CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Sure, the legacy costs are huge but so are some of the wages these manual labor people make. It's absolutely silly.
Sure, the legacy costs are huge but so are some of the wages these manual labor people make. It's absolutely silly.
Wasn't it just stated that 10% of each vehicle cost is labor? That doesn't seem a whole lot. The problem is that the management is not willing to adapt to changing times (i.e smaller cars) Also, WTF is an AUTO company doing in the Mortgage / Health Insurance Business? (GMAC)
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Yep, and no sarcasm meter needed, either, because I wasn't being facetious
A comment by a commentator (ok, ignore I said that) on the news this morning said that it almost guarantees the big3 will not be profitable.
I've updated my sig as a special tribute to the big 3
If it was clear or very likely that $50B would save them and put them on the track to profitability, it would be foolhardy not to do it. I really think it is merely propping up dying companies and will be merely the first payment of many as the Big 3 begin to suck on the government welfare tit until, at some point in the future, they're cut off for good.
You are just fvcking epic. epic fail <- Average consumer credit card rate, overall market: 13.86%
The bailout really turns on just two issues:
1. Can GM sell cars and make a profit doing it?
2. When can GM sell cars and make a profit doing it?
The answer to 1 is probably not, but possibly maybe.
The answer to 2 is 3-10 years, assuming a yes answer to 1.
To answer question 1 we would need to see a lot of internal correspondence and emails from GM and a LOT of accounting data, both historical and forecast.
I doubt Congress will give this bailout any more consideration than they gave the handout to Wall Street of 700 billion dollars. So, anything Congress does is like rolling dice.
And now you know how Libertarians are born.
-Robert
1. Can GM sell cars and make a profit doing it?
2. When can GM sell cars and make a profit doing it?
The answer to 1 is probably not, but possibly maybe.
The answer to 2 is 3-10 years, assuming a yes answer to 1.
To answer question 1 we would need to see a lot of internal correspondence and emails from GM and a LOT of accounting data, both historical and forecast.
I doubt Congress will give this bailout any more consideration than they gave the handout to Wall Street of 700 billion dollars. So, anything Congress does is like rolling dice.
And now you know how Libertarians are born.
-Robert
LMFAO!
If Capitalism is simply Communism in drag, you've taken all the fun out of it, Red.
-Robert
TraumaRN
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2005
- 6,893
- 63
- 91
Originally posted by: chess9
The bailout really turns on just two issues:
1. Can GM sell cars and make a profit doing it?
2. When can GM sell cars and make a profit doing it?
The answer to 1 is probably not, but possibly maybe.
The answer to 2 is 3-10 years, assuming a yes answer to 1.
To answer question 1 we would need to see a lot of internal correspondence and emails from GM and a LOT of accounting data, both historical and forecast.
I doubt Congress will give this bailout any more consideration than they gave the handout to Wall Street of 700 billion dollars. So, anything Congress does is like rolling dice.
And now you know how Libertarians are born.
-Robert
i think the answer to those questions are 2010-2011. They offload those legacy costs and it'll probably make it much easier. They may not be turning a huge profit but they wont be turning huge losses. It's not like they cant sell cars, because they can, but specifically they cant turn profits in North America, and once they can again, the company will be on the road to recovery. But we will see.
Ford is honestly in the best condition of them all at the moment. 2009 is a huge year for them, tons of new models coming out and then in 2010 they also offload alot of legacy cost and more new models. And they are actually planning on NOT getting any help from the Fed(according to Mulally) and despite current market conditions are still trying to become profitable by the end of 09, but definitely 2010.
Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Originally posted by: chess9
The bailout really turns on just two issues:
1. Can GM sell cars and make a profit doing it?
2. When can GM sell cars and make a profit doing it?
The answer to 1 is probably not, but possibly maybe.
The answer to 2 is 3-10 years, assuming a yes answer to 1.
To answer question 1 we would need to see a lot of internal correspondence and emails from GM and a LOT of accounting data, both historical and forecast.
I doubt Congress will give this bailout any more consideration than they gave the handout to Wall Street of 700 billion dollars. So, anything Congress does is like rolling dice.
And now you know how Libertarians are born.
-Robert
i think the answer to those questions are 2010-2011. They offload those legacy costs and it'll probably make it much easier. They may not be turning a huge profit but they wont be turning huge losses. It's not like they cant sell cars, because they can, but specifically they cant turn profits in North America, and once they can again, the company will be on the road to recovery. But we will see.
Ford is honestly in the best condition of them all at the moment. 2009 is a huge year for them, tons of new models coming out and then in 2010 they also offload alot of legacy cost and more new models. And they are actually planning on NOT getting any help from the Fed(according to Mulally) and despite current market conditions are still trying to become profitable by the end of 09, but definitely 2010.
Well, all of that assumes no significant intervening factors, such as a really large meltdown of the credit and housing sectors, AND no new innovation that describes a new paradigm in transportation.
The problem with American manufacturers of autos is they haven't been technology companies. They are often compared to Intel, and badly and somewhat unfairly, but look how little innovation has occurred within American auto companies in recent years. Even the much vaunted German engineering has taken a back seat to Japanese engineering and innovation. (But, the entire auto sector is plagued by poor innovation, IMHO.)
If the Big Three are not innovating, they are rapidly losing ground in the transportation marketplace. I do not see much innovation, but, rather, little gestures, such as incorporating GPS and iTunes capacity into cars. Some safety features, yes, and small gains in fuel economy, but nothing that shouldn't have been done 40 years ago. They should be building cars getting 100 mpg on alternative fuel supplies, such as natural gas long ago. When I was a kid in the 1950's one of my friend's father had a car running natural gas. He owned a natural gas retail/wholesale outlet and was way ahead of his time. Where was GM?
It's easy to kick GM in the ass simply because they deserve it. They are a moribund giant, overfed on self-importance and inertia.
-Robert
Most people would never consider buying a car from a bankrupt company. Why buy a car from bankrupt GM when you can buy a Honda and know your warranty and resale value will hold up?
Infusing another $25 to $50 billion in these companies will only delay the inevitable. The CEO's will be making their case to Congress this afternoon, and you can bet they will do everything they can to keep their companies running and keep their jobs. The truth of the matter is that they along with all the high paying executives in their companies need to be fired. The companies don't deserve a dime of taxpayer money to keep them going. Let them keep going the old fashioned way - earn it. When and if they do get all this money the first thing they will do is award all the top executives billions of dollars in bonuses because they know that they will be going down the tubes later. Chapter 11 does not necessarily mean the end, but it would allow them to restructure, which should include making much more fuel effecient autos, trimming the fat off their labor costs, and getting rid of all the high paid execs including the CEOs. Hell I'll run GM for $100k a year and when I make the company profitable they can pay me a nice little bonus every year.
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 143
- 106
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,732
- 10,043
- 136
First, if they are bailed out it means that they may continue on with failed practices and could fail again within just a few years. How does the bailout guarantee that they will turn profitable?
Second, you cannot stop all job losses in this nation by paying the employer to stay in business. Which mean you?re literally picking and choosing who to keep employed. This is unconstitutional.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
Here is why I think the whole bailout binge that our Treasury has been on is sheisty;
Paulson doesnt want to share any of the near $800 bill on the auto industry...none.
He doesn't think the money was intended to bail out the auto makers.
What is interesting here...is that everything up to this point seems to indicate that either Paulson and Co. are "winging" it...ie they sold the big "Bailout" plan using justifications that later were cast aside for "Plan B." Paulson and Co do not know enough of the situation to understand that their initial strategy was a mistake and they are now altering their strategy to account for ever changing economic conditions. OR this is THE Strategy and Paulson and CO. lied in their initial sell. I will grant either of those scenarios is true, one of them has to be true.
BUT
Why NOT include the failing auto industry in his calculations and the need for possible government intervention?
WHY NOT????
The impact of a failing auto industry is catastrophic, yet the, "Powers that be" seem to already have their mind made up that the money pledged to fix our economy isn't "intended" for bailing out the auto makers.
sorry folks....Paulson and Co are yanking all of us around. IF Paulson is "winging it" then he shouldn't be dismissing the idea of an auto industry bailout. If this is part of the "Plan" then he certainly didnt sell it as such...we were supposed to see mortgage relief.
If he lied then he is a douche, pure and simple. If he is adapting to economic conditions he is a douche for dismissing the idea of bailing out the auto industry which (if it fails) could be really bad (granted probably not as bad as a finance industry collapse.)
How anyone can be trustful of these people is beyond me. Once he sat in front of the house committee and stated that the bailout money wasn't intended to help automakers then he showed his cards imo... The bailout money was intended to fix the damn economy...the automakers being a large chunk of said economy that is failing right now.
He should at least state something along the lines that the Treasury's analysis continues to evaluate the impact of a failing auto industry and possible scenarios where government intervention can aide in its recovery. I'd believe that. I don't believe him for a minute when he dismisses aide to the auto industry. Either his motives are questionable or he just flat out doesn't know wtf he is doing.
sorry long rant.
Paulson doesnt want to share any of the near $800 bill on the auto industry...none.
He doesn't think the money was intended to bail out the auto makers.
What is interesting here...is that everything up to this point seems to indicate that either Paulson and Co. are "winging" it...ie they sold the big "Bailout" plan using justifications that later were cast aside for "Plan B." Paulson and Co do not know enough of the situation to understand that their initial strategy was a mistake and they are now altering their strategy to account for ever changing economic conditions. OR this is THE Strategy and Paulson and CO. lied in their initial sell. I will grant either of those scenarios is true, one of them has to be true.
BUT
Why NOT include the failing auto industry in his calculations and the need for possible government intervention?
WHY NOT????
The impact of a failing auto industry is catastrophic, yet the, "Powers that be" seem to already have their mind made up that the money pledged to fix our economy isn't "intended" for bailing out the auto makers.
sorry folks....Paulson and Co are yanking all of us around. IF Paulson is "winging it" then he shouldn't be dismissing the idea of an auto industry bailout. If this is part of the "Plan" then he certainly didnt sell it as such...we were supposed to see mortgage relief.
If he lied then he is a douche, pure and simple. If he is adapting to economic conditions he is a douche for dismissing the idea of bailing out the auto industry which (if it fails) could be really bad (granted probably not as bad as a finance industry collapse.)
How anyone can be trustful of these people is beyond me. Once he sat in front of the house committee and stated that the bailout money wasn't intended to help automakers then he showed his cards imo... The bailout money was intended to fix the damn economy...the automakers being a large chunk of said economy that is failing right now.
He should at least state something along the lines that the Treasury's analysis continues to evaluate the impact of a failing auto industry and possible scenarios where government intervention can aide in its recovery. I'd believe that. I don't believe him for a minute when he dismisses aide to the auto industry. Either his motives are questionable or he just flat out doesn't know wtf he is doing.
sorry long rant.
spacejamz
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 10,960
- 1,657
- 126
Where is the UAW in all of this??? You would think that they would concede on some of their agreements in an attempt to keep the Big 3 alive... At least make some kind of offer or sign that they actually give a shit about the hand that feeds them....
Instead, they are still drawing their bloated Union dues watching the ship sink without even lifting a finger to help...if the Big 3 goes under, are the unions still going to get paid?? Wonder if the union had a vote to give up benefits, get lower wages, etc in order to keep their jobs versus not having a job at all, which way would the union members vote?
Any executive bonuses need to be stopped immediately as well...
Instead, they are still drawing their bloated Union dues watching the ship sink without even lifting a finger to help...if the Big 3 goes under, are the unions still going to get paid?? Wonder if the union had a vote to give up benefits, get lower wages, etc in order to keep their jobs versus not having a job at all, which way would the union members vote?
Any executive bonuses need to be stopped immediately as well...
Agreed, if things are as dire as stated, drastic measures should be borne by all involved, salary cuts, benefit cuts, no bonuses, etc. time to cut the fat ASAP and get moving.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter