SouthernJet Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Oh well..adios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 on another GM note http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/hey-gm-can-i-retire-at-48-too.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uart Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Oh well..adios GM technically doesn't "own" Hummer, AM General does. GM builds the H3, which is really just a Silverado, I think, and distributes the other models for AMG. Saturn sucks balls. Saab's passing is kind of sad, but I heard that the Swedes weren't even too keen on trying to save their native brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Division Marduk Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I'd like a Saab Viggen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I'd like a Saab Viggen. You couldn't afford one you delta winged kook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 GM technically doesn't "own" Hummer, AM General does. GM builds the H3, which is really just a Silverado, I think, and distributes the other models for AMG. Saturn sucks balls. Saab's passing is kind of sad, but I heard that the Swedes weren't even too keen on trying to save their native brand. Couldn't agree more. Pure garbage cars with crap trannys on top of it. As far as Saab I thought GM was planning on them going solo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Division Marduk Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 You couldn't afford one you delta winged kook. Still goes on the wish list. Preferably the AJ 37 in the greens over the grey JA 37. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Still goes on the wish list. Preferably the AJ 37 in the greens over the grey JA 37. LOL I've got a picture of the JA 37 in my files. That's why I picked up on it so quickly. A superb vehicle . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indygirl4jets Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 GM technically doesn't "own" Hummer, AM General does. GM builds the H3, which is really just a Silverado, I think, and distributes the other models for AMG. Saturn sucks balls. Saab's passing is kind of sad, but I heard that the Swedes weren't even too keen on trying to save their native brand. i thought it was volvo's that were made in sweden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishooked Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 i thought it was volvo's that were made in sweden They're allowed to have more than one car mfg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gun Of Bavaria Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Fellas.....if GM & Chrysler go under, you can officially stick a fork in what's left of this state of mine. Seriously. if they fail, you might as well just close up shop. We will look like Pittsburgh in the early 1970s on steroids statewide. That crap you saw in Robocop? It's not that far away for Detroit and the rest of SE Michigan. Nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyHector Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Fellas.....if GM & Chrysler go under, you can officially stick a fork in what's left of this state of mine. Seriously. if they fail, you might as well just close up shop. We will look like Pittsburgh in the early 1970s on steroids statewide. That crap you saw in Robocop? It's not that far away for Detroit and the rest of SE Michigan. Nightmare. I'll buy that for a dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Fellas.....if GM & Chrysler go under, you can officially stick a fork in what's left of this state of mine. Seriously. if they fail, you might as well just close up shop. We will look like Pittsburgh in the early 1970s on steroids statewide. That crap you saw in Robocop? It's not that far away for Detroit and the rest of SE Michigan. Nightmare. You know what is sad... Gm makes some damn good vehicles... Toyota and Honda are over-rated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war ensemble Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I'll buy that for a dollar. There's some nice money to be had for potential spectators--those dirt cheap properties might be very valuable in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uart Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 i thought it was volvo's that were made in sweden They're both Swedish... sort of. Saab is owned and built by GM, Volvo's consumer vehicle division was sold to Ford about a decade ago. So, technically neither is Swedish anymore. Though Volvo still exists as an independent company that builds trucks and busses and such in Sweden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uart Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 That crap you saw in Robocop? It's not that far away for Detroit and the rest of SE Michigan. Nightmare. I LOVED Robocop! I'm not sure they can actually build a cyborg cop though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Hummers suck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 You know what is sad... Gm makes some damn good vehicles... Toyota and Honda are over-rated...[/quote] Agreed. The price on parts for them are also thru the roof. Cat for my daughters Civic was priced at $1600 at a national muffler chain. Outrageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 There's some nice money to be had for potential spectators--those dirt cheap properties might be very valuable in the future. lol, it was a robocop reference. The 15 year old is now a real estate speculator, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugeater Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 You know what is sad... Gm makes some damn good vehicles... Toyota and Honda are over-rated... Could not agree more. You pay more for them when you buy them, and while they MIGHT break down a little less often, you get absolutely ass-raped for the parts. The Mrs. has had an Accord and now a Camry, and I have not been impressed at all with either of them. Especially the Accord, we had to make numerous expensive repairs to it, and there were several things that just never worked quite right on it. I can get all that with a Chevy and pay a hell of a lot less for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uart Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 lol, it was a robocop reference. The 15 year old is now a real estate speculator, lol ... no, he's a spectator... he's going to watch someone else invest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Division Marduk Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I LOVED Robocop! I'm not sure they can actually build a cyborg cop though. They should build some ED-209s first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 they may be makin less cars but the GM workers are doing fine Hey, GM: Can I retire at 48, too? Regardless of age, autoworkers get full pension and benefits after 30 years on the job. Why should the rest of us taxpayers -- who don't get the same privilege -- help GM cover those costs? [Related content: GM, manufacturing, cars, economy, jobs] By Paul Ingrassia, The Wall Street Journal GM's new restructuring plan seeks an additional $16.6 billion in government aid -- for now. Chrysler wants an additional $5 billion. The $30 billion that General Motors (GM, news, msgs) has either received or requested since December doesn't count the $8 billion it wants to develop fuel-efficient cars, and another $6 billion it's soliciting from foreign governments. For these taxpayer subsidies, the government could buy hundreds of thousands of GM cars a month and give them to deserving citizens. Make mine a Corvette, please. Before deciding what to do with Detroit's demands, uh, requests, government officials first need to confront a fundamental question: How could so many smart people produce such a disastrous result? Make no mistake, there have been many bright minds in the American auto industry over the years -- at the automakers, the United Auto Workers union and the components companies. Most of them saw today's troubles coming for years, even decades. "I frankly don't see how we're going to meet the foreign competition," said Henry Ford II, then chairman and CEO of Ford Motor (F, news, msgs), on May 13, 1971, right after the annual shareholders' meeting. "We've only seen the beginning," he predicted. Regarding Americans' increasing preference for small cars, he declared: "Mini car, mini profits." Talk back: Can GM survive? That was a couple of years before Detroit agreed to let autoworkers retire with full pension and benefits after 30 years on the job, regardless of their age. In practice, that meant a worker could start at age 18, retire at 48, and spend more years collecting a pension and free health care than he or she actually spent working. It wasn't long before even union officials realized they had created a monster. In 1977, UAW Vice President Irving Bluestone said he was "flabbergasted" that so many workers were retiring at age 55 or younger. "We were aware that the trend to early retirement was escalating . . . but we were surprised at the escalation in 1976," Bluestone declared. "It is astounding." None of this is ancient history. The 30-and-out retirement program persists -- a sacred part of the inflated cost structure that makes it unprofitable for Detroit to make small cars in America. Another example: Every Detroit factory still has dozens of union committeemen -- the bargaining committee, shop committee, health and safety committee, recreation committee, etc. -- who actually are paid by the car companies. This is a "legacy cost" that the nonunion Japanese, German and Korean car factories in America don't have to carry. The union, though, shouldn't bear the entire blame for Detroit's disaster. It wasn't the UAW that pushed GM into the home-mortgage market, where it has incurred billions in losses over the last couple of years. Nor can the UAW be blamed for Saturn and Saab, two brands that never made money, as GM executives have recently acknowledged. What they haven't explained is why their company would keep these money-losers around for nearly 20 years. So why were these problems allowed to fester, when smart people recognized them all along? The answer is that the solutions were painful, requiring not just brains but considerable amounts of courage. Continued: Road to survival leads through bankruptcy UAW officials weren't brave enough to risk re-election defeat by agreeing to curtail the 30-and-out plan. Detroit executives weren't about to take on the union and risk a strike that could cost them billions. GM likewise felt hamstrung on Saturn and Saab by state dealer-franchise laws, especially after they spent $1.3 billion to shut down Oldsmobile a few years ago. Perhaps the best analogy, and one that Washington will understand, is Social Security. Everybody in Congress and the White House has known for years that it's a ticking time bomb, thanks to actuarial trends and inadequate funding. But when President George W. Bush tried to reform the system early in his second term, he was handed a crippling defeat. Which brings us back to the restructuring plans proposed by GM and Chrysler, the two companies currently getting government welfare. Talk back: Can GM survive? Missing from both are concessions from the UAW to reduce the cost of health care for retirees. Ironically, union retirees over age 65 continue to receive generous, company-paid benefits, while their former bosses in management have to rely on Medicare. The companies could -- and did -- unilaterally change the health care plans for management, but they have to negotiate changes for union workers and retirees. Other missing links include any agreement with bondholders to substantially reduce the amount of outstanding debt, which is an especially acute issue for GM. And the cost of compensating dealers for killing brands -- Hummer and Pontiac, as well as Saturn and Saab -- is likely to be substantial. GM justifies its bailout request by contending that a bankruptcy filing will cost the government $100 billion to guarantee pension payments and other obligations. But here's the thing: The total of nearly $45 billion requested so far from the Treasury Department, the Energy Department and friendly foreigners gets us almost halfway to $100 billion, even if the company doesn't request more money down the road -- which one suspects it will. Without a bankruptcy filing, the issues with the UAW, dealers and bondholders are likely to remain unresolved. The same pain-avoidance motive that has kept these issues festering for years will continue. Chrysler's plan, meanwhile, basically requires constant government subsidies until the benefits of its proposed alliance with Fiat (FIATY, news, msgs) begin to flow, at best a couple of years from now. So the taxpayers are being asked to provide funds that neither Chrysler's private-equity owners nor Fiat, which would get 35% of Chrysler's stock, are willing to provide. Hello? As for the automakers' fear that Americans won't buy cars from a company in bankruptcy, that damage has been done. In fact, bankruptcy will improve their chances of survival by relieving them of financial obligations that they can't afford. And that's just the conclusion that President Barack Obama's new automotive task force should reach. The purpose of bankruptcy -- either a plain-vanilla Chapter 11 or a special-flavor version that would require a new federal law -- wouldn't be to punish Detroit's car companies. It would be to give them a chance to survive, just as radical surgery, however painful, often saves the lives of sick patients. And as their latest restructuring plans make clear, General Motors and Chrysler are very sick indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 They're allowed to have more than one car mfg. You think they can make two different types of cars AND cheese? C'mon man that just isn't possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 You think they can make two different types of cars AND cheese? C'mon man that just isn't possible. absolutely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 You think they can make two different types of cars AND cheese? C'mon man that just isn't possible. Cheese ? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war ensemble Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 ... no, he's a spectator... he's going to watch someone else invest. Turns out I should've just been a spectator in this thread. For whatever it's worth, I've heard that Detroit has had $1 properties because of this recession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.