GM bailout rant

[malorn]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

Malorn's argument is a variant of the 'too big to fail' mantra. How did that work out for the USSR ? Or every other centralized economy regime except arguably China ?

Sometimes the truth is problematic compared to what we have been conditioned to believe. This is hardly comparable with anything that happened in the USSR. The USSR problems were internal, our main problem is that we have let foreign companies/countries loot this country.

[SageBrush]

Oh yes, how could I forget the foreign boogeyman ?

[malorn]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

Oh yes, how could I forget the foreign boogeyman ?

Call it what you want, the US has exported more than $6,000,000,000,000 since 1985 and millions of corresponding jobs. Those are the facts.

[DanCar]

[JSH]

How many threads is that fake ad in now? I count 3 so far.

[priusuk2008]

Originally Posted by DanCar

This is just so funny and can one say it, incredibly close to the truth Neat. Where's the web link, you know like for movies it would be Bailout the movie ? Whoever designed this has a great sense of humour, thanks for a great laugh.

Oops, sorry. That was a real link to something else to do with the CIA.....

[DanCar]

Some good financial history on GM:
Bloomberg.com: Special Report

...
Since 2005, GM has lost a cumulative $72.4 billion, had its debt downgraded to junk, watched its share of U.S. auto sales shrink by almost 1 million vehicles and shed 90 percent of its market value. It introduced gas-guzzling vehicles as fuel prices rose, failed to slim down its product offerings and dealer networks quickly enough and wasn’t able to cap its labor costs in time to stem the bleeding. In September 2007, the company won the right to hire new workers at lower wages starting in 2010 -- too far down the road to avoid the consequences of a recession and a credit crunch that engulf it now. ...
...
And it dismissed calls for radical restructuring from former board member Jerome York and other critics.

York, 70, a former Chrysler Corp. finance chief, was advising Tracinda Corp. CEO Kirk Kerkorian, who had amassed a 9.9 percent stake in GM. He told analysts in January 2006 that the time had come for the automaker “to go into a crisis mode and act accordingly.” York calculated that GM was burning through cash at a rate of $24 million a day, which meant it had about 1,000 days before it ran out -- in October 2008.
GM ignored York’s advice to reduce its number of models, including getting rid of the Hummer and Saab brands, and to cut both management and labor costs in what he called an “equality of sacrifice.” He resigned nine months later, in October 2006, frustrated by the board’s unwillingness to take action. Only after York left did GM decide to sell Hummer. Now it’s talking about getting rid of Saab and Saturn, as well as Pontiac.
“Three years ago I thought GM had the time and financial resources to save itself,” York, now CEO of Harwinton Capital LLC, said in an interview. “Now I’m not so sure. Who’s responsible? Top management and the board of directors.”

[Rokeby]

DanCar,

Thanks for the Bloomberg cite, I note it has a Dec 12 date.

I read the whole article -- "Thats' one speecy-a spicey-a meat-a ball!"
(Hard to swallow, and guaranteed to cause indigestion/heart burn.)

The bad news is the short extracts in your post are the relative good news.

Every story has two sides, doesn't it?

But how in the the world... ?

I'm struck speechless...

[FL_Prius_Driver]

This section of the Bloomberg article seems to be faulty:

"GM discontinued its one alternative-energy vehicle -- the battery-powered EV1 -- in 2003, after spending more than $1 billion on a car with limited range that flopped with consumers."

Unfortunately, when what looks to be a very good article makes boneheaded statements like than, then you have to wonder what other boneheads might be lurking.

It is a must read other than that section.

[DanCar]

Originally Posted by FL_Prius_Driver

This section of the Bloomberg article seems to be faulty:

"GM discontinued its one alternative-energy vehicle -- the battery-powered EV1 -- in 2003, after spending more than $1 billion on a car with limited range that flopped with consumers."

Unfortunately, when what looks to be a very good article makes boneheaded statements like than, then you have to wonder what other boneheads might be lurking.

It is a must read other than that section.

That info came from GM, so if it is bonehead then its GMs fault.