Not Good, GM wants another 16 or is it 9 Billion to Survive.

[UCF w00t]

Originally Posted by FAF

You would think that GM would wnat to sell more cars instead of whining and crying. I had to visit 5 deales to order my camaro non of the dealer wanted to take an MSRP deal they all wanted to stiff the customer hell with GM.

Sadly that's idiotic dealers for ya. And due to franchise laws, it's illegal for GM to do anything about this.

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by UCF w00t

There was a poll on this a while back on here (just looked briefly and couldn't find it) but this audience is a horrible judge for this. We are all extremely biased being that we're enthusiasts. I posted this question a while back (when GM was initially asking for help) on a couple other forums, non-automative, that I frequent and the resounding answer was "no".

Are you saying that we are "Car Crazy". I "resemble that remark".

Steve

[UCF w00t]

Originally Posted by t3chfr3ak

What I dont understand is why have all these different sister companies. GMC, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Saturn, Saab, Holden, Vauxhall, Opel, Buick. Man thats just ridiculous! Honda, Toyota, Nissan only have one to seperate their luxury brand. I say get rid of all these divisions and make two. One GM, and another for luxury cars. And even combine Hummer with GMC and Chevy trucks. Its a waste of money to have all these different brand names.

They are ditching a few of the domestic brands. But they really cannot ditch the foreign brands. They are too integrated into the culture of those countries and people are attached to the name. Basically GM will be shrinking down to just GMC, Chevy, Cadillac, Holden, Vauxhall, and Buick. The rest are gone. And even if they were to ditch a few more name plates they'd still have to keep the varied product lineup so it doesn't save much money at all. Toyota et all have varied product lineups globally but due to how they started and came to be in those countries they just have the same badge.

[FenwickHockey65]

Is all I have to say.

[RT21]

Originally Posted by Supermans

Yeah only 16.6 billion

Yeah...much less than 700 billion...more zeros...

Originally Posted by Supermans

How much more of our grandchildren's money are we going to throw at the problems that the US Government under Clinton and Bush created in the first place?

Which was my point. 700 billion vs 16 billion.

Originally Posted by UCF w00t

The ironic thing is that Ford was much worse off than GM

Yet, the media is talking about GM and Dodge. What's up with that?

Originally Posted by War Eagle

They would be OK in Chapter 11 and could come out stronger and not be hamstrung with the Dealer and UAW contracts

That is why I think it is a good thing. We will find out soon.

[RT21]

Originally Posted by GrnMchin

That what started are conversation went GM started showing sighs of big trouble 5+ years ago.

Huh?

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by UCF w00t

LOL. Then how do you explain me disagreeing with you two? I'm born and raised Florida boy.

The UAW has been a problem for GM for decades.

Living in Orlando, do you live close to Fantasy Land? I'm just joking with you, I'm sure you have good common sense too and I'm sure I'll witness it at some point OK now I gotta stop, that was too easy..

Ok seriously now, I agree with you on some of your points and issues you've raised. However I just don't see a second or third bailout if you count the one before the first and keeping the union alive and ticking is going to actually solve the problems.. I forgot to mention that I would support the Government doing all that it can in helping GM survive a Chapter 11 filing, even going as far as taking over warranty's for all the vehicles that still fall under it and of course with the disolvement of the union, that my taxpayer money goes to helping workers find new work if they can no longer maintain a job with GM and the retirees as well. I think that covers everything and would allow GM to become its own company once more. Furthermore I don't buy the argument that no American would buy a car from them after chapter 11..Of course they would, especially if the people knew their warranty's were still valid. I'd rather my tax money be spent on helping GM restructure the proper way than by giving full control to the Federal Government in the form of an auto czar for example as the start of this full control.

[UCF w00t]

The UAW will only gain power with more government involvement (ch. 11). This is a democratic house, senate, and white house. If you think otherwise I'd venture to guess that you need to lay off all the 'cocaína' in Miami

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by UCF w00t

The UAW will only gain power with more government involvement (ch. 11). This is a democratic house, senate, and white house. If you think otherwise I'd venture to guess that you need to lay off all the 'cocaína' in Miami

That is why i supported Chapter 11 when Bush was still in office. However it will still be less Government control than the alternative which would be to keep getting bailouts with pre-conditions.

[UCF w00t]

Originally Posted by Supermans

That is why i supported Chapter 11 when Bush was still in office. However it will still be less Government control than the alternative which would be to keep getting bailouts with pre-conditions.

All this started too late and would still be going on even if they filed in December. Under ch. 11 GM would be even more dependent upon federal funding so those same preconditions would exist but probably to an even greater extent.

[RT21]

Originally Posted by Supermans

Living in Orlando

Bummer...can't blame GM for that.

Originally Posted by Supermans

I'd rather my tax money be spent on helping GM restructure the proper way than by giving full control to the Federal Government in the form of an auto czar for example as the start of this full control.

Dude...you need to go visit Iraq.

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by UCF w00t

All this started too late and would still be going on even if they filed in December. Under ch. 11 GM would be even more dependent upon federal funding so those same preconditions would exist but probably to an even greater extent.

I don't think you fully understand what Chapter 11 would actually accomplish vs another bailout and this new auto czar and committee giving the orders from now until forever. Chapter 11 would keep the company private with the Government intervention only there until the company gets back on tits feet.

[UCF w00t]

Originally Posted by Supermans

I don't think you fully understand what Chapter 11 would actually accomplish vs another bailout and this new auto czar and committee giving the orders. Chapter 11 would keep the company private with the Government intervention only there until the company gets back on tits feet.

Umm since when is not filing Ch 11 going to turn GM into a federally owned company? These are loans. Just like loans from a bank, they won't have direct control over the company. I'm sure they'll have strings attached like "it must be used to build crappy cars that noone wants to buy" but that wouldn't change under chapter 11. With or without ch. 11, GM will need federal funds. The only question is how much. GM says that they would likely need a crapload more under ch. 11 than without.

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by UCF w00t

Umm since when is not filing Ch 11 going to turn GM into a federally owned company? These are loans. Just like loans from a bank, they won't have direct control over the company. I'm sure they'll have strings attached like "it must be used to build crappy cars that noone wants to buy" but that wouldn't change under chapter 11. With or without ch. 11, GM will need federal funds. The only question is how much. GM says that they would likely need a crapload more under ch. 11 than without.

the strings attached that you are coming up with is exactly what is going to be mandated if the bailout money is given and the Union stays intact or given more power. I see your side, however if you are saying you want less Government involvement in what cars GM should build, then you should try and understand where I am coming from here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/op...prod=permalink

This is a good read below.. The link is above..

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.