account, which required GM to obtain Treasury’s approval before making withdrawals. Since the repayment described by GM head Ed Whitacre in the television spots came from this escrow account, the government approved the withdrawal for that purpose.

In fact, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner issued a statement praising GM's repayment "in full" and cited it as evidence that the Obama administration's economy recovery progam was working as intended for the automaker.

CEI said in its complaint that GM's ads sought to make consumers think the company has returned to profitability when in fact it has not. (The company reported last month that it lost $4.3 billion in the second half of 2009):

"GM’s ads also leave the false impression that it is on the road to profitability, since it is now able to pay off its debts. (In public statements, GM deliberately sought to reinforce that impression by linking the “repayment” to increased sales of two cars produced by GM.)

"In reality, however, GM used taxpayer money to make the repayment -- government bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- and it was still losing money at the time of the advertisement.

"This false impression matters to consumers, and affects their purchasing decisions, because a profitable automaker, unlike an automaker that goes out of business, can provide replacement parts for an automobile that a consumer purchased. And unlike a bankrupt automaker, it can be counted on to make good on its warranties."

You can read the full CEI complaint here. Neither the FTC nor GM has offered any comment on the complaint.

See also Examiner editorials here and here. And CEI's Hans Bader who with CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman filed the FTC complaint, has a comprehensive assessment of the GM situation, including a bunch of links for virtually every significant turn of events since the bailouts were first proposed during the Bush administration.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0mziEtOKq

[Mr. Wyndham]

.....again.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

.....again.

IBTL. /sigh