GM to invest $1 billion Brazil plants.

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Except Clinton found a time to be fiscally responsible.

You do understand that we are paying the price now for Clinton's "fiscal responsibility," right?

You would have preferred 4 more years of "what recession?" Bush Sr.?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Except Clinton found a time to be fiscally responsible.

You do understand that we are paying the price now for Clinton's "fiscal responsibility," right?

You would have preferred 4 more years of "what recession?" Bush Sr.?

i remember seeing a political cartoon just after thanksgiving in 1992 with the clinton family sitting at thanksgiving dinner and giving thanks that the economic news about the end of that recession not coming out until after the election

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Except Clinton found a time to be fiscally responsible.

You do understand that we are paying the price now for Clinton's "fiscal responsibility," right?

You don't have to put a "confused" icon.
I already know you are confused.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: palehorse
EVERYONE in government is to blame... from EVERY political party.

You're correct, the explanation is here.

 

[Praxis1452]

Everyone always wants money to be spent in their own country but stipulating that is a horrible idea. We ARE a world economy and our companies have many interests across the globe. Countries depend on one another and it would be incredibly stupid to spend only the money inside the U.S. Protectionism doesn't just hurt 1 country, it hurts us all and limits markets. If the U.S. raises tariffs or suppresses trade then so would other countries, and in fact the populace in many countries are already pushing for that stipulation. Protectionism has been tried, and it has failed. The Hawley-Smoot tariff anyone? Stipulating that money be spent only in the country of origin may be a different form, but the same type of idea. Limiting markets and peoples choices thereby increasing the length of the recession/depression w/e you call it.

 

[theeedude]

We don't have to raise tariffs to make it clear to the companies we want to have this money spent in the US. Congress members can simply say they will not vote for more bailout money if this money is not spent in the US. It is not protectionism, because they aren't actually putting it into law, but the message will get across loud and clear. You spend US taxpayer's money in Brazil, don't bother coming back for more.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: senseamp
We don't have to raise tariffs to make it clear to the companies we want to have this money spent in the US. Congress members can simply say they will not vote for more bailout money if this money is not spent in the US. It is not protectionism, because they aren't actually putting it into law, but the message will get across loud and clear. You spend US taxpayer's money in Brazil, don't bother coming back for more.

To do that you will also need to send a message load and clear to UAW to allow them build in the US what they would build in brazil. Ford already has it most advanced plant in brazil.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Except Clinton found a time to be fiscally responsible.

You do understand that we are paying the price now for Clinton's "fiscal responsibility," right?

You would have preferred 4 more years of "what recession?" Bush Sr.?

Is that what I said?

 

[Strk]

GM is a global company and received loans -- not free money. Whatever gets money back into their coffers is a good move in my book. Unlike the crap that went on with the banks, we'll likely actually get the money back from GM.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Originally posted by: Strk
GM is a global company and received loans -- not free money. Whatever gets money back into their coffers is a good move in my book. Unlike the crap that went on with the banks, we'll likely actually get the money back from GM.

It's funny how nobody in this thread mentioned the non-bolded part of the OP's quote: <this> "has already begun to revive sales,"

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: senseamp
We don't have to raise tariffs to make it clear to the companies we want to have this money spent in the US. Congress members can simply say they will not vote for more bailout money if this money is not spent in the US. It is not protectionism, because they aren't actually putting it into law, but the message will get across loud and clear. You spend US taxpayer's money in Brazil, don't bother coming back for more.

To do that you will also need to send a message load and clear to UAW to allow them build in the US what they would build in brazil. Ford already has it most advanced plant in brazil.

You don't need to send any message to UAW, just US automakers that we don't want the bailout money spent overseas.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
You spend US taxpayer's money in Brazil, don't bother coming back for more.

Therein lies the rub, though. We don't want them "coming back for more," regardless of where they spend the first loan!

Do you desire a system of never-ending bailouts, or something?!

Sadly enough, you'll probably get your wish...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: boomerang
Save your ire. GM is not going to survive. There is only enough demand to sustain one domestic and it's going to be Ford.

Are you clueless or just trolling?

GM, Ford and Chrysler are ALL bigger than many well know foreign car companies.
Daimler, BMW, Mitsubishi, Kia, Mazda, and Volvo are all smaller companies and yet they still survive.

The problem of the big 3 isn't the number of cars they make, it is the inability to make money at that level of sales. If they can shrink their size then they could survive.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: senseamp
We don't have to raise tariffs to make it clear to the companies we want to have this money spent in the US. Congress members can simply say they will not vote for more bailout money if this money is not spent in the US. It is not protectionism, because they aren't actually putting it into law, but the message will get across loud and clear. You spend US taxpayer's money in Brazil, don't bother coming back for more.

To do that you will also need to send a message load and clear to UAW to allow them build in the US what they would build in brazil. Ford already has it most advanced plant in brazil.

You don't need to send any message to UAW, just US automakers that we don't want the bailout money spent overseas.

watch this

They cant build such a plant in the US because of UAW.

 

[EXman]

Dood it is so they can keep the Lear Jet!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: quest55720
I love it I just hope that stuff like this finally gets the public to the boiling point and tosses all the bums out of office who voted for the bail outs and stimulus. Get some people in washington who have some fiscal responsibility.

They are playing with your money. It's not their money so they couldn't care less where it goes. The point behind all of it is that it gives them a power trip. No entity will keep itself in checks and balance, our government is no different. We have let it run wild with growth and this is the ripe plant from the seeds sown long ago.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: senseamp
Fiscal responsibility in this recession is suicide.

President Obama:
So, you know, we -- we can differ on some of the particulars, but, again, the question I think the American people are asking is, do you just want government to do nothing, or do you want it to do something? If you want it to do something, then we can have a conversation. But doing nothing, that's not an option from my perspective.

It's exactly as senseamp said it is. This power trip in Washington must result in action. That action costs money and us slaves are the ones who are going to pay for it.

 

[ericlp]

I understand that Brazil is becoming a big car market, but isn't money being funneled out of the country a big problem? Outsourcing and so forth. I honestly would of thought a stipulation of the bailout would be to use and spend the bailout in the US (or Canada for their bailout). Although this is only 6% of the total amount, it is our money and this is only one announcement. I am worried there will be more in the future of other plants getting billions for new plants in other countries. Thoughts?

stipulation? There were no strings attached. It was "FREE" money! They could have went out and set a billion on fire.


they would have gotten a better bang for the dollar if it went to China.

Still Funny ... None the less.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: senseamp
We don't have to raise tariffs to make it clear to the companies we want to have this money spent in the US. Congress members can simply say they will not vote for more bailout money if this money is not spent in the US. It is not protectionism, because they aren't actually putting it into law, but the message will get across loud and clear. You spend US taxpayer's money in Brazil, don't bother coming back for more.

To do that you will also need to send a message load and clear to UAW to allow them build in the US what they would build in brazil. Ford already has it most advanced plant in brazil.

You don't need to send any message to UAW, just US automakers that we don't want the bailout money spent overseas.

watch this

They cant build such a plant in the US because of UAW.

It sounds like the Camacari plant is somewhat unionized

I think the issue is more complicated than bashing the unions or blaming the management. The article mentions that Brazil give lots of subsidies and breaks to attract Ford. Ford is looking for somewhere to experiment with a cheaper labor force. The article mentions a union presence so not all of the work inside the factory is outsourced. The average age of the worker is 26 so health care and legacy cost are a fraction of that here. Until companies can manage health care and retirement/legacy costs for its employees, these companies will continue to suffer.
Still, I think that it is shameful that the federal government didn't stipulate what the banks and now car companies can do with the bailout money. They gave out the money with little oversight. I am disgusted at both parties.

 

[MikeMike]

so what... they are an international company... plus from what i know, their brazilian plants dont even manufacture vehicles for the U.S... you guys have a problem with a company trying to turn itself around?

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: boomerang
Save your ire. GM is not going to survive. There is only enough demand to sustain one domestic and it's going to be Ford.

Are you clueless or just trolling?

GM, Ford and Chrysler are ALL bigger than many well know foreign car companies.
Daimler, BMW, Mitsubishi, Kia, Mazda, and Volvo are all smaller companies and yet they still survive.

The problem of the big 3 isn't the number of cars they make, it is the inability to make money at that level of sales. If they can shrink their size then they could survive.

I'm not trolling at all. We've had three domestic auto manufacturers because sales justified it. Many analysts are now saying that projected sales will not support three domestics. This I believe to be true. We were heading this way even before the financial melt down. Surely you could see this coming?

It's easy to say shrink the company and all is well, but in reality it doesn't work that way. They can get rid of people, but getting rid of their plants is another story. There are no buyers for these facilities. They must then be maintained, insured, guarded, heated and taxes must be paid on them. The costs involved in mothballing a plant the size of a small city is astronomical in and of itself. When times were good, a buyer could most likely be found. Who needs more capacity right now and has the means to purchase a shuttered auto plant? In addition, what a lot of the general public doesn't understand is that many plants get closed even in good times because they cannot be run efficiently anymore. They cannot be modernized cost-effectively to utilize new, leaner, manufacturing processes.

This is a gross simplification, but the basics are outlined. There are costs that can be reduced and eliminated, but there are others that cannot.

Chrysler is a goner. Cerberus had no intention, and has no intention of keeping this company intact and alive. The loans have gotten in the way as has the business climate, but they will go down. Quote me on this for all eternity, because I live in SE Michigan and those of us that live here know this.

The only hope for both Ford and GM is that enough foreign auto manufacturers go under for them to fill the void. Do you see that happening? With demand for cars as it is, there is no void to fill. Mulally at Ford, hocked the entire company, lock, stock and barrel. This is why they have the cash they do and are in the best shape of the three. Whether he's a genius, a visionary or just lucky only time will tell.

GM is a basket case. The same people that got the company into trouble are now trying to get them out. How does that work? Did their mindsets just change overnight? Wagoner is a bean-counter and he let the company get into the state it's in. When an accountant gets the company in financial trouble, what's the first thing that goes through your mind? I, personally, have zero confidence that he can pull this off.

I'm sure you've heard the term "economies of scale"? Well, when your company shrinks, your costs go up. Your steel supplier charges you a higher price when you're ordering 1/3 of what you were before. Extrapolate from there.

It's going to take a miracle to pull this economy of ours out of this giant hole were in. A hole that has the bottom sinking deeper week by week. I don't think it can be done at all.

Spare me the bankruptcy rhetoric. Delphi, GM's largest supplier has been trying to pull out of bankruptcy for over 3 years and despite large infusions of cash (from GM) they have been unable to pull out. The recent news you're seeing about GM negotiating to buy a portion of Delphi back is a desperate attempt to keep the core of the company alive (to supply parts to GM) because Delphi is going under for good. GM is going to close at least two assembly plants (that they'll admit to at this time) and have announced the layoff of 5000 salaried employees. This may sound good to you, but it's the death knell sounding. I'm sure you've seen the news about suppliers needing a bailout? This is real. This is not corporate greed, the automakers had these guys running on razer thin profit margins for years before the shit hit the fan. I'm surprised they've held on this long.

I'm glad that you're upbeat and have a positive attitude. We need people like that. I am an admitted pessimist but I also live near the core of the domestic automakers. Things are bad now, but the future will make today the good old days.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: boomerang
Save your ire. GM is not going to survive. There is only enough demand to sustain one domestic and it's going to be Ford.

Are you clueless or just trolling?

GM, Ford and Chrysler are ALL bigger than many well know foreign car companies.
Daimler, BMW, Mitsubishi, Kia, Mazda, and Volvo are all smaller companies and yet they still survive.

The problem of the big 3 isn't the number of cars they make, it is the inability to make money at that level of sales. If they can shrink their size then they could survive.

I'm not trolling at all. We've had three domestic auto manufacturers because sales justified it. Many analysts are now saying that projected sales will not support three domestics. This I believe to be true. We were heading this way even before the financial melt down. Surely you could see this coming?

It's easy to say shrink the company and all is well, but in reality it doesn't work that way. They can get rid of people, but getting rid of their plants is another story. There are no buyers for these facilities. They must then be maintained, insured, guarded, heated and taxes must be paid on them. The costs involved in mothballing a plant the size of a small city is astronomical in and of itself. When times were good, a buyer could most likely be found. Who needs more capacity right now and has the means to purchase a shuttered auto plant? In addition, what a lot of the general public doesn't understand is that many plants get closed even in good times because they cannot be run efficiently anymore. They cannot be modernized cost-effectively to utilize new, leaner, manufacturing processes.

This is a gross simplification, but the basics are outlined. There are costs that can be reduced and eliminated, but there are others that cannot.

Chrysler is a goner. Cerberus had no intention, and has no intention of keeping this company intact and alive. The loans have gotten in the way as has the business climate, but they will go down. Quote me on this for all eternity, because I live in SE Michigan and those of us that live here know this.

The only hope for both Ford and GM is that enough foreign auto manufacturers go under for them to fill the void. Do you see that happening? With demand for cars as it is, there is no void to fill. Mulally at Ford, hocked the entire company, lock, stock and barrel. This is why they have the cash they do and are in the best shape of the three. Whether he's a genius, a visionary or just lucky only time will tell.

GM is a basket case. The same people that got the company into trouble are now trying to get them out. How does that work? Did their mindsets just change overnight? Wagoner is a bean-counter and he let the company get into the state it's in. When an accountant gets the company in financial trouble, what's the first thing that goes through your mind? I, personally, have zero confidence that he can pull this off.

I'm sure you've heard the term "economies of scale"? Well, when your company shrinks, your costs go up. Your steel supplier charges you a higher price when you're ordering 1/3 of what you were before. Extrapolate from there.

It's going to take a miracle to pull this economy of ours out of this giant hole were in. A hole that has the bottom sinking deeper week by week. I don't think it can be done at all.

Spare me the bankruptcy rhetoric. Delphi, GM's largest supplier has been trying to pull out of bankruptcy for over 3 years and despite large infusions of cash (from GM) they have been unable to pull out. The recent news you're seeing about GM negotiating to buy a portion of Delphi back is a desperate attempt to keep the core of the company alive (to supply parts to GM) because Delphi is going under for good. GM is going to close at least two assembly plants (that they'll admit to at this time) and have announced the layoff of 5000 salaried employees. This may sound good to you, but it's the death knell sounding. I'm sure you've seen the news about suppliers needing a bailout? This is real. This is not corporate greed, the automakers had these guys running on razer thin profit margins for years before the shit hit the fan. I'm surprised they've held on this long.

I'm glad that you're upbeat and have a positive attitude. We need people like that. I am an admitted pessimist but I also live near the core of the domestic automakers. Things are bad now, but the future will make today the good old days.

I hope I'm wrong.

Not long ago you were touting the importance of the auto bailout, the resistance of which would be the loss of all these jobs. You appear resigned to the inevitable now.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
so what... they are an international company... plus from what i know, their brazilian plants dont even manufacture vehicles for the U.S... you guys have a problem with a company trying to turn itself around?

Then let them go before the international community for money starting with Brazil, instead they go before congress using the threat of the loss of American jobs in order to secure loans

 

[Strk]

I still don't get it. I guess I'll just repeat myself. GM is a global company that received loans (I.e. money we'll actually get back with interest). If they return to profitability, jobs are saved and the loans will get repaid.

Would people prefer they invest $1 billion of loan money into their Lordstown, Ohio (it's less, around $350 million, but for the sake of argument, let's say they'd get it all), while taking the money they were going to spend there anyway and send it to Brazil?

As much as people want to give GM crap, they're just being honest. One of the arguments about all the money for green initiatives is that companies will just cut their funding and send it somewhere else, all while taking the government money. I guess some people prefer it to look ok on the surface, even if it's ultimately doing the same thing.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Strk
I still don't get it. I guess I'll just repeat myself. GM is a global company that received loans (I.e. money we'll actually get back with interest). If they return to profitability, jobs are saved and the loans will get repaid.

Would people prefer they invest $1 billion of loan money into their Lordstown, Ohio (it's less, around $350 million, but for the sake of argument, let's say they'd get it all), while taking the money they were going to spend there anyway and send it to Brazil?

As much as people want to give GM crap, they're just being honest. One of the arguments about all the money for green initiatives is that companies will just cut their funding and send it somewhere else, all while taking the government money. I guess some people prefer it to look ok on the surface, even if it's ultimately doing the same thing.

Because we didn't give them money so they could grow their business in Brazil. We gave them money in an attempt to help us out of this recession. I guess you are thinking that building a plant in Brazil will lead to GM making more money which will help them keep jobs here in the US which will help us out of the recession. While that might be the outcome, it was not the reason for the loan.
I can?t go to a bank and get a mortgage for a house and then use the money to buy a sports car and make it all right by telling the bank that being able to drive faster will help me pay back your loan! The bank will get rather pissed at me because I undercut their ability to asses the risk of the loan. We gave them that money so they would keep jobs here in America, they used it to create jobs in Brazil.