10-10-08 Breaking News - GM and Chysler may merge

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Terrible waste of taxpayer money. Domestic automakers have been sucking longer than I have been alive. At some point, it's time to let them die. They seem to be cutting their wrists just fine without us bandaging them up just to let them leave the hospital and hack away when they get home anyway.

Wasn't a $25B loan already agreed to? In any case, maybe not, but originally it was going to be a loan at unrealistically positive interest rates. I thought it sounded like a bad loan, like lending to a crack head (you won't get it back). Now they're talking in part about simply giving money, with the credit line just one portion of that.

This is a disgusting idea.

What do you expect to do with all those industrys employees when they start sucking on EI/Welfare/Social safety net? Wonder if that would be more than 10B, not to mention the loss of tax revenue on the factories/buisinesses ect....think that would be more than 10B?

Most will get jobs. How long do you want to prop up a bad company for? What makes them so special? I don't see the government throwing money at movie gallery or realtors or luxury yacht owners? WTF makes these moribund companies so special that they deserve money? Even at the best of times they cannot even make money, why reward their abject failure?

Nothing, but your plan of glee will ultimtely cost the taxpayers most in all likelyhood. So you obviously are not doing it to save the taxpayers but just wanting to see a company fail with no regard to the people it affects.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Nothing, but your plan of glee will ultimtely cost the taxpayers most in all likelyhood. So you obviously are not doing it to save the taxpayers but just wanting to see a company fail with no regard to the people it affects.

Neither of it know whether it will ultimately cost the taxpayers or not, so I'm taking the high road by avoiding a terrible precedent.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: RichardE
Nothing, but your plan of glee will ultimtely cost the taxpayers most in all likelyhood. So you obviously are not doing it to save the taxpayers but just wanting to see a company fail with no regard to the people it affects.

Neither of it know whether it will ultimately cost the taxpayers or not, so I'm taking the high road by avoiding a terrible precedent.

I would love to see the numbers of people unemployed * 2 EI checks + loss of tax revenue. I think it could easily surpass 10 billion, I also think you are smart enough to know this.


Which means, instead of giving them 10 billion, or letting them fold up shop, find out why they are loosing this much money and instead change them around. They want the 10 billion? Alright, than they are binded to take recommended on how to best achieve profitability as well as being able to sustain themselves.

Letting them fail because you want to save 10 billion is like cutting the foot off because you don't want to worry about the ingrown nail.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: RichardE
Nothing, but your plan of glee will ultimtely cost the taxpayers most in all likelyhood. So you obviously are not doing it to save the taxpayers but just wanting to see a company fail with no regard to the people it affects.

Neither of it know whether it will ultimately cost the taxpayers or not, so I'm taking the high road by avoiding a terrible precedent.

I would love to see the numbers of people unemployed * 2 EI checks + loss of tax revenue. I think it could easily surpass 10 billion, I also think you are smart enough to know this.


Which means, instead of giving them 10 billion, or letting them fold up shop, find out why they are loosing this much money and instead change them around. They want the 10 billion? Alright, than they are binded to take recommended on how to best achieve profitability as well as being able to sustain themselves.

Letting them fail because you want to save 10 billion is like cutting the foot off because you don't want to worry about the ingrown nail.

Who's going to give them this advice?

Why the big three? Like I said, there are plenty of businesses that could use a bailout, why detroit? Why a business sector that has been hemorrhaging cash for aeons? Why not put this money to use building up a potentially fruitful industry instead of stopgaping the bleeding on three businesses that have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are unable to be profitable and sustain themselves?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: RichardE
Nothing, but your plan of glee will ultimtely cost the taxpayers most in all likelyhood. So you obviously are not doing it to save the taxpayers but just wanting to see a company fail with no regard to the people it affects.

Neither of it know whether it will ultimately cost the taxpayers or not, so I'm taking the high road by avoiding a terrible precedent.

I would love to see the numbers of people unemployed * 2 EI checks + loss of tax revenue. I think it could easily surpass 10 billion, I also think you are smart enough to know this.


Which means, instead of giving them 10 billion, or letting them fold up shop, find out why they are loosing this much money and instead change them around. They want the 10 billion? Alright, than they are binded to take recommended on how to best achieve profitability as well as being able to sustain themselves.

Letting them fail because you want to save 10 billion is like cutting the foot off because you don't want to worry about the ingrown nail.

Who's going to give them this advice?

Why the big three? Like I said, there are plenty of businesses that could use a bailout, why detroit? Why a business sector that has been hemorrhaging cash for aeons? Why not put this money to use building up a potentially fruitful industry instead of stopgaping the bleeding on three businesses that have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are unable to be profitable and sustain themselves?

Due to the sheer numbers of jobs in provides in parts, paint, steel, dealerships, car cleaners, tire manafactures ect ect ect. All jobs that would go overseas if these companies moved over there. It's not just the *big3* there is a reason they are called the *big 3* due to the fact they drive a large chunk of what is left of the manafacturing base.

Make a panel of advisors composing financial experts as well as people from companies that have succeeded with unions ect. You would be more or less taking the power out of the board and Unions.

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: RichardE
Nothing, but your plan of glee will ultimtely cost the taxpayers most in all likelyhood. So you obviously are not doing it to save the taxpayers but just wanting to see a company fail with no regard to the people it affects.

Neither of it know whether it will ultimately cost the taxpayers or not, so I'm taking the high road by avoiding a terrible precedent.

I would love to see the numbers of people unemployed * 2 EI checks + loss of tax revenue. I think it could easily surpass 10 billion, I also think you are smart enough to know this.


Which means, instead of giving them 10 billion, or letting them fold up shop, find out why they are loosing this much money and instead change them around. They want the 10 billion? Alright, than they are binded to take recommended on how to best achieve profitability as well as being able to sustain themselves.

Letting them fail because you want to save 10 billion is like cutting the foot off because you don't want to worry about the ingrown nail.

Who's going to give them this advice?

Why the big three? Like I said, there are plenty of businesses that could use a bailout, why detroit? Why a business sector that has been hemorrhaging cash for aeons? Why not put this money to use building up a potentially fruitful industry instead of stopgaping the bleeding on three businesses that have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are unable to be profitable and sustain themselves?

Due to the sheer numbers of jobs in provides in parts, paint, steel, dealerships, car cleaners, tire manafactures ect ect ect. All jobs that would go overseas if these companies moved over there. It's not just the *big3* there is a reason they are called the *big 3* due to the fact they drive a large chunk of what is left of the manafacturing base.

Make a panel of advisors composing financial experts as well as people from companies that have succeeded with unions ect. You would be more or less taking the power out of the board and Unions.

Exactly, the ratio has been estimated at 1:10. For every 1 big 3 job, it supports 10 other jobs in the US.

 

[StageLeft]

How do we know if the Big 3 up and die that those jobs won't go elsewhere? Perhaps Toyota or Honda can fill the gap and these suppliers can clamour to supply them? Afterall, those are companies that make cars in the US and actually know how to run a business.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
How do we know if the Big 3 up and die that those jobs won't go elsewhere? Perhaps Toyota or Honda can fill the gap and these suppliers can clamour to supply them? Afterall, those are companies that make cars in the US and actually know how to run a business.

I think you are doing this on purpose....

Toyota/Honda already have there own suppliers, GM would just go bankrupt in North America, they would still make cars for the US market, just in other countries, there would be no "car gap" for Toyota/Honda to be able to fill in ordr to employ all the suppliers the Big 3 use.

 

[desy]

Yep GM has 2 million related jobs

A The big 3 were profitable before gas prices went up
B UAW has their fair share to blame in this
C Having large corporations head officed domestically has been proven many times in ANY industry to be of much greater advantage financially to local people

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
How do we know if the Big 3 up and die that those jobs won't go elsewhere? Perhaps Toyota or Honda can fill the gap and these suppliers can clamour to supply them? Afterall, those are companies that make cars in the US and actually know how to run a business.

True Toyota and Honda have made a few plants here and have contracted domestic suppliers, but to the amount that the Big 3 have? You're living in a dream world. If the Big 3 collapse they're taking millions of jobs with them both directly and indirectly. As far as profitability goes, they used to make HUGE profits, how the hell do you think they have the cash that they're burning through now? The cash fairy? All they need is a little help until they can return to profitability which has been projected to be around 2010.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
GM wants $10 billion of taxpayer money to buy Chrysler

General Motors Corp has asked the U.S. government for roughly $10 billion in an unprecedented rescue package to support its acquisition of Chrysler LLC from Cerberus Capital Management.

The U.S. Treasury Department is considering a request for direct aid to facilitate the merger and a decision could come this week, sources familiar with the still-developing government response said on Monday.

So...now Cerberus...a wealthy private equity company--will essentially get bailed out of it's ridiculous Chrysler investment by the taxpayers. That's just ducky.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What does Chrysler have that GM needs? Jeep?

Supposedly, in addition to all of its liabilities, Chrysler has $12 billion in cash...which GM wants so that it can continue to hemmorage $1 billion/month.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: RichardE
Nothing, but your plan of glee will ultimtely cost the taxpayers most in all likelyhood. So you obviously are not doing it to save the taxpayers but just wanting to see a company fail with no regard to the people it affects.

Neither of it know whether it will ultimately cost the taxpayers or not, so I'm taking the high road by avoiding a terrible precedent.

I would love to see the numbers of people unemployed * 2 EI checks + loss of tax revenue. I think it could easily surpass 10 billion, I also think you are smart enough to know this.


Which means, instead of giving them 10 billion, or letting them fold up shop, find out why they are loosing this much money and instead change them around. They want the 10 billion? Alright, than they are binded to take recommended on how to best achieve profitability as well as being able to sustain themselves.

Letting them fail because you want to save 10 billion is like cutting the foot off because you don't want to worry about the ingrown nail.

Who's going to give them this advice?

Why the big three? Like I said, there are plenty of businesses that could use a bailout, why detroit? Why a business sector that has been hemorrhaging cash for aeons? Why not put this money to use building up a potentially fruitful industry instead of stopgaping the bleeding on three businesses that have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are unable to be profitable and sustain themselves?

Due to the sheer numbers of jobs in provides in parts, paint, steel, dealerships, car cleaners, tire manafactures ect ect ect. All jobs that would go overseas if these companies moved over there. It's not just the *big3* there is a reason they are called the *big 3* due to the fact they drive a large chunk of what is left of the manafacturing base.

Make a panel of advisors composing financial experts as well as people from companies that have succeeded with unions ect. You would be more or less taking the power out of the board and Unions.

Exactly, the ratio has been estimated at 1:10. For every 1 big 3 job, it supports 10 other jobs in the US.

GM/Chysler/Ford have all been bleeding money for the past couple of years, cash infusion is not gonna stop that. $10billion is actually not that much and it probably not even gonna last a whole year the way GM/Chysler is bleeding money away. As long as they don't address their core problems, giving them $10 billion is just a waste of tax payer's money and those job loss are just a matter of time, unless we decide to support those companies perpetually.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: rchiu

GM/Chysler/Ford have all been bleeding money for the past couple of years, cash infusion is not gonna stop that. $10billion is actually not that much and it probably not even gonna last a whole year the way GM/Chysler is bleeding money away. As long as they don't address their core problems, giving them $10 billion is just a waste of tax payer's money and those job loss are just a matter of time, unless we decide to support those companies perpetually.

What the hell do you think they've been doing for the past few years? Sitting on their asses twiddling their thumbs? Geeze, please go do some research you'll see that they've done a hell of alot to turn things around. It takes time for those types of changes to produce results.

 

[bamx2]

Cerebus - run by Bob Nardelli who near ruined Home Depot but left there with a $200 M severance pkg .

 

[StageLeft]

Look, I'll make it simple for you. The Big 3 have been dying for many, many years. THis is the final nail. The writing has been on the wall for a long time. They ARE going to die. Why not just let it happen naturally instead of pretending the sky is pink when we know it's not?

AND AGAIN: why not give this money to other companies or industries that are struggling but have much better long term prospects?

There is a reason the Big 3's credit is shot and nobody would give them money even if not for the credit freeze right now. It's because investors know a bad investment when they see one, and the US should not be going where investors know better than to go.

THe scope of the problem, whether it's just three car companies or them and all their suppliers does not change the fact that they are an untenable business and this is throwing good money after bad.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: rchiu

GM/Chysler/Ford have all been bleeding money for the past couple of years, cash infusion is not gonna stop that. $10billion is actually not that much and it probably not even gonna last a whole year the way GM/Chysler is bleeding money away. As long as they don't address their core problems, giving them $10 billion is just a waste of tax payer's money and those job loss are just a matter of time, unless we decide to support those companies perpetually.

What the hell do you think they've been doing for the past few years? Sitting on their asses twiddling their thumbs? Geeze, please go do some research you'll see that they've done a hell of alot to turn things around. It takes time for those types of changes to produce results.

Heh, just because they made changes doesn't mean things will turn around for them. Big 3 woes didn't just happened in the past few years. They have the same old problem for many years and they have more then the past few years to solve their problems but didn't. GM burns through $1 billion of cash each month. $10 billion will give them 10 month. Tell me exactly how they will solve all their problem in 10 month when they couldn't do it for years.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: rchiu

GM/Chysler/Ford have all been bleeding money for the past couple of years, cash infusion is not gonna stop that. $10billion is actually not that much and it probably not even gonna last a whole year the way GM/Chysler is bleeding money away. As long as they don't address their core problems, giving them $10 billion is just a waste of tax payer's money and those job loss are just a matter of time, unless we decide to support those companies perpetually.

What the hell do you think they've been doing for the past few years? Sitting on their asses twiddling their thumbs? Geeze, please go do some research you'll see that they've done a hell of alot to turn things around. It takes time for those types of changes to produce results.

Heh, just because they made changes doesn't mean things will turn around for them. Big 3 woes didn't just happened in the past few years. They have the same old problem for many years and they have more then the past few years to solve their problems but didn't. GM burns through $1 billion of cash each month. $10 billion will give them 10 month. Tell me exactly how they will solve all their problem in 10 month when they couldn't do it for years.

They want to use it to buy another company that's maybe not in quite as bad a state but still screwed. The fact is in a year GM/Chrysler/Ford will still be in the dumps if they get this money and at least one will be dead if they don't, which is the natural order.

 

[Zedtom]

Cerberus can continue to negotiate with GM as long as they hold the plum- which I believe to be the Jeep division. GM could take the Dodge trucks and Jeep and dismantle the rest and still make the deal look good. The UAW contracts and retired medical benefits will fall into the lap of the American taxpayers.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: rchiu

GM/Chysler/Ford have all been bleeding money for the past couple of years, cash infusion is not gonna stop that. $10billion is actually not that much and it probably not even gonna last a whole year the way GM/Chysler is bleeding money away. As long as they don't address their core problems, giving them $10 billion is just a waste of tax payer's money and those job loss are just a matter of time, unless we decide to support those companies perpetually.

What the hell do you think they've been doing for the past few years? Sitting on their asses twiddling their thumbs? Geeze, please go do some research you'll see that they've done a hell of alot to turn things around. It takes time for those types of changes to produce results.

I'd hardly call giant SUV's (even if they are hybrids) that get 20 mpg as changes to produce results.

That's more of the same in bed with Saudi's bullshit.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: rchiu

GM/Chysler/Ford have all been bleeding money for the past couple of years, cash infusion is not gonna stop that. $10billion is actually not that much and it probably not even gonna last a whole year the way GM/Chysler is bleeding money away. As long as they don't address their core problems, giving them $10 billion is just a waste of tax payer's money and those job loss are just a matter of time, unless we decide to support those companies perpetually.

What the hell do you think they've been doing for the past few years? Sitting on their asses twiddling their thumbs? Geeze, please go do some research you'll see that they've done a hell of alot to turn things around. It takes time for those types of changes to produce results.

I'd hardly call giant SUV's (even if they are hybrids) that get 20 mpg as changes to produce results.

That's more of the same in bed with Saudi's bullshit.

I guess it's just my imagination that they have dozens of models that get 30+ mpg and Chevrolet actually rank higher than Toyota in average overall MPG per brand. It must have been some dream of mine, I'm sorry carry on with your GM death watch.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Look, I'll make it simple for you. The Big 3 have been dying for many, many years. THis is the final nail. The writing has been on the wall for a long time. They ARE going to die. Why not just let it happen naturally instead of pretending the sky is pink when we know it's not?

AND AGAIN: why not give this money to other companies or industries that are struggling but have much better long term prospects?

There is a reason the Big 3's credit is shot and nobody would give them money even if not for the credit freeze right now. It's because investors know a bad investment when they see one, and the US should not be going where investors know better than to go.

THe scope of the problem, whether it's just three car companies or them and all their suppliers does not change the fact that they are an untenable business and this is throwing good money after bad.

Since you have the answers tell me how you will replace two millions + jobs with a cost thats less to the taxpayer and does not cause reprecussions across the entire economy with a few million less spenders?

Theres more to this than "wahhhh let them fail wahhhh"

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: rchiu

GM/Chysler/Ford have all been bleeding money for the past couple of years, cash infusion is not gonna stop that. $10billion is actually not that much and it probably not even gonna last a whole year the way GM/Chysler is bleeding money away. As long as they don't address their core problems, giving them $10 billion is just a waste of tax payer's money and those job loss are just a matter of time, unless we decide to support those companies perpetually.

What the hell do you think they've been doing for the past few years? Sitting on their asses twiddling their thumbs? Geeze, please go do some research you'll see that they've done a hell of alot to turn things around. It takes time for those types of changes to produce results.

I'd hardly call giant SUV's (even if they are hybrids) that get 20 mpg as changes to produce results.

That's more of the same in bed with Saudi's bullshit.

I guess it's just my imagination that they have dozens of models that get 30+ mpg and Chevrolet actually rank higher than Toyota in average overall MPG per brand. It must have been some dream of mine, I'm sorry carry on with your GM death watch.

And yet every analyst of this industry has agreed that detroit's overreliance on gas-hungry vehicles as a prime business approach has helped seal their demise.

Since you have the answers tell me how you will replace two millions + jobs with a cost thats less to the taxpayer and does not cause reprecussions across the entire economy with a few million less spenders?

IF there are truly 2M people who will be out of work if the big 3 fail, which I find exceedingly difficult to believe, the idea that $10B is going to save them is riotous.

I will ask again: Why the big 3? Their business model has proven it's untenable. Other car manufacturers are able to expand their businesses and these dinosaurs continue to rot. So, why give money to prop up a dying sector?

What do you believe they will do with $10B that's going to put them on the "road to recovery"?

These companies won't disappear. Their good parts will be bought, their bad die. And if they are all bad, well to prop them up means that 2M are on a government welfare program. How long do you want to keep that going for? What results have the Big 3 given that gives you any confidence in their ability to turn around and stop sucking?

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
What results have the Big 3 given that gives you any confidence in their ability to turn around and stop sucking?

I guess what i see in GM wouldn't be enough for you but here's what I see that gives me confidence:

-2008 CTS(V)
-2008 Malibu
-2010 Volt
-2009 Camaro
-G8
-HHR SS
-Cobalt SS
-Corvette (all models)
-Entire Saturn Line Up
-Upcoming Chevy Cruze and Beat
-The resent negotiations with unions
-The lengths they've gone to cut costs
-Commitment to Fuel Efficiency and Alternative fuels
-Commitment to making more reliable vehicles
...and the list goes on

Yeah I know they're currently still on the losing end when it comes to profits, but results just don't happen overnight especially as deep in the hole as they have been.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: Skoorb
What results have the Big 3 given that gives you any confidence in their ability to turn around and stop sucking?

I guess what i see in GM wouldn't be enough for you but here's what I see that gives me confidence:

-2008 CTS(V)
-2008 Malibu
-2010 Volt
-2009 Camaro
-G8
-HHR SS
-Cobalt SS
-Corvette (all models)
-Entire Saturn Line Up
-Upcoming Chevy Cruze and Beat
-The resent negotiations with unions
-The lengths they've gone to cut costs
-Commitment to Fuel Efficiency and Alternative fuels
-Commitment to making more reliable vehicles
...and the list goes on

Yeah I know they're currently still on the losing end when it comes to profits, but results just don't happen overnight especially as deep in the hole as they have been.

Most of those products are meaningless because the main problem is company execution and management. Only truly bad or truly great products can sway right now. The volt was more attractive before it cost $40-48k and gas was $2.60/gallon national average again. The CTS, Malibu, etc. are not going to revolutionize GM in the least.

Commitment doesn't mean much, I can commit to lose weight but the proof is in the pudding I keep eating.

What I'd like to see is: 1) How did their balance sheet look 3, 2, 1 years ago? Is it improving? The rest is minutiae, because truly the proof is in the pudding. How is their revenue and earnings?

In the end, I don't think the government should be feeding an industry that is shunned by private investors. They know it's a bad deal. The companies are doomed. Why keep them on life support?
Link

Auto experts say that with private investors and lenders shunning the industry