Boycotting the new GM.

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
I think the liberals will seize the opportunity to force GM to produce what they think the public should drive, and then GM will be up shit creek when nobody wants it.

LOL. Prior to bankruptcy, GM was doing an awesome job making cars that people wanted. Oh wait.

their trucks and suv's sold very well, so they were making popular products. but even when product was moving, high labor and legacy costs cut way into the bottom line.

then gas prices spiked and they lost the only market keeping them afloat. that's when they started getting their cars up to industry standards. too little, too late, unfortunately.

feuerfrei is right, though. most people don't want little electric cars, regardless of how popular the notion is in washington. heck, even the politicians pushing for it don't want little electric cars. they're rolling around in big government-purchased suv's.

Small cars are always popular, even when gas prices are lower. GM's well-paid executives couldn't wrap their tiny brains around it. If their small cars were as well done as their SUVs, their more small car buyers would have bought from them and they would have picked up the market from people abandoning their well-liked GM SUVs.

Its not the Union's fault that GM's management sucks. Hell, management signed the Union contracts. Go figure.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
I think the liberals will seize the opportunity to force GM to produce what they think the public should drive, and then GM will be up shit creek when nobody wants it.

LOL. Prior to bankruptcy, GM was doing an awesome job making cars that people wanted. Oh wait.

I dont understand what you mean by "oh wait". They built exactly what the people wanted. Their sales figures showed that. Or do you mean "what the people wanted" according to what the media and the government wanted the people to want? It's not their fault that trucks and suv's outsold everything, it's what the people wanted.

If they were building what people wanted, they would not have gone bankrupt. Yeah, they made great SUVs, but completely ignored the fact that high gas prices always leads to demand for smaller, more efficient vehicles. They made that mistake in the early '80s and again now. GM's smaller vehicles (at least for the American market) are shit.

Very true that their small vehicles are shit but do not make the mistake in thinking that they went bankrupt due to their products. It's far more complex than what you make it out to be. That just goes to show you have absolutely no clue on the whole GM situtation. Even if GM had small cars that were every bit as good as say a Civic or a Fit i guarantee you they would still be going to bankruptcy right now.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
I think the liberals will seize the opportunity to force GM to produce what they think the public should drive, and then GM will be up shit creek when nobody wants it.

LOL. Prior to bankruptcy, GM was doing an awesome job making cars that people wanted. Oh wait.

I dont understand what you mean by "oh wait". They built exactly what the people wanted. Their sales figures showed that. Or do you mean "what the people wanted" according to what the media and the government wanted the people to want? It's not their fault that trucks and suv's outsold everything, it's what the people wanted.

If they were building what people wanted, they would not have gone bankrupt. Yeah, they made great SUVs, but completely ignored the fact that high gas prices always leads to demand for smaller, more efficient vehicles. They made that mistake in the early '80s and again now. GM's smaller vehicles (at least for the American market) are shit.

Very true that their small vehicles are shit but do not make the mistake in thinking that they went bankrupt due to their products. It's far more complex than what you make it out to be. That just goes to show you have absolutely no clue on the whole GM situtation. Even if GM had small cars that were every bit as good as say a Civic or a Fit i guarantee you they would still be going to bankruptcy right now.

It all comes down to inferior management. GM management chose to ignore their small vehicles. GM management signed Union contracts, thinking that glory days of SUVs would be forever. GM could have lobbied Congress to use EV1 style electric vehicles for things like mail carrier vehicles and on-base military vehicles, thereby pumping lots of R&D money into their EV program, creating infrastructure, and improving the vehicles. GM could have worked on hybrid technologies. GM could have cut their brands down to two or three 15 years ago. GM could have kept Saturn unique and special.

Any problems at GM can be traced directly to short sighted management, who could barely see into next week, let alone into next quarter, or 5 years from now. Some people have this need to blame the Unions or anything but management. The buck stops with them.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
It all comes down to inferior management. GM management chose to ignore their small vehicles. GM management signed Union contracts, thinking that glory days of SUVs would be forever. GM could have lobbied Congress to use EV1 style electric vehicles for things like mail carrier vehicles and on-base military vehicles, thereby pumping lots of R&D money into their EV program, creating infrastructure, and improving the vehicles. GM could have worked on hybrid technologies. GM could have cut their brands down to two or three 15 years ago. GM could have kept Saturn unique and special.

Any problems at GM can be traced directly to short sighted management, who could barely see into next week, let alone into next quarter, or 5 years from now. Some people have this need to blame the Unions or anything but management. The buck stops with them.

Pointing your finger at managment just makes you look like a pissed off laborer that blames everything on his "do-nothing" boss.

Blaming a single group for GM's problems is stupid. There are a dozen reason why GM is in the position it's in - ranging from overpaid unions with ridiculous labor contracts to shortsighted management. It's easy to bitch piss and moan about their decisions 10+ years after the fact.

And thinking GM's problems would have been solved by selling million dollar EV1's to the government is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The entire program was a black hole - money goes in, nothing comes out. In a time when nobody gave a shit about electric cars cutting the program was a no-brainer. Shortsighted? Definitely. But that's the least of their problems. Imagine the public backlash if the government spent millions for EV1's for the USPS. What a waste of money.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Ktulu
Very true that their small vehicles are shit but do not make the mistake in thinking that they went bankrupt due to their products. It's far more complex than what you make it out to be. That just goes to show you have absolutely no clue on the whole GM situtation. Even if GM had small cars that were every bit as good as say a Civic or a Fit i guarantee you they would still be going to bankruptcy right now.

This is priceless.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: SammyJr
It all comes down to inferior management. GM management chose to ignore their small vehicles. GM management signed Union contracts, thinking that glory days of SUVs would be forever. GM could have lobbied Congress to use EV1 style electric vehicles for things like mail carrier vehicles and on-base military vehicles, thereby pumping lots of R&D money into their EV program, creating infrastructure, and improving the vehicles. GM could have worked on hybrid technologies. GM could have cut their brands down to two or three 15 years ago. GM could have kept Saturn unique and special.

Any problems at GM can be traced directly to short sighted management, who could barely see into next week, let alone into next quarter, or 5 years from now. Some people have this need to blame the Unions or anything but management. The buck stops with them.

Pointing your finger at managment just makes you look like a pissed off laborer that blames everything on his "do-nothing" boss.

Blaming a single group for GM's problems is stupid. There are a dozen reason why GM is in the position it's in - ranging from overpaid unions with ridiculous labor contracts to shortsighted management. It's easy to bitch piss and moan about their decisions 10+ years after the fact.

Who signed the Union contracts again?

Which Union laborer decided to make shitty small cars? Which Union laborer decided outsourcing components to China and Mexico was a good idea?

And thinking GM's problems would have been solved by selling million dollar EV1's to the government is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The entire program was a black hole - money goes in, nothing comes out. In a time when nobody gave a shit about electric cars cutting the program was a no-brainer. Shortsighted? Definitely. But that's the least of their problems. Imagine the public backlash if the government spent millions for EV1's for the USPS. What a waste of money.

Most new technologies are a hole at first. Then improvements are made. Economies of scale take over. I can see why you would be supportive of GM's former management. You're equally shortsighted.

 

[NAC]

I'm confused by this discussion. I'm confused by the premise of boycotting a company which went BANKRUPT!

If the government didn't step in, GM would be liquidated and cease to exists other than, perhaps, brand names owned by other large companies.

So if the government didn't step in - no one could buy GM cars, including the far right. Since the government did step in, the far right can make a talking point about avoiding GM cars.

The government didn't cause this problem. GM going bankrupt did.

My opinion - ANY president - republican or democrat would pump money into GM to avoid liquidation. ANY president. I wonder if any on the far right would disagree in private. Liquidation of a huge company like GM, with the ripple effect on suppliers, would trash our economy and cost the government much more in reduced taxes than a hundred billion dollars or whatever amount. The far right talking heads would be silent about nationalization if the president was a republican. But it isn't, so they have something to attack, so they will. Note that Bush didn't really take action - he just postponed it. It helps the republicans to be able to "blame" Obama.

The constant attacking of people and ideas instead of coming up with solutions to problems is exhausting, and terrible for our country.

Lastly, I don?t see the big deal about nationalization of GM. Presented with the choices, very, very few choices - I think the best decision was made. Pump money into the company, temporarily take partial ownership, and broker a deal between all sides which allows the company to survive and best helps the economy in the long run. I don't doubt that debt owners are being screwed, and what is happening is at least partially illegal against the letter of the law. However the letter of the law doesn't describe about tens of billions of dollars to support a bankruptcy and avoid economic destruction. And the only way to not screw the debt owners would be MORE government money.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: NAC
I'm confused by this discussion. I'm confused by the premise of boycotting a company which went BANKRUPT!

If the government didn't step in, GM would be liquidated and cease to exists other than, perhaps, brand names owned by other large companies.

So if the government didn't step in - no one could buy GM cars, including the far right. Since the government did step in, the far right can make a talking point about avoiding GM cars.

The government didn't cause this problem. GM going bankrupt did.

My opinion - ANY president - republican or democrat would pump money into GM to avoid liquidation. ANY president. I wonder if any on the far right would disagree in private. Liquidation of a huge company like GM, with the ripple effect on suppliers, would trash our economy and cost the government much more in reduced taxes than a hundred billion dollars or whatever amount. The far right talking heads would be silent about nationalization if the president was a republican. But it isn't, so they have something to attack, so they will. Note that Bush didn't really take action - he just postponed it. It helps the republicans to be able to "blame" Obama.

The constant attacking of people and ideas instead of coming up with solutions to problems is exhausting, and terrible for our country.

Lastly, I don?t see the big deal about nationalization of GM. Presented with the choices, very, very few choices - I think the best decision was made. Pump money into the company, temporarily take partial ownership, and broker a deal between all sides which allows the company to survive and best helps the economy in the long run. I don't doubt that debt owners are being screwed, and what is happening is at least partially illegal against the letter of the law. However the letter of the law doesn't describe about tens of billions of dollars to support a bankruptcy and avoid economic destruction. And the only way to not screw the debt owners would be MORE government money.

Good post, don't be such a lurker.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: NAC
I'm confused by this discussion. I'm confused by the premise of boycotting a company which went BANKRUPT!

If the government didn't step in, GM would be liquidated and cease to exists other than, perhaps, brand names owned by other large companies.

So if the government didn't step in - no one could buy GM cars, including the far right. Since the government did step in, the far right can make a talking point about avoiding GM cars.

The government didn't cause this problem. GM going bankrupt did.

My opinion - ANY president - republican or democrat would pump money into GM to avoid liquidation. ANY president. I wonder if any on the far right would disagree in private. Liquidation of a huge company like GM, with the ripple effect on suppliers, would trash our economy and cost the government much more in reduced taxes than a hundred billion dollars or whatever amount. The far right talking heads would be silent about nationalization if the president was a republican. But it isn't, so they have something to attack, so they will. Note that Bush didn't really take action - he just postponed it. It helps the republicans to be able to "blame" Obama.

The constant attacking of people and ideas instead of coming up with solutions to problems is exhausting, and terrible for our country.

Lastly, I don?t see the big deal about nationalization of GM. Presented with the choices, very, very few choices - I think the best decision was made. Pump money into the company, temporarily take partial ownership, and broker a deal between all sides which allows the company to survive and best helps the economy in the long run. I don't doubt that debt owners are being screwed, and what is happening is at least partially illegal against the letter of the law. However the letter of the law doesn't describe about tens of billions of dollars to support a bankruptcy and avoid economic destruction. And the only way to not screw the debt owners would be MORE government money.

Good post, don't be such a lurker.

Lurker is an understatement, 108 posts in 9 years?

Very good post though. I agree.

I personally see no reason to go out of your way to avoid GM. If they have the car you want at a price you like go for it. If somebody else has it, buy that. Why would you get political about what car you drive? Just meet your needs the best you can with the options you have.

 

[MBrown]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: NAC
I'm confused by this discussion. I'm confused by the premise of boycotting a company which went BANKRUPT!

If the government didn't step in, GM would be liquidated and cease to exists other than, perhaps, brand names owned by other large companies.

So if the government didn't step in - no one could buy GM cars, including the far right. Since the government did step in, the far right can make a talking point about avoiding GM cars.

The government didn't cause this problem. GM going bankrupt did.

My opinion - ANY president - republican or democrat would pump money into GM to avoid liquidation. ANY president. I wonder if any on the far right would disagree in private. Liquidation of a huge company like GM, with the ripple effect on suppliers, would trash our economy and cost the government much more in reduced taxes than a hundred billion dollars or whatever amount. The far right talking heads would be silent about nationalization if the president was a republican. But it isn't, so they have something to attack, so they will. Note that Bush didn't really take action - he just postponed it. It helps the republicans to be able to "blame" Obama.

The constant attacking of people and ideas instead of coming up with solutions to problems is exhausting, and terrible for our country.

Lastly, I don?t see the big deal about nationalization of GM. Presented with the choices, very, very few choices - I think the best decision was made. Pump money into the company, temporarily take partial ownership, and broker a deal between all sides which allows the company to survive and best helps the economy in the long run. I don't doubt that debt owners are being screwed, and what is happening is at least partially illegal against the letter of the law. However the letter of the law doesn't describe about tens of billions of dollars to support a bankruptcy and avoid economic destruction. And the only way to not screw the debt owners would be MORE government money.

Good post, don't be such a lurker.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Who signed the Union contracts again?

Which Union laborer decided to make shitty small cars? Which Union laborer decided outsourcing components to China and Mexico was a good idea?

How much negotiating power does management have when a strike can take down your entire company? Offshoring components and assembly was the only way domestics could make a some cars profitable. When it costs too much to build your products locally, your only option is to look elsewhere. And guess who's to blame for the labor contracts? Talk about shortsighted. The UAW cut off it's nose to spite its face with each new labor contract forced down the throat of each automaker.

The threat of a strike is a powerful motivator to sign whatever is under your nose.

Most new technologies are a hole at first. Then improvements are made. Economies of scale take over. I can see why you would be supportive of GM's former management. You're equally shortsighted.

The EV1 and it's next interations would have been a 10+ year black hole. What company is going to sink that much money into a program without any hope of ever turning a profit. It's not being shortsighted.

edit: fixed quoting

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Pointing your finger at managment just makes you look like a pissed off laborer that blames everything on his "do-nothing" boss.

Blaming a single group for GM's problems is stupid. There are a dozen reason why GM is in the position it's in - ranging from overpaid unions with ridiculous labor contracts to shortsighted management. It's easy to bitch piss and moan about their decisions 10+ years after the fact.

And thinking GM's problems would have been solved by selling million dollar EV1's to the government is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The entire program was a black hole - money goes in, nothing comes out. In a time when nobody gave a shit about electric cars cutting the program was a no-brainer. Shortsighted? Definitely. But that's the least of their problems. Imagine the public backlash if the government spent millions for EV1's for the USPS. What a waste of money.

Great post!

 

[SparkyJJO]

At this point, I'm not boycotting them. How best to get them back out of government control? Get them out of bankruptcy back on their feet financially and maybe they can. That is, assuming Obama didn't lie through his teeth and the nationalization was only temporary like he said... I have my doubts, I do not trust that man at all.

 

[episodic]

The only way that capitalism would work in this case is if the consumer bought something from GM directly - not given money by the taxpayers. . . I seriously don't understand why we can't let it go? Would they bail me out if I opened a snowcone stand and didn't have any flavor but broccoli? You got to give consumers what they want and at a good price with good results. Look at some of the Scandinavian cars - they run forever. . . . Japanese, Korean, etc. . . they all run a long time and are cheap. If I'm plunking down 15,000 dollars (or more) for a car - I expect 10 years and 200,000 miles out of it without the engine / tranny flipping out. . .

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: episodic
The only way that capitalism would work in this case is if the consumer bought something from GM directly - not given money by the taxpayers. . . I seriously don't understand why we can't let it go? Would they bail me out if I opened a snowcone stand and didn't have any flavor but broccoli? You got to give consumers what they want and at a good price with good results. Look at some of the Scandinavian cars - they run forever. . . . Japanese, Korean, etc. . . they all run a long time and are cheap. If I'm plunking down 15,000 dollars (or more) for a car - I expect 10 years and 200,000 miles out of it without the engine / tranny flipping out. . .

It is not uncommon to go 200K+ on a GM. It is a complete exaggeration the way import fanboys and the like try to make GM cars out to be completely unreliable. Guess what Japanese/Korean/European cars breakdown prematurely too, they're not immune. And by the way Korean cars have just started to make somewhat good cars in the 90's they were complete POS's, far below even the 90's GM.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: episodic
The only way that capitalism would work in this case is if the consumer bought something from GM directly - not given money by the taxpayers. . . I seriously don't understand why we can't let it go? Would they bail me out if I opened a snowcone stand and didn't have any flavor but broccoli? You got to give consumers what they want and at a good price with good results. Look at some of the Scandinavian cars - they run forever. . . . Japanese, Korean, etc. . . they all run a long time and are cheap. If I'm plunking down 15,000 dollars (or more) for a car - I expect 10 years and 200,000 miles out of it without the engine / tranny flipping out. . .

It is not uncommon to go 200K+ on a GM. It is a complete exaggeration the way import fanboys and the like try to make GM cars out to be completely unreliable. Guess what Japanese/Korean/European cars breakdown prematurely too, they're not immune. And by the way Korean cars have just started to make somewhat good cars in the 90's they were complete POS's, far below even the 90's GM.

I'm not arguing. However, evidently to be in this mess, the consumers spoke and started buying other brands. It evidently isn't what enough people wanted and the company went down. I own a GM truck now. . . it has been running for a long time. What you said is key - it is the perception. . . It really is simple. You bring in x dollars - you spend y dollars. If y is more than x - for a long time . . . well you need to do something - quick. . . .

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: halik
Because your premise is that the company will inherently make inferior products now that it's socialized. If you boycot it, you basically don't believe what you preach. Do you boycott USPS because you believe that Fedex can do a better job? No, if fedex does actually do a better job then you use it instead of USPS. What they're arguing here is "well if we're not right, we'll make it so we're right".

If you're making an argument for free market, let the free market work.

Eh, kind of.

The "free market" still allows people to take externalities into account in their buying decisions. Believing in the free market doesn't mean supporting the buying of the "best" overall product when considered in isolation, but rather that the market will choose the "best" option considering the entire situation. It's perfectly consistent with a free market ideology to choose a marginally "inferior" product if the support infrastructure for that product is sufficiently good to overshadow the product's minor inferiority.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: NAC
I'm confused by this discussion. I'm confused by the premise of boycotting a company which went BANKRUPT!

If the government didn't step in, GM would be liquidated and cease to exists other than, perhaps, brand names owned by other large companies.

That's simply not correct. GM would have filed Chapter 11, restructured, and would still be around.

Many, many airlines went bankrupt in the last two decades; some of them multiple times. They didn't end up liquidating assets or disappearing; they restructured and found ways to continue to operate. GM would have done the same.

I don't understand why so many people are laboring under the mistaken idea that companies just cease to exist when they file bankruptcy.

ZV

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm confused by this discussion. I'm confused by the premise of boycotting a company which went BANKRUPT!

GM didn't go bankrupt. If it had it would have been liquidated and come out completely different. It wasn't worth anywhere near it's debts. Same with Chrysler. So let's can this talk about the two going bankrupt.

They did not go bankrupt by any normal sense of the word.

Lastly, I don?t see the big deal about nationalization of GM. Presented with the choices, very, very few choices - I think the best decision was made.

Fair enough. I can't stand the nationalization of GM and Chrysler and I think the absolute worst decisions were made. I'm not supporting those decisions with my money. Well, not voluntarily...

On top of that, the idea that I am going to subsidise GM and Chrysler and FIAT and the UAW absolutely infuriates me. The idea that I am going to subsidise car sales also infuriates me.

There is no way GM and Chrysler get a cent from me.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

I'm confused by this discussion. I'm confused by the premise of boycotting a company which went BANKRUPT!

GM didn't go bankrupt. If it had it would have been liquidated and come out completely different. It wasn't worth anywhere near it's debts. Same with Chrysler. So let's can this talk about the two going bankrupt.

They did not go bankrupt by any normal sense of the word.

They did go bankrupt. They filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy which is reorganization rather than chapter 7 bankruptcy which is liquidation. Here's a description of chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In Chapter 11, the debtor retains ownership and control of its assets and is re-termed a debtor in possession ("DIP"). The debtor in possession runs the day to day operations of the business while creditors and the debtor work with the Bankruptcy Court in order to negotiate and complete a plan. Upon meeting certain requirements (e.g. fairness among creditors, priority of certain creditors) creditors are permitted to vote on the proposed plan. If a plan is confirmed the debtor will continue to operate and pay its debts under the terms of the confirmed plan. If a specified majority of creditors do not vote to confirm a plan, additional requirements may be imposed by the court in order to confirm the plan.

 

[LTC8K6]

Then what happened to the secured debtors if they went through a normal bankruptcy?

EDIT: secured creditors of course.

 

[LTC8K6]

Liquidation of a huge company like GM, with the ripple effect on suppliers, would trash our economy and cost the government much more in reduced taxes than a hundred billion dollars or whatever amount.

By that logic, we would have to bail out California. If GM was too big to fail, then so are many other entities that are teetering.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

pretty sure GM went bankrupt.

and look whats (about) to happen to chrysler? i hear about a liquidation soon if Fiat doesn't buy them. (unless i havent been updated, last i heard they were waiting on a court case)

 

[LTC8K6]

Chrysler was given to FIAT today.

 

[LTC8K6]

Upon meeting certain requirements (e.g. fairness among creditors, priority of certain creditors) creditors are permitted to vote on the proposed plan.

Don't think that happened with GM or Chrysler.