Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by SirNitram »

Link
DETROIT — The Treasury Department has turned down a request by General Motors for up to $10 billion to help finance the automaker’s possible merger with Chrysler, according to people close to the discussions.

Instead of providing new assistance, the Treasury Department told G.M. on Friday, the Bush administration will now shift its focus to speeding up the $25 billion loan program for fuel-efficient vehicles approved by Congress in September and administered by the Energy Department.

Treasury officials were said to be reluctant to broaden the $700 billion financial rescue program to include industrial companies or to play a part in a G.M.-Chrysler merger that could cost tens of thousands of jobs.

But it remained unclear whether the officials were also seeking to avoid making any decision that would conflict with the goals of a new presidential administration. The Democratic candidate, Senator Barack Obama, has said in recent days that he supports increasing aid to the troubled auto companies, while Senator John McCain has not said whether he would support aid beyond the $25 billion.

While G.M. and Chrysler continue to talk, no deal is expected until the government clarifies its role, if any. Potential investors in the deal have been hesitant to back the merger without federal assistance.

G.M.’s chairman, Rick Wagoner, had lobbied Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. to provide emergency aid to the auto companies under the bailout program to stabilize the financial markets.

The Bush administration is still considering a range of options to aid the Detroit automakers, which are losing billions of dollars and rapidly depleting their cash reserves, said auto industry and administration officials, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.

The first step is to get the Energy Department to expedite the release of the $25 billion in low-interest loans for G.M., Chrysler and the Ford Motor Company.

Beyond that, the administration is also bringing the Commerce Department into discussions about channeling additional aid to the automakers.

With auto sales deteriorating to their lowest level in 15 years, Detroit’s traditional Big Three are struggling to stay solvent and avoid bankruptcy.

The deepening troubles led G.M. into merger talks in September with Chrysler’s majority owner, the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, and the request to the Treasury Department for assistance.

Auto industry executives and analysts said over the weekend that the loan program is essential to retooling plants and developing vehicles that meet more stringent government fuel-economy mandates.

Getting the loans will allow G.M., Ford and Chrysler to redirect money already budgeted for cleaner cars to other capital needs.

“The auto companies are clearly running out of cash, and badly in need of more liquidity,” said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. “Releasing the $25 billion in loans is a necessary first step.”

The Detroit companies employ more than 200,000 workers in the United States and provide health care and pensions to more than one million Americans. The companies are also a lifeline to thousands of dealers and countless suppliers.

Support for aiding the industry is growing among political leaders in states with heavy automotive employment. Last week, the governors of Michigan, Ohio, New York, Kentucky, Delaware and South Dakota wrote a letter to Mr. Paulson and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, urging “immediate action” to assist the industry.

“While all sectors of the economy are experiencing difficult times, the automotive industry is particularly challenged,” the letter said. “As a result, the financial well-being of other major industries and millions of American citizens are at risk.”

Cerberus, which bought Chrysler last year for $7.4 billion, has been unable to reverse a steady decline in the fortunes at the company, the smallest of Detroit’s Big Three. While overall auto sales in the United States are down 12.8 percent this year, Chrysler’s sales have fallen 25 percent, mainly because of its focus on gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles and pick-up trucks.

Cerberus has had discussions with the Japanese automaker Nissan Motor and its French partner, Renault, about bringing Chrysler into their international automotive alliance. But people familiar with the discussions said Cerberus is now focused solely on a potential G.M. deal.

The depth of the Big Three’s problems will become even more evident this week with the release of October sales figures and third-quarter earnings announcements by G.M. and Ford.

Industry sales fell 26.6 percent in September, but October’s totals could be even worse. The auto research Web site Edmunds.com forecasts that sales of new vehicles during the month will drop nearly 30 percent from the same period last year.
Probably the first time the US government has said 'No' to GM. But seriously, let me quote this again..
Instead of providing new assistance, the Treasury Department told G.M. on Friday, the Bush administration will now shift its focus to speeding up the $25 billion loan program for fuel-efficient vehicles approved by Congress in September and administered by the Energy Department.
Gosh, if only some previous President had gut-checked Detroit into creating more fuel-efficient models, and not had the entire thing scrapped by the next President! Indeed, if only the EV-1 had been improved upon, instead of inexplicably being ground for scrap and donated to museums and schools.. With demands that they never be used!

If only.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
J
Kaye Elle Emenopey
Posts: 5837
Joined: 2002-12-14 02:23pm

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by J »

[sarcasm] Well, GM isn't a bank or other financial company so they don't get the special government funded buyout and takeover packages. Only bankers get free money from Hank & Ben, everyone else gets the shaft in the rear end. The clear course of action is to restructure GMAC into a finance/holding company for GM, and through them, obtain the billions needed to buy out Chrysler.
This post is a 100% natural organic product.
The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects


I'm not sure why people choose 'To Love is to Bury' as their wedding song...It's about a murder-suicide
- Margo Timmins


When it becomes serious, you have to lie
- Jean-Claude Juncker
User avatar
Phantasee
Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.
Posts: 5777
Joined: 2004-02-26 09:44pm

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Phantasee »

Hmmm...my uncle works for Chrysler. Electrical engineer who did some work on the Jeep Grand Cherokee a few years back (I don't know what he's working on now). What are his chances of losing his job if the GM merger had gone through, vs if it hadn't?

I'm assuming there's still a good chance he's out of a job either way.
XXXI
User avatar
Robert Treder
has strong kung-fu.
Posts: 3891
Joined: 2002-07-03 02:38am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Robert Treder »

I don't know much about the auto industry so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this is a good move by the government. If Daimler couldn't make anything off of Chrysler, why would we think GM could, when they can't even come up with the cash for the buyout themselves? Wouldn't it be cheaper to let Chrysler go bankrupt and then GM (or Toyota, or Ford, or Honda, etc) could just buy up the brands they thought worth salvaging and let everything else go?
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'

Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
User avatar
Ma Deuce
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4359
Joined: 2004-02-02 03:22pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Ma Deuce »

Robert Treder wrote:If Daimler couldn't make anything off of Chrysler, why would we think GM could
The situation was rather different then; On the surface, the DaimlerChrysler merger made buisness sense, because the two halfs of the combined company covered different parts of the auto market, so in theory, the merger could have produced a very successful full-range automaker. Why it didn't work is almost entirely the fault of the Daimler half, which was in firm control of the combined company.

When Chrysler was bought by Daimler it was a very healthy corporation, one of the most profitable automakers in the world with a market value of almost $40 billion (which is about what Daimler paid for them). CEO Robert Eaton's decision to court Daimler as a buyer to ward off private equity buyers like Kirk Kerkorian was foolish and unnecessary (Lee Iacocca now states that he regrets leaving the company to Eaton instead of Bob Lutz because of this). After Daimler took over, they replaced all of Chrysler's executives with Germans who had little understanding of the North American mass-market auto sector, which promptly sent Chrysler into another tailspin. About the only good thing to come out of that merger was the LX cars (Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger), which were partly based on the previous Mercedes E-class chassis. Daimler otherwise did not share any technology with Chrysler, aside from one or two less-than-successful rebadges (they should have instead worked to integrate the technology of the two companies as quickly as possible) and otherwise kept the lion's share of DaimlerChrysler's R&D budget to itself, leaving the Chrysler half to rot with obsolete or half-baked products.

So basically, the Germans ruined Chrysler, and Rob Eaton should burn in hell for selling it to them.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to let Chrysler go bankrupt and then GM (or Toyota, or Ford, or Honda, etc) could just buy up the brands they thought worth salvaging and let everything else go?
None of those automakers need any of Chrysler's brands, since they already cover the same market strata. That's another difference from the Daimler merger. Some factories and other facilities might remain open under new ownership, but the brands would vanish forever; I doubt even Jeep would survive, given the collapse of the SUV market.
Image
The M2HB: The Greatest Machinegun Ever Made.
HAB: Crew-Served Weapons Specialist


"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." --P.J. O'Rourke

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --J.S. Mill
User avatar
Sephirius
Jedi Master
Posts: 1093
Joined: 2005-03-14 11:34pm

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Sephirius »

SirNitram wrote:
Gosh, if only some previous President had gut-checked Detroit into creating more fuel-efficient models, and not had the entire thing scrapped by the next President! Indeed, if only the EV-1 had been improved upon, instead of inexplicably being ground for scrap and donated to museums and schools.. With demands that they never be used!

If only.

Don't tell me you actually believe the hyperbole that 'Who Killed the Electric Car' parrots as truth. It's like consulting a Michael Moore film for accuracy.



On the actual topic,
As a car fan I'm happy to see that Chrysler will soldier on, they're just starting to recover from the raping the Germans inflicted upon them, and that GM will not sell them piecemeal and instead focus on their own problems.
Saying smaller engines are better is like saying you don't want huge muscles because you wouldn't fit through the door. So what? You can bench 500. Fuck doors. - MadCat360
Image
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by SirNitram »

Sephirius wrote:Don't tell me you actually believe the hyperbole that 'Who Killed the Electric Car' parrots as truth. It's like consulting a Michael Moore film for accuracy.
Nope, just believe the makers of the EV-1 when they said they were scrapping the lot of it. I believe the colleges who own EV-1's on their restrictions. You know, observable universe shit. What's 'Who Killed The Electric Car'?

I love how any criticism of Detroit Automakers and conservatives elicits this kind of 'YOUR A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!' tinfoil crap, though. It shows the kind of person I'm dealing with.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Count Chocula
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1821
Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Count Chocula »

J wrote:
[sarcasm] Well, GM isn't a bank or other financial company so they don't get the special government funded buyout and takeover packages. Only bankers get free money from Hank & Ben, everyone else gets the shaft in the rear end. The clear course of action is to restructure GMAC into a finance/holding company for GM, and through them, obtain the billions needed to buy out Chrysler.
(emphasis added)

Ironically, last Friday, 300 miles from home in south Florida, the power steering pump took a shit on my LIberty, so I had to wait at a local dealer while it was fixed. I talked to a couple salesmen and the service manager while I was there. They are all convinced the merger will go through, but aren't sure what affect it will have on their dealership (their October sales were half of their '07 sales). I also found out, in conversation, that Chrysler owns GMAC! Read about it here. Apparently a holding company called Cerberus Capital Management owns Chrysler outright and has a 51% stake in GMAC. I have no idea how any of this makes sense, but I now understand why GM got the high hard one from the Feds.
Image
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant

Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo

"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18686
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified
Contact:

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Rogue 9 »

Well, that doesn't mean Chrysler owns GMAC; it means Cerberus controls both GMAC and Chrysler. Sharing a parent company and one owning the other are not the same thing.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician
User avatar
Robert Treder
has strong kung-fu.
Posts: 3891
Joined: 2002-07-03 02:38am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Robert Treder »

Ma Deuce wrote:So basically, the Germans ruined Chrysler, and Rob Eaton should burn in hell for selling it to them.
Ok, that makes sense, but then still, if the Germans couldn't handle Chrysler when they were good, why should the government give GM money to try to handle Chrysler while they're bad? I'd say bailing out GM so that they can make some merger only makes sense if we accept the premise that GM will do right by Chrysler, but I don't see any evidence of that. They might make this merger and then come asking for more bailout money one or two years later.
None of those automakers need any of Chrysler's brands, since they already cover the same market strata.
That's the impression that I get, and yet still GM seems to want (have wanted?) Chrysler. I don't really see why Jeep, or Dodge, for example, need to exist anymore if they're not making money. Does it really matter to consumers whether they're driving a truck that says "Dodge" on the side versus one that says "Toyota"?
The only argument I've seen in favor of propping up the American car companies that makes any kind of sense is that "if an American car company fails, all the related businesses (parts, etc) will fail too," which is definitely something to consider. But to have a bad car company just so you can make parts for them seems kind of like having a war just so you can make helicopters.
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'

Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
User avatar
Count Chocula
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1821
Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Count Chocula »

I guess it's more accurate to say GMAC is Chrysler's half-brother. I can see the Feds looking at Cerberus' ownership of GMAC (plus Chrysler Financial) and saying "Uh, no, go the the discount window for your money. No soup for you!"
Image
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant

Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo

"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
User avatar
Sephirius
Jedi Master
Posts: 1093
Joined: 2005-03-14 11:34pm

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Sephirius »

SirNitram wrote: Nope, just believe the makers of the EV-1 when they said they were scrapping the lot of it. I believe the colleges who own EV-1's on their restrictions. You know, observable universe shit. What's 'Who Killed The Electric Car'?

I love how any criticism of Detroit Automakers and conservatives elicits this kind of 'YOUR A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!' tinfoil crap, though. It shows the kind of person I'm dealing with.
Forgive me for assuming you had seen the 'documentary' Who Killed the Electric Car: it's a Michael Moore-esque look at the whole EV1 saga. It is also the way the general public was 'informed' of the controversy in the first place; and as such I had wrongly presumed that you had found out through this venue as well.
Notwithstanding the above I don't believe it's fair to strawman and ad-hominem me into tinfoil hattery. I did not defend Conservatives or GM in the least above; it was intended more to be a criticism of the aforementioned film and the biased and unfair view the general public has as a result.

In their defense (Now I am defending them) GM was not wrong in the least for having kill it off, it was unviable and a money-losing venture no matter what way you looked at it, however they were unbelievably wrong in not immediately improving on it or continuing to refine it until now. Their biggest mistake in effect was not crushing them, but sitting on their laurels in the aftermath. The cars were taken back and crushed for several reasons, not the least of which being parts availability and legal matters, hence the restrictions on colleges.
Saying smaller engines are better is like saying you don't want huge muscles because you wouldn't fit through the door. So what? You can bench 500. Fuck doors. - MadCat360
Image
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by SirNitram »

Sephirius wrote:
SirNitram wrote: Nope, just believe the makers of the EV-1 when they said they were scrapping the lot of it. I believe the colleges who own EV-1's on their restrictions. You know, observable universe shit. What's 'Who Killed The Electric Car'?

I love how any criticism of Detroit Automakers and conservatives elicits this kind of 'YOUR A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!' tinfoil crap, though. It shows the kind of person I'm dealing with.
Forgive me for assuming you had seen the 'documentary' Who Killed the Electric Car: it's a Michael Moore-esque look at the whole EV1 saga. It is also the way the general public was 'informed' of the controversy in the first place; and as such I had wrongly presumed that you had found out through this venue as well.
You seem to believe attaching Moore's name somehow rebutts it's arguments and/or evidence. Of course, any person who does not rely on looney tune versions of the world knows the problem with documentaries he does is him, being a self-righteous prick in front of the camera, not what he captures when he's behind it. I will no doubt seek this out now, though. If only to see how much of the peice is accurate. Mind you, I've not seen it in any rental place or heard it playing anywhere.
Notwithstanding the above I don't believe it's fair to strawman and ad-hominem me into tinfoil hattery. I did not defend Conservatives or GM in the least above; it was intended more to be a criticism of the aforementioned film and the biased and unfair view the general public has as a result.
Except, of course, you immediately assumed any criticism of the atrocity of the EV-1 discontinuation MUST BE from this film you hate so much and rant about the styling of. You didn't jump to that conclusion, you pole-vaulted, and have lost alot of credibility for this wild assumption.
In their defense (Now I am defending them) GM was not wrong in the least for having kill it off, it was unviable and a money-losing venture no matter what way you looked at it, however they were unbelievably wrong in not immediately improving on it or continuing to refine it until now. Their biggest mistake in effect was not crushing them, but sitting on their laurels in the aftermath. The cars were taken back and crushed for several reasons, not the least of which being parts availability and legal matters, hence the restrictions on colleges.
There were problems, but no more so than many other lines of cars which are still used. Of course, many of the problems were exagerrated, and it proved solidly that GM could engineer an electric car that would handle almost all regular driving for folks. However, GM's actions are flatly retarded, almost to the point of appearing to the uneducated as vindictive.

I suppose since your whole argument was based on the incorrect assumption I was knee-jerking off a documentary I've never heard of(When the heck did it come out? I was in the NYC Metro media market until 2001, and we get all this sorta stuff.), you have nothing to contest that it was probably really fucking stupid to go from the 'Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles' program which produced working vehicles under Clinton, to the SUV years?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Ma Deuce
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4359
Joined: 2004-02-02 03:22pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Ma Deuce »

Robert Treder wrote:That's the impression that I get, and yet still GM seems to want (have wanted?) Chrysler.
Cerberus was looking to divest itself of Chrysler anyway, so GM took advantage of an opportunity that presented itself.

Basically, GM wanted Chrysler's money, not any of their brands (we discussed this in another thread). That's all GM wanted, the pile of cash Chrysler was sitting on, which they believe will guarantee they'll have enough cash to remain solvent through 2010, which is when their VEBA agreement with he UAW kicks in, relieving them of their of their healthcare liabilities and saving them billions a year. So yeah the government was right to say no, even though Chrysler will be dismembered anyway if Cerberus doesn't find a single buyer (right now only Renault-Nissan is remotely interested)
Does it really matter to consumers whether they're driving a truck that says "Dodge" on the side versus one that says "Toyota"?
Not really, but it damn well should if American consumers knew what's good for them, but most consumers are idiots anyway, especially the ones who think Made in USA=crap and are insistent that the car they buy not be made in the United States (they won't even buy an American-assembled Toyota, which by the way is not an economic replacement for an American made GM car). The latter group I'd go as far as to call traitors

Peter De Lorenzo at autoextremist wrote an exellent piece about why it is essential to America's future that Detroit CANNOT be allowed to fail, and why Americans need to be patriotic with their purchases.

http://www.autoextremist.com/current/20 ... s-469.html
But to have a bad car company just so you can make parts for them seems kind of like having a war just so you can make helicopters.
but that's AMERICAN car company you're talking about here. Frankly, if I had my way, the auto industry and most other manufacturing operations would be subject to the same level of protectionism the airlines currently enjoy. Hopefully your new president-elect will make good on his promises to protect American jobs.
SirNitram wrote:There were problems, but no more so than many other lines of cars which are still used. Of course, many of the problems were exagerrated, and it proved solidly that GM could engineer an electric car that would handle almost all regular driving for folks. However, GM's actions are flatly retarded, almost to the point of appearing to the uneducated as vindictive.
You could argue it was shortsighted, but from a pure business perspective the EV1 did not make sense at the time. It was never close to profitable for GM, and would not have existed were it not for California's Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate and the fact that GM was given the money needed to develop it. Once the ZEV mandate was repealed GM saw no reason for the car to exist any more, and no government gave GM any incentive to continue the program. As for why the cars were scrapped, maintenance and parts (the EV1 shared almost no parts with any other GM vehicle, especially the battery) was indeed the reason. Some people mention that the lessees were willing to sign waivers, but you know how lawyers can get around those.

You'll also note that no other major automaker attempted to mass-produce a pure EV at all at that time, and there are still no models available that are competitive with fuel burning cars at the same price. Even the development Toyota's Vaunted hybrid system was partly subsidized by the Japanese government, IIRC.

Even the much less ambitious Chevy Volt series-hybrid is looking to cost around $40,000 (before a $7,000 rebate Obama has promised), and GM thinks it won't be profitable for a long time.
you have nothing to contest that it was probably really fucking stupid to go from the 'Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles' program which produced working vehicles under Clinton, to the SUV years?
Excuse me, what? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to have confused the timeline a bit. The SUV era began years before Clinton was even in office, and was in full swing long before PNGV was cancelled.
Image
The M2HB: The Greatest Machinegun Ever Made.
HAB: Crew-Served Weapons Specialist


"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." --P.J. O'Rourke

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --J.S. Mill
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

A collapse of GM would not only mean the hollowing out of a key manufacturing industry, it would also mean the destruction of key design capabilities. You do not want that to happen at all. It's like gutting the brain just because the body has become useless. As much as some here would like to punish GM for a laundry list of things, you aren't going to do much beyond making a problem go from bad to worse.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
Sephirius
Jedi Master
Posts: 1093
Joined: 2005-03-14 11:34pm

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Sephirius »

SirNitram wrote: There were problems, but no more so than many other lines of cars which are still used. Of course, many of the problems were exagerrated, and it proved solidly that GM could engineer an electric car that would handle almost all regular driving for folks. However, GM's actions are flatly retarded, almost to the point of appearing to the uneducated as vindictive.
But hardly anyone wanted it at the time, you seem to keep forgetting this. Hindsight is 20/20 Nitram.
I mean, for fucks sake even during our spate of high gas prices the Tacoma was still outselling Priuses (or is it Prii?) by something like 20-1. Like it or not, the EV1 like the Prius is an extreme niche vehicle.

Yes it was well engineered and a good step forward, but the energy costs of the EV1 were more than a Jetta of the same era.
While some of the problems were exaggerated, you have to understand GM's decision making here.
90% of people at the time it came out wouldn't want one, there were other more practical vehicles at the time that cost less per year to run.
and it was a money loser for that 10% or so that would want one- Obviously you would want to kill it off as soon as possible.

Coupled with this is the fact that manufacturers of cars sold in the US must provide parts for a certain number of years after a car is sold- the EV1 had next to no parts commonality with any other GM vehicle and way more advanced and expensive technology than anything else at the time- this is a huge cost to the company. Also the liability for lawsuits is always there if there's a problem discovered down the line- waivers are all fine and dandy for trying to purchase it outright, but say in the unlikely event the battery explodes, even if it is covered under the waiver, legal action with a chance of a huge settlement is usually in the cards, as automakers are huge targets for that sort of thing.

If it were me, I'd crush the buggers too, just to protect my company from legal action. What I'm not defending in the least is how GM sat on their asses and didn't advance the technology more as a result, we could have had the Volt a few years sooner and GM wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. It is the one truely valid criticism of the whole boondoggle. Sadly this is the one huge black eye on GM R&D, as they continually push limits on everything automotive, more so than any other brand; Them being the first to mass market Direct Injection tech and their fuel economy and horsepower improvements across the board are some of their sterling examples (They just unveiled a 17/24 mpg 7.4L V8 with 600HP for crissakes.) This is why I remain optimistic with regards to GM despite the hate-on many people seem to have towards it (The people who won't even buy American built Toyota come to mind, as referenced in Fingolfin's post) because they obviously have some of the best and brightest on the planet working on R&D. I just wish they didn't have to play 'catch up' because they fell asleep and the tortoise kept on walking.

tl;dr: GM was totally justified in axing the EV1, was totally shortsighted and NOT justified in letting the tech go to waste.
Saying smaller engines are better is like saying you don't want huge muscles because you wouldn't fit through the door. So what? You can bench 500. Fuck doors. - MadCat360
Image
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14804
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by aerius »

Trading on GM shares has been halted on the exchange in advance of their earnings report. This could be bad, real bad.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
cosmicalstorm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-02-14 09:35am

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by cosmicalstorm »

Sorry if this is a stupid question but for how long can they (the US goverment) continue writing these giant cheques to various corporations in trouble?
Do they have an endless supply of cash?
User avatar
The Kernel
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7438
Joined: 2003-09-17 02:31am
Location: Kweh?!

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by The Kernel »

It's MUCH worse than anyone thought...
CNN wrote:NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors shook an already embattled auto industry Friday as it reported a huge loss that was much worse than expected and warned it is in danger of running out of cash in the coming months.

GM, the nation's largest automaker, reported it lost $4.2 billion, or $7.35 a share, excluding special items. That's up from the loss $1.6 billion or $2.86 a share it reported a year earlier and was far worse than the forecast of analysts surveyed by earnings tracker Thomson Reuters, which had forecast a loss of $3.70 a share.

But the most shocking news came in its statements about its cash position. GM said it had burned through $6.9 billion during the quarter and warned that it "will approach the minimum amount necessary to operate its business" during the current quarter.

In addition, the company said that that in the first half of next year its "estimated liquidity will fall significantly short of that amount unless economic and automotive industry conditions significantly improve."

The report was by far the most grim assessment by a company that has insisted it is not considering filing for bankruptcy court protection. While the release did not mention the threat of bankruptcy, the outlook appeared to raise the possibility of such a dramatic step.

The company announced a series of additional job cuts and spending cuts designed to help it improve its cash reserves by $5 billion. But it warned even those steps would not be enough without a turnaround.

GM said that it may need help from the federal government.

"The company has engaged in discussions with various U.S. federal government agencies and congressional leaders about the ... the need for immediate government funding support given the economic and credit crisis and its impact on the industry, including consumers, dealers, suppliers and manufacturers," according to a company announcement.

Shares of GM (GM, Fortune 500), whose trading was halted ahead of the announcement, fell 16% after they resumed.
Well I guess President-Elect Obama won't have to worry about this since GM won't even make it through the current quarter without a massive bailout. Losses like this are just staggering for what used to be the largest corporation in the world.
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22466
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Mr Bean »

cosmicalstorm wrote:Sorry if this is a stupid question but for how long can they (the US goverment) continue writing these giant cheques to various corporations in trouble?
Do they have an endless supply of cash?
Technically yes, but the more they give away the more inflation goes up in respond, the more inflation goes up, the more they have to give away in order for it to mean something.

See Zimbabwe and the trillion dollar bills people use to buy lunch with now.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14804
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by aerius »

The Kernel wrote:It's MUCH worse than anyone thought...
No wonder trading was halted, christ, the losses per share are more than what the shares are worth! Between that and their cashburn, they're toast. Plus their bonds were trading at an annualized yield rate of over 100% earlier this week. They need to go bankrupt and kill off all their union crap, otherwise they're just going to be another blackhole for bailout money.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
Count Chocula
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1821
Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Count Chocula »

Right now, here are some stats and reports at Yahoo! Finance (1:15PM EST):
* GM lost $2.5 billion in the third quarter alone, with quarterly cash burn of $6.9 billion;
* Ford lost $129 million in the third quarter, but also burned through $7.7 billion;
* Pelosi and company are talking 'economic stimulus;'
* Bush is still trying to figure out how $700 billion is going to be doled out before he leaves office;
* The jobless rate is the highest it's been in 14 years.

Yet all four major indices - Down, NASDAQ, S&P, and Russell, are UP! So's Europe. WTF? None of this makes any sense at all. What are investors thinking? I understand that a goodly portion of the market moves are program trades, but I can't understand what would motivate a fund manager to buy anything right now.

The only part that makes sense is that the dollar has fallen in value... :(
Image
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant

Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo

"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
User avatar
The Spartan
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4406
Joined: 2005-03-12 05:56pm
Location: Houston

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by The Spartan »

CC, the stock markets are chaotic and likely will be for some time. Tomorrow I suspect they'll drop like a rock if they don't already today.
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
Image
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari
Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
User avatar
Count Chocula
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1821
Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born

Re: Gov to GM: Merger, huh? How about 'No'? Wanna try 'No'?

Post by Count Chocula »

Yah. Thank Dog I'm on the sidelines and have held onto (lost less than) most of my 401(k) coworkers.
Image
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant

Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo

"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
Post Reply