Let GM go Bankrupt

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Boy are you out of touch.

Were all those movies I saw in my formatives all a load of faked-up how to look good without actually being so. Like Fred Astaire. Like Heidi losing her handbag. Heidi With the Floating Tools--cue for a song--She rode on a ship full of fools. A space age rugby song. Easy to sing. No poetry. Good chorus.

I think you are exaggerating the incompetence. I don't think you love your car enough. And if "General Motors" didn't ring all the bells then "DETROIT" certainly did.

And Henry Ford. Good gracious. A man called Ford who has forded you backwards and forwards anywhere you want to go for as long as you remember. Are you going to let a name as revered as that be dragged through an undignified process just to save a measly $80 bucks apiece. One average restaurant meal for two. It would break my heart.

What about Mr Gates bailing them out. He wouldn't be where he is without DETROIT. Imagine him doing business on a bike.

1 Reply

@spendius,

let's see here: for decades American cars were inferior in quality to the rest of the world....for decades management as either aggravated the workers or paid them off with contracts that made the industry non-competitive... for decades management let the market share for the industry shrink...more recently management has squandered its political capital...insisted on trying to sell cars to Americans that are bad for America (huge gas guzzlers)...resisted with every means possible America adopting fuel emission standards that are sensible as most of the rest of the major powers have done...spun off the parts businesses that they no longer wanted in such a way that the businesses were not viable over the long haul....shifted from making money producing product to making money financing the purchase of the product...

Yep, sounds like management incompetence to me. They stopped making money the old fashioned way, making cars and trucks that Americans wanted to buy. At every turn they got beat by the global competition. When they lost the car business they decided to pin their hopes on trucks and SUV's, because as the theory went Europeans and Asians would never able to crack that market (could not design for the American market...American exceptionalism). Ooops, like with every other pronouncement out of Detroit during my lifetime, they were wrong about that.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye - Spendi is a Brit, we have to adapt our English to his, otherwise he'll keep answering with irrelevancies. Here's the Urban Dictionary's entry for "British Leyland", which may serve as an epitaph for Detroit's Big 3 as well:

Quote:

British Leyland

The essence of bad workmanship, foolish management practices, banal marketing, bizarre financial decisions, crazed Union Officials - [.......].

2 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Hawkeye - Spendi is a Brit, we have to adapt our English to his, otherwise he'll keep answering with irrelevancies. Here's the Urban Dictionary's entry for "British Leyland", which may serve as an epitaph for Detroit's Big 3 as well:

Quote:
British Leyland

The essence of bad workmanship, foolish management practices, banal marketing, bizarre financial decisions, crazed Union Officials - [.......].

as well as Lucas (prince of darkness) electrics.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

British Leyland: the company that the British Government squandered multiple billions of dollars into while trying to save it, with no long term effect. Not only is the company gone, but less than ten percent of the jobs still exist in the assets once owned by the company. The same result would have been arrived at if the taxpayers spent nothing, and let the bankruptcy take place on a schedule mandated by management incompetence and the financial laws.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

In BL's case, their subs did not suffer .
The logic that seems to underpin the "chapt 11" logic is to dictate to subs that they will be made whole at some unknown future date when the car companies emerge . I believe this not and dont want to see otherwise healthy subs go under for the incompetence of our govt.
In Europe, the concept of govt underwriting is just the way business is done. (Look at Airbus, they are banking on a bigass super transport plane just like GM and Ford had continued making SUVs even as gas was creeping up)

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Hey- a lot of the people I've known worked for British Leyland. All gone. It's all true what you say.

It happens everywhere when success goes too far. It's almost as if nature has a self-correcting mechanism to prevent mass production techniques from getting too silly. They had shops in the factories. Butchers even. Bookies. You could buy nearly everything you want inside there. They had stalls. They finished up going home at night before the kids left school.

But the point I was making was that the image I have got from stuff I've seen on various screens over a long period of time was one to admire and envy. And here's you lot saying I've been deluded. We were like kids with no money with our noses pressed up against a toffee shop window looking at those images. And we had to wait a few years to get everything. It looked a wonderland. Until Psycho. That made us stop and think a bit.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I assume that you are speaking of the parts industry, where 3 out of every 4 automaker job is. These companies were mostly spun off of the big three long ago, have done nothing wrong, are already very weak because the big three keep them on a starvation diet of funds, and would fail if the big three don't pay their bills. The plan being floated is the uncle sam would keep them paid during the bankruptcy. US would also guaranty the vehicle warranties.

0 Replies

I would like to raise a question:

IF letting GM and Ford fail will deepen our recession into a depression, but it will lead to newer, leaner companies arising out of the ashes, is it worth the hard times which will be forthcoming?

'We're doing what is necessary' is a thin cloak to offer to someone left out in the cold when the businesses fail, but it may be necessary... is it really a given that letting these companies fail will in fact push us that far down, economically?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote :

Quote:

Look at Airbus, they are banking on a bigass super transport plane just like GM and Ford had continued making SUVs even as gas was creeping up

from what i know the A 380 will have a lower per passenger cost than any previous airplane - and will give the airlines a better profit (assuming that the passenger load doesn't crash) .
on trans-atlantic and trans-pacific flights the cost per passenger mile is estimated to be about 15 % less than a 747 - that's a lot of extra money to the airlines .
i don't think the 380 comparable to an SUV - where we have a big car and still usually have only one or two people in it .
i would compare the A 380 to a modern "link-bus" , where one engine can pull twice the passenger load .

should have called it "articulated" bus

http://www.transitmuseumeducation.org/images/vocab/photo_articulatedbus.jpg

perhaps GM has the right idea with one of the new engines that can either fire on 6 (or even 8 ?) or on 4 cylinders depending on the power requirements .

a report in a car magazine claimed that the switchover was smooth and not noticeable to the driver - but it may all be a little late .

looking back : there was a caddy(?) with cylinder-deactivation some years ago - but it was a lemon , i believe .
and oldmoble had a diesel - again , perhaps the right idea but poor engineering .
hbg

2 Replies

@hamburger,

Quote:

a report in a car magazine claimed that the switchover was smooth and not noticeable to the driver

Drivers can drive anything. It's the switchover at the manufacturing plant which is the problem. And maybe instability in fuel prices. And interest rates. And demand.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Drivers can drive anything. It's the switchover at the manufacturing plant which is the problem. And maybe instability in fuel prices. And interest rates. And demand.

additionally , diesel fuel is about 10 - 20 % more expensive than gasoline in north-america . so the savings are not nearly as great as in europe - and in N.A. diesel cars have always been decried as "oil-burners " (though we had a rabbit-diesel from 1979 to 89 ) .

a short article about the chevy impala "3-6" - fuel savings are only 5-7 % , not really impressive .

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/05/19/2007-chevy-impala-will-be-first-v6-engine-that-can-switch-to-thr/

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would like to raise a question:

IF letting GM and Ford fail will deepen our recession into a depression, but it will lead to newer, leaner companies arising out of the ashes, is it worth the hard times which will be forthcoming?

'We're doing what is necessary' is a thin cloak to offer to someone left out in the cold when the businesses fail, but it may be necessary... is it really a given that letting these companies fail will in fact push us that far down, economically?

Cycloptichorn

Well now, wouldn't you just like to know?

I think the country could take the medicine, if anyone really knew what was going to work. My bias is in favor of letting them take bankruptcy, but I'm not at all sorry someone else is going to make the decision and take the blame. And blame there will be, whatever the choice.

0 Replies

@hamburger,

Quote:

from what i know the A 380 will have a lower per passenger cost than any previous airplane - and will give the airlines a better profit (assuming that the passenger load doesn't crash) .
on trans-atlantic and trans-pacific flights the cost per passenger mile is estimated to be about 15 % less than a 747 - that's a lot of extra money to the airlines

My point wasnt to compare efficiency of the 380 with SUV's, no no no. Its the concept that a big company would hitch its future to one major platform (in that respect SUVs and trucks are similar to the 380's hoped for saleability).
Boeing has taken another tack, they are betting that the future is in short hop air traffic with multiple hubs and lewss than full "revenue". HAvibg a 500 seat jet go off half empty doesnt eqarn any money for the carrier, while short hop jets can make multi flights less than full and still make revenue targets.

Look at Concorde, a dinosaur before it took off. They bet on speed, now A380 is betting on mass loading.

The only thing that works in product design businesses is just like what works in evolution "ALWAYS HAVE MANY VERSIONS (species) OF APRODUCT (genera) TO BE SUCCESSFUL (successful). FEW SPECIES PER GENERA USUALLY LEADS TO EXTINCTION.

I think businesses should take their lessons from biology.

1 Reply

@hamburger,

diesels in the US are usually turbo. Turbos are efficient iuntil the AMerican mindset kicks in. NOW we have many diesels with twin-turbos and intercoolers and "After burners"
I have a Ford 7.3, a Ford 6.4, and a ford (CAT) 8.3. THe 6.4 with a twin turbo gets about 50% less mileage than the others , Including the big CATERPILLAR.

Americans car shows are only interested in 2 things
1/ The 0-60 mph times and

2Top SPeed.

Thats our national pea brained mentality over hot fast and high velocity.

I have a Ford Escape Hybrid that we bought this summer and its really fun interacting with a car that gives you so much data and information about instantaneous and average fuel economy, ETS's and miles to go till empty. WE play hyper -mileageing with the little car (which weve named "sparky")

There IS a market in US for other than muscle cars and pickups, its just that marketing hasnt changed our attitudes yet. We are so malleable to adverts it aint even funny.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The only thing that works in product design businesses is just like what works in evolution "ALWAYS HAVE MANY VERSIONS (species) OF APRODUCT (genera) TO BE SUCCESSFUL (successful). FEW SPECIES PER GENERA USUALLY LEADS TO EXTINCTION.

farmerman :

airbus has curently about 20 (twenty) different configurations of airplanes from short-range to long-haul .
i think one of their advantages is that the european governments have banded together to support airbus industries . at least for the time being these governments have a vital interest to keep the business going - they can`t afford to see them go under .

for a display of models , click under ``aircraft 1`` - select one

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/productcompare/

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Its therefore Ok for the Finnzies to merely allow a form of fascism take its place as valid fiscal policy for automakers.

This doesn't make much sense. Please explain.

Bankruptcy doesn't allow the bankrupt to shaft their creditors. If you think this is the case then I assume you are in favor of eliminating all bankruptcy laws.

A company going into bankruptcy doesn't come out the otherside intact but without debt.

Creditors all have claims against the assests of the company (or individual) when it enters bankruptcy.

Only when there is a belief that the company is truly hopeless, will the creditors suck it dry even getting only 10 cents on the dollar of what is owed them.

Deals are cut based on the faith the creditors have in the restructuring of the company.

In actuality, having the government attempt a bailout of companies that are rotten to the core will hurt the chances of creditors to collect on their loans and investments. When the government passes bailout legislation it includes the provision that it is first and foremost creditor in the event of bankruptcy.

So the more money the government throws at an industry destined to collapse, the less there will be for other creditors when the industry finally does.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

considering that the factories are mortgaged, most creditors might not get even 10 cents on the dollar.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Perhaps not, but they're not likely to bleed the companies dry.

Who doesn't want these companies to go bankrupt?

1) The senior management of the Big 3
2) The Unions = The Democrats
3) Those enthralled to Democratic talking points.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

We are so malleable to adverts it aint even funny.

Books have been written about that. The volume of advertising is the measure of the maleability. Nobody would spend money advertising in the absence of that susceptibility to persuasion. So the amount of money spent on advertising tells you just how malleable the population is unless those who spend it are fools. And one just won the presidency by out spending the opposition.

And the persuasion probes the weak spots in character and is in the hands of experts. The weak spots are easily identified from the adverts themselves.

Insecurity, hypochondria, loss of control, fear of impotence, fear of death, need for approval, awe of authority figures and the technical expertise in the methods of persuasion are a few of the factors. A play upon felt vulnerability.

In The Mass Psychology of Fascism Wilhelm Reich leaves no stone unturned.

The ads are also schizophrenic. Some extoll the virtues of laziness and self indulgence whilst other extoll the "Right Stuff". Some milk the udder of bourgeios respectability others the animalistic vices.

There's also a sociological factor. The malleability is caused by voluntary exposure to the ads.

In fact, the rest of effemm's post signifies all the above being in play. The self denigration, the machismo symbolisms , the equipment fetish, the control, the ego extensions. Underpants are advertised but no mention of them eh effemm? Just the big bucks stuff with power factors.

I find it funny. Especially the idea that fun can be had interacting with cars. That is interaction with the self. The narcissist is the most vulnerable.

0 Replies

Let GM go Bankrupt

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know