OT: Wagoner ousted – and two odd hybrid comparisons to kick it off

[RPS]

Did he deserve to get forced out by government? Are you comfortable with the precedence it sets? Is it even precedence at all, or in our best interest?

And in your opinion, have GM “big-picture” auto decisions been generally coherent?

Two articles in the Houston Chronicle in two days last week made me pause to think about these types of issues: What is the true cost of having “extra” power just in case we need it, and how will the principle of diminishing returns affect the viability of future hybrid vehicles and how will it affect their marketing. Have US automakers depended for too long on marketing “standby” performance very few need and probably use a very small percentage of the time, and now with hybrids marketing fuel savings that are not justified based on diminishing marginal returns?

[saab2000]

I am comfortable with it only in the sense that if they want taxpayer money, which they do, then the foxes guarding the chicken coop might need to be different.

I do find it ironic that an industry which for years wanted no government regulation or interference, saying the market can take care of itself, is now begging for handouts.

That said, I am also not sure that the government running GM or telling them how to sell cars or what to sell will be successful either. I want the car makers to succeed. Their leadership didn't. But the gov't won't make them successful businesses either. Hopefully the programs to help them still allow them some autonomy to run it alone later on.

[Sandy]

I am not comfortable with it. I wonder if the ouster will actually have any impact in the events that will unfold relative to GM. What I don't like is the continual direct intervention of the new administration into areas once left more up to individual and business decisions/interactions. Ultimately, we are headed towards the Government making more and more personal decisions for you, giving the Government greater control and the individual less. That is scarey to me for multiple reasons. I clearly understand the extreme importance of GM and solutions to its problems are difficult.


Sandy

[RPS]

Engineers know that smaller engines are generally more efficient, and they save initial cost also. Have you guys noticed the new ads by Toyota for the 4-cylinder Venza? With “uncompromising power”? Why only now are they offering smaller engine choices on some models, and marketing to the uninformed public that smaller engines save fuel instead of large V-8s which emphasize inefficient power (and that's from Toyota, not the US automakers who have been on a greater power trip for so long)?

As an example, The Chronicle last week reviewed the 2009 Toyota Highlander which is now offered with a new fuel-efficient larger four cylinder – a conventional powertrain. The same SUV is also offered with a powerful conventional V-6 and also with a gas/electric hybrid powertrain.

MPG for city/highway/combined:
V-6 18/24/20
I-4 20/27/22
Hybrid 27/25/26

No doubt hybrids shine in city stop-and-go traffic, but on the highway or when traveling at steady state, a smaller-engine vehicle can do as good as or better than a hybrid provided we are willing to sacrifice extra power for acceleration and climbing. And is that that big a deal? Does anyone “need” to get to 60 MPH in 6 seconds? It’s not like we’d have to sacrifice much in this case with the I-4 Highlander because with 187 HP (more than my V8 Mustang) it should get us to the grocery store or bike race without much delay. :rolleyes:

[Birddog]

That said, I am also not sure that the government running GM or telling them how to sell cars or what to sell will be successful either.
For comparison, the US Post Office is out of money and is in the process of layoffs. I think their average hourly wage paid and "legacy payments" might be factors too.

Birddog

[sg8357]

What I don't like is the continual direct intervention of the new administration into areas once left more up to individual and business decisions/interactions. Sandy

The "Free Market" in the US is heavily manipulated by our immense
tax code. Everybody wants a tax break for some d*mm thing or another,
meaning market forces are being thwarted or diverted. Think of it market
central planning done by the businesses.

Aside, the "Socialist" Swedes are letting Saab fail, no bailout for them,
after GM dropped Saab.

Scott G.
"To get rich is Glorious" Chairman Deng XiaoPing

[rwsaunders]

I don't think that we want the same clowns that run the DMV to run a for-profit corporation. But if you're taking a handout from Uncle Sam, anything goes including the CEO. Maybe Wagoner will get an ambassador appointment if he donated enough money during the election. Either way, I'm sure he won't be in the unemployment line.

The old RTC model works when the government takes a position on an entity that is failing. Appoint an outside management team, isolate that bad debt, write it down over time and sell off the assets to the highest bidder. The problem is, it's too tempting to "steer" the assets to your political friends, regardless of who is in the White House.

[93legendti]

After this:

If you take a Gov't student loan, Pres. Obama will tell you what you have to major in;
If you take a tax deduction for your mortgage, Pres. Obama will tell you how to run your home;
If you want to donate to charity, Pres. Obama will tell you which charities to donate to;

Where does it end? Ask the people of Venezuela.


Too bad the Pres. and Sec. Geitner aren't friends with Rick W. as they are with the AIG people.

Pres. Obama would not DARE to "fire" the head of the UAW...it would alienate too many union workers.

Capitalism is dead.

I am not comfortable with it. I wonder if the ouster will actually have any impact in the events that will unfold relative to GM. What I don't like is the continual direct intervention of the new administration into areas once left more up to individual and business decisions/interactions. Ultimately, we are headed towards the Government making more and more personal decisions for you, giving the Government greater control and the individual less. That is scarey to me for multiple reasons. I clearly understand the extreme importance of GM and solutions to its problems are difficult.


Sandy

[sjbraun]

"What I don't like is the continual direct intervention of the new administration into areas once left more up to individual and business decisions/interactions. Ultimately, we are headed towards the Government making more and more personal decisions for you, giving the Government greater control and the individual less."

While I understand your concern regarding increased government involvement in personal decisions, I disagree that the government's involvement in GM represents an intrusion of governmental control into anyone's persoal life. GM frakked things up so badly that no private sector lenders will come to their aid. It's GM that has asked for assistance. If the government is going to help them (ie give them lots of money,) then they should be able to dictate (or at least influence) conditions for that assistance.

This is not the government telling citizens they have to eat an apple every day or can't consume transfats or can't smoke in their own homes. This is more like a lender setting down conditions for a loan.

If GM doesn't like the terms, they can say "No thanks" and walk away. It's teir choice.

Steve

[RPS]

The GM Volt is technically innovative and fuel efficient – not unlike a Dreamliner – but I can’t justify one of those either. :rolleyes:

The Chronicle also ran an AP article on Honda’s and Toyota’s price war over the new Insight and 3rd generation Prius. It’s great that we should all benefit from the competition, but doesn’t it raise a question on how these vehicles will be marketed against each other in light of the diminishing marginal savings because of their own achieved high fuel efficiency?

For instance, the new Prius is rated at 50 MPG combined, and the Insight at “only” 41 MPG. Given those numbers, for a typical driver that travels about 12,000 miles a year, the difference between these two misers is only about 60 gallons of fuel a year; which doesn’t in itself justify the +/- $3,000 price difference between the two (mostly due to the Prius’ greater complexity). Maybe this diminishing return on fuel savings is why Insights are selling much faster than anticipated in Japan. Will Toyota emphasize Prius as bigger and more luxurious in their marketing, or will MPG-driven buyers go for the biggest available number regardless of marginal cost? Or will it force Toyota to develop cheaper hybrids to compete (as indicated in the article) on an equal basis?

And where does that leave the GM Volt? :confused: There is no way – even as a plug-in – that it can save enough gas over either of these two to pay for the anticipated incremental cost. Even at $4 a gallon and if the Volt used “zero” fuel or electricity, it would be impossible to justify compared to a Prius or Insight based on total cost. Is the Volt effectively DOA, or will enough people buy it anyway if marketed against high-cost hybrids like Lexus?

[johnnymossville]

Maybe there's a job in DC for Rick.

I tend to agree with Saab2000 on this one. Once GM whored itself out to the government it was all over for them, actually long before that, but that's a whole other story. This will be the first in a series of largely symbolic and expensive yet stupid moves the government will make until GM is eventually owned by the Chinese so they can lend us some more money.

Goodbye GM, it was nice knowing you.

[saab2000]

Capitalism is dead.


It's not dead. It's just getting a bailout. :D

[goonster]

Did he deserve to get forced out by government? QUOTE]

He's been COO since '98 and CEO since 2000. Look at the shape GM is in, and the vehicles they've focused on since that time. He deserves to go.

[QUOTE=RPS]And in your opinion, have GM “big-picture” auto decisions been generally coherent?

No.

Exhibit A: Saturn.

Exhibit B: GM builds Cadillacs in Sweden. :confused:

and now with hybrids marketing fuel savings that are not justified based on diminishing marginal returns?

Hybrids make sense if you spend a lot of time stuck in traffic, and if you spend that much time stuck in traffic you shouldn't be driving at all (admittedly, public transit options may not exist in the U.S.)

Last week at the diner I saw an Escalade with huge "hybrid" badging and "H Y B R I D" lettering down the side. MSRP $72k. 332 hp/367 ft.lb. 20/20 mpg. Does not compute for me. :confused:

[saab2000]

The Cadillacs made in Sweden are Euro-market-only cars.

[RPS]

Last week at the diner I saw an Escalade with huge "hybrid" badging and "H Y B R I D" lettering down the side. MSRP $72k. 332 hp/367 ft.lb. 20/20 mpg. Does not compute for me. :confused:Exactly. Technical and marketing implications of how the auto industry will unfold interest me more than the politics -- although I like that too. I hope others share my interest in these areas also.

I want to understand why we the American people make decisions that seem to make little sense; and then complain about the consequences when what should have been obvious comes true. :confused:

[goonster]

The Cadillacs made in Sweden are Euro-market-only cars.

I know. As are the Chryslers and Jeeps made in Austria. At least those sell. I've never seen a Cadillac in Europe. Not a Euro-market-only one, anyway. ;)

[saab2000]

I know. As are the Chryslers and Jeeps made in Austria. At least those sell. I've never seen a Cadillac in Europe. Not a Euro-market-only one, anyway. ;)

My ex-wife owns an Opel dealership in Switzerland. They used to sell a handful of US-made cars there in addition to the Opels.

I have not seen one of the Swedish Cadillacs yet either. FWIW, there are Daewoos sold in Europe under the Chevrolet brand name.

And Opels sold in the US as Saturns. It's an odd game.

[johnnymossville]

...I want to understand why we the American people make decisions that seem to make little sense; and then complain about the consequences when what should have been obvious comes true. :confused:

I think it has a lot to do with good intentions run amok. It's like liberalism itself. yeah, it looks nice and all on paper, but in the real world it never works and everyone knows it. "Maybe it'll work this time? Doh! nope,.... Maybe this time,... Doh! nope, try again..."

:banana:

[TimD]

The company has lost $80 billion over the past 10 years and someone thinks it doesn't need a management change?

[Sandy]

"What I don't like is the continual direct intervention of the new administration into areas once left more up to individual and business decisions/interactions. Ultimately, we are headed towards the Government making more and more personal decisions for you, giving the Government greater control and the individual less."

While I understand your concern regarding increased government involvement in personal decisions, I disagree that the government's involvement in GM represents an intrusion of governmental control into anyone's persoal life. GM frakked things up so badly that no private sector lenders will come to their aid. It's GM that has asked for assistance. If the government is going to help them (ie give them lots of money,) then they should be able to dictate (or at least influence) conditions for that assistance.

This is not the government telling citizens they have to eat an apple every day or can't consume transfats or can't smoke in their own homes. This is more like a lender setting down conditions for a loan.

If GM doesn't like the terms, they can say "No thanks" and walk away. It's teir choice.

Steve

I understand your perspective and it clearly is reasonable that if one asks for assistance than certain criteria must be met in order for the help to be given. But there must be a balance. The decision to ouster the CEO of GM is one that would normally be done by a Board of Directors or from pressure from shareholders. But in this instance, the Government is, in essence, firing him. It is a direct intrusion into the normalcy of business/corporation operations/decisions. One more step in Governmental control. One might say that we need bold and creative moves by the Government to solve GM and the economy woes. That may be the case. But when it is all said and done, I am genuinely afraid of where we will be as a country and how much individual choice we will have left.

We need change, but let's not lose too much when the change is done.I am not as bold or direct as 93legendti on the issues, but agree with his concerns.

Will basically firing the CEO of GM really make any significant difference in what happens with GM?


Sandy

[93legendti]

In Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and Venezuela, the gov't would make this decision.

Now it is made in America.

If Pres. Bush was still President, this would be call fascism. Instead, this is called "change you can believe in".

[Volant]

The company has lost $80 billion over the past 10 years and someone thinks it doesn't need a management change?

Any company that is run like that shouldn't exist. Why should taxpayers prop it up? This situation is what our bankruptcy process is designed for. They should file for bankruptcy and move on with it already - rather than shoveling more bail-out dollars at it. One real issue for all car makers is that they can't turn on a dime and their hands are tied down in many areas. But, GM has had years to right-the-ship.

I just wish they'd devise a way to eliminate the whole sales/dealership process. Talk about waste in the system (to me; others may have a need for it).

[Big Dan]

Adios, supply side economics..................

:rolleyes:

[Pete Serotta]

If you worked for your own firm and it had not made a dime since 2004, do you think you should still be a manager. Or take it closer to home, if you have not provided a "positive" to the bottom line since 04, would you be secure in your job.

I do not have an answer nor even enough information to provide a few valid/executable answers.

He was not leading the company anywhere in the past 5 years. Yeah you can blame the unions, the economy, etc....BUT that was his to manage, anticipate, mitigate> His plan was to break even in 2011, if the market rose to 14 million cars, and if GM did not lose market share above what they have lost. Not exactly a world class leader.

Nardelli is not any better, just that he has been in the job less time. He took HOME DEPOT to nowhere but focusing just on cost cuttig and not service or value to the customer(and he got a VERY big payday)

in fact when you take a guy like LUTZ who is a car guy, and has been able to make minimal value add to GM, (Australian GTO and G8, as well as OPEN SATURN) GM is not exactly going to win the day). GM will not be an easy fix NO MATTER who is managing. New thinking is required and GM, as well as MOST major corporations, are short on that and leadership. (Boy would I like to be wrong)

From what I hear of the VOLT, is a good product but is going to be priced at 40K....Definitely not going to sell enough units to affect the bottom line.

[93legendti]

If you worked for your own firm and it had not made a dime since 2004, do you think you should still be a manager. Or take it closer to home, if you have not provided a "positive" to the bottom line since 04, would you be secure in your job.

I do not have an answer nor even enough information to provide a few valid/executable answers.

He was not leading the company anywhere in the past 5 years. Yeah you can blame the unions, the economy, etc....BUT that was his to manage, anticipate, mitigate> His plan was to break even in 2011, if the market rose to 14 million cars, and if GM did not lose market share above what they have lost. Not exactly a world class leader.

Nardelli is not any better, just that he has been in the job less time. He took HOME DEPOT to nowhere but focusing just on cost cuttig and not service or value to the customer(and he got a VERY big payday)

in fact when you take a guy like LUTZ who is a car guy, and has been able to make minimal value add to GM, (Australian GTO and G8, as well as OPEN SATURN) GM is not exactly going to win the day). GM will not be an easy fix NO MATTER who is managing. New thinking is required and GM, as well as MOST major corporations, are short on that and leadership. (Boy would I like to be wrong)

From what I hear of the VOLT, is a good product but is going to be priced at 40K....Definitely not going to sell enough units to affect the bottom line.
The question isn't if he deserved to be fired. The question is who makes that decision?

Sec. Geitner wants the power to step in and take over companies. Is this the power we want our government to have?

[Sandy]

Any company that is run like that shouldn't exist. Why should taxpayers prop it up? This situation is what our bankruptcy process is designed for. They should file for bankruptcy and move on with it already - rather than shoveling more bail-out dollars at it. One real issue for all car makers is that they can't turn on a dime and their hands are tied down in many areas. But, GM has had years to right-the-ship.

I just wish they'd devise a way to eliminate the whole sales/dealership process. Talk about waste in the system (to me; others may have a need for it).

At this point, perhaps bankruptcy is the way to go. In order to survive this economic environment, won't GM need significant changes other than the ouster of the CEO? What about the union contracts and healthcare costs that simply make it impossible for GM to compete? Won't there need to be concessions by more than the company management for GM to stay a viable entity? GM has recently built significantly better cars and has finally started to develop/build cars which meet the needs of today. But far too few are being sold. Sales for almost all, if not all, car manufacturers are remarkably lower than in recent years.


Saturn Sandy

[DreaminJohn]

I'm a subscriber of the "Can you name one thing the government does well?" theory of intervention. Whether it's business, health care, or education.

[saab2000]

Sec. Geitner wants the power to step in and take over companies. Is this the power we want our government to have?

Not really. But if companies are asking for bailouts I think that the failed managements need to be asked to step aside.

I am not really interested in giving my tax dollars to a company that has a proven record of losing money. Seems like sending good money after bad.

Maybe they should just be allowed to die (the companies that is).

But what's scarier? A US with no automakers? Or a US with gov't assisted/gov't run companies. (93legentti's comments about Venezuela are not lost upon me. There are parallels, even if Pres. Obama doesn't seem to have the hatred and bitterness in him that Chavez has.)

A rhetorical question. I don't know the answer. Both are frightening possibilities.

[avalonracing]

If Pres. Bush was still President....

He'd be out riding his mountain bike or clearing brush on his dirt ranch.

[93legendti]

Not really. But if companies are asking for bailouts I think that the failed managements need to be asked to step aside.

I am not really interested in giving my tax dollars to a company that has a proven record of losing money. Seems like sending good money after bad.

Maybe they should just be allowed to die (the companies that is).

But what's scarier? A US with no automakers? Or a US with gov't assisted/gov't run companies. (93legentti's comments about Venezuela are not lost upon me. There are parallels, even if Pres. Obama doesn't seem to have the hatred and bitterness in him that Chavez has.)

A rhetorical question. I don't know the answer. Both are frightening possibilities.
See we agree on something else. :)
We will never know, but my guess is the gov't did not step in, the car companies would not disappear.

[R2D2]

[
No.

Exhibit A: Saturn.

Exhibit B: GM builds Cadillacs in Sweden. :confused:



They are planning to dump Saturn.

[abqhudson]

With the government bureaucrats and the unions running the American auto companies, we'll have Yugos to buy and we won't be able to afford them. Insanity! With the government running the health care system, we'll have health care like the Indians have. Our educational system has failed.
For those of you into political correctness, that's how I really feel.

[goonster]

They are planning to dump Saturn.

I know. For shame.

The exhibit was to illustrate that GM's strategies over the last twenty years have not been coherent. GM invested $$$ to start Saturn, but then failed to consolidate the market share by developing new models, because they were too busy raking in truck profits. Doh!

[93legendti]

He'd be out riding his mountain bike or clearing brush on his dirt ranch.
Sounds better than bowling.

[goonster]

Sounds better than bowling.

No, it doesn't. :no:

http://images.marketworks.com/hi/50/49711/AHFramedgl20034.jpg

[RPS]

He'd be out riding his mountain bike or clearing brush on his dirt ranch.That would be a better solution in my mind. I’ve thought all along that the government should have allowed the automakers to go through bankruptcy if necessary. Had he done nothing at all (except maybe arrange funding for reorganization), I think we’d be better off for it.

[zap]

I understand your perspective and it clearly is reasonable that if one asks for assistance than certain criteria must be met in order for the help to be given. But there must be a balance. The decision to ouster the CEO of GM is one that would normally be done by a Board of Directors or from pressure from shareholders. But in this instance, the Government is, in essence, firing him. It is a direct intrusion into the normalcy of business/corporation operations/decisions. One more step in Governmental control. One might say that we need bold and creative moves by the Government to solve GM and the economy woes. That may be the case. But when it is all said and done, I am genuinely afraid of where we will be as a country and how much individual choice we will have left.

We need change, but let's not lose too much when the change is done.I am not as bold or direct as 93legendti on the issues, but agree with his concerns.

Will basically firing the CEO of GM really make any significant difference in what happens with GM?


Sandy


Snappy sound sandy.

Well put.

[cloudguy]

Its so interesting to see the differences between liberals and conservatives. To be honest, I'm not all that bothered by this, given the circumstances, and I expect GM would be allowed to fail if we didn't have so many other problems to deal with: consider the ramifications of the increased unemployment, including all the workers for auto-parts supply companies.

On the other hand, I was driven with rage to find out the US had tortured prisoners in the name of freedom under the Bush regime. I knew that torture could easily happen in IRAN, IRAQ, PAKISTAN, RUSSIA, and VENEZUELA, but I never thought it would be done by the US, at least in this day and age.

[RPS]

Obama emphasized in his speech a few minutes ago that the auto workers are not responsible in any way; that all fault lies with Washington and Detroit management. :confused:

IMHO legacy costs are higher and have made it harder for US firms to compete with foreigners. And in that area, all three entities – government, Detroit management, and labor – are all involved. Now tax payers too. :rolleyes: I don’t see how he can blame only previous DC and Detroit management for problems that have been coming for decades.

Additionally, by government taking over GM, he plans to build more fuel efficient cars. Not that that is a bad idea as I stated previously, but should that be Washington’s role as GM managers? Not IMO.

[dancinkozmo]

Engineers know that smaller engines are generally more efficient, and they save initial cost also. Have you guys noticed the new ads by Toyota for the 4-cylinder Venza? With “uncompromising power”? Why only now are they offering smaller engine choices on some models, and marketing to the uninformed public that smaller engines save fuel instead of large V-8s which emphasize inefficient power (and that's from Toyota, not the US automakers who have been on a greater power trip for so long)?

As an example, The Chronicle last week reviewed the 2009 Toyota Highlander which is now offered with a new fuel-efficient larger four cylinder – a conventional powertrain. The same SUV is also offered with a powerful conventional V-6 and also with a gas/electric hybrid powertrain.

MPG for city/highway/combined:
V-6 18/24/20
I-4 20/27/22
Hybrid 27/25/26

No doubt hybrids shine in city stop-and-go traffic, but on the highway or when traveling at steady state, a smaller-engine vehicle can do as good as or better than a hybrid provided we are willing to sacrifice extra power for acceleration and climbing. And is that that big a deal? Does anyone “need” to get to 60 MPH in 6 seconds? It’s not like we’d have to sacrifice much in this case with the I-4 Highlander because with 187 HP (more than my V8 Mustang) it should get us to the grocery store or bike race without much delay. :rolleyes:

i think fuel economy of an engine is more dependent on displacement than no. of cylinders.

[RPS]

i think fuel economy of an engine is more dependent on displacement than no. of cylinders.Sure. Actually depends a little on no. of cylinders also but to a lesser degree; and a lot on load. For fear of being too wordy, I assumed we all agree that "most" 4 cylinders like in my Ranger and CR-V are smaller and therefore more fuel efficient than my V-10. ;)

What I'd like to know is why do Europeans, Asians, and South Americans offer large vans like mine with small 4-cylinder engines and in the US the choices are V-10 or slightly smaller V-8?

[goonster]

What I'd like to know is why do Europeans, Asians, and South Americans offer large vans like mine with small 4-cylinder engines and in the US the choices are V-10 or slightly smaller V-8?

1. Cost of fuel

2. Many European countries have vehicle taxes* based on engine displacement.

* = Those would be monthly taxes, not one-time-at-purchase taxes.

[Steevo]

I don't like having government dictate to private industry, however one has to wonder what the goverment demanded of the Ford Motor Co. this week. Seems to me to price of our bailout $$$ is government intervention. Its obvious that a change in management was needed - unfortunately this wasn't obvious to the GM Board of Directors.

[Tobias]

I don't like having government dictate to private industry, however one has to wonder what the goverment demanded of the Ford Motor Co. this week. Seems to me to price of our bailout $$$ is government intervention. Its obvious that a change in management was needed - unfortunately this wasn't obvious to the GM Board of Directors.Some think Wagoner was one of the best CEOs GM has ever had. He was dealt a bad hand for sure, but that doesn't mean he's done a bad job or that another could have done better. In any case it wasn't government's job to fire him. That's crazy, and another reason why we should not have gotten involved at all.

[CNY rider]

In Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and Venezuela, the gov't would make this decision.

Now it is made in America.

If Pres. Bush was still President, this would be call fascism. Instead, this is called "change you can believe in".

Now in the interest of fairness.......

GM should have made a bankruptcy filing last fall, but some nitwits decided to bail them out with our tax dollars.
Remember who was head nitwit last fall?

[Tobias]

We could learn from cycling on this and realize that few cyclists would use their “fast” race bike to run errands around town. If riding to the local hardware store on sidewalks or trails, are you not more likely to ride a different bike? Fast or fastest doesn’t mean most practical or the right tool for the job.

I’d like to see us as a nation separate automotives “as a fun sport” based on speed that usually means inefficiency from automotives as “efficient transportation”.

I see no reason why a minivan for hauling kids to school needs 250 HP – more power than some Corvettes and Mustangs of the past. I don’t get it. Is anyone going to drive fast with a bunch of kids in the car, or going to impress our girlfriend in a minivan? It’s a joke – marketing-based delusion.

We’d be better off having cars that get us from point A to point B efficiently, and then have a fast toy like the Wrightspeed X1 open wheel motorcycle-like for the few days we want to get out and let it rip. At least we wouldn’t be wasteful all the time.

BTW: The X1 is an electric rocket. Cool but too expensive for me. I’d take mine with a motorcycle engine; or maybe one with a micro fuel-efficient engine.

[palincss]

After this:

If you take a Gov't student loan, Pres. Obama will tell you what you have to major in;
If you take a tax deduction for your mortgage, Pres. Obama will tell you how to run your home;
If you want to donate to charity, Pres. Obama will tell you which charities to donate to;




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria

[R2D2]

Gas engines are dead.
Turbo diesel rules and the US is way behind the curve on this.
Our big advances are to put a hybrid sticker and a green leaf on a SUV.

[csm]

The company has lost $80 billion over the past 10 years and someone thinks it doesn't need a management change?

perhaps we should apply this thought process to the senate and the house of representatives.
given the public outcry for "heads on a stick" with any corporation receiving tarp or bailout funds we should be asking for someone from the UAW to sacrifice one of their own.
GM was certainly rife with issues and problems but they were building some interesting cars. one problem that I see is redundancy among the brands. they use the same platforms with very minor changes acrossed the entire family line.
Cadillac in Europe? I think the CTS is sold over there. it did very well in Le Mans a few years back as did the Corvette.
the auto industry is a global concern; Mazda sells Fords, GM sells Opels, etc.
throwing money at the situation is certainly not gonna get it done. it's just prolonging the agony.

[RPS]

BTW: The X1 is an electric rocket. Cool but too expensive for me. I’d take mine with a motorcycle engine; or maybe one with a micro fuel-efficient engine.I saw that yesterday. Reminds me of a cross between an ATV, dune buggy, and formula car. Interesting none is street legal for different reasons. It’s even more minimalist than a Lotus 7.

I recall a company trying to market a four-wheel motorcycle but it couldn’t get it approved for safety reasons. It’s OK to ride a motorcycle, but put extra wheels on it and suddenly it’s not acceptable.

[93legendti]

Now in the interest of fairness.......

GM should have made a bankruptcy filing last fall, but some nitwits decided to bail them out with our tax dollars.
Remember who was head nitwit last fall?
I was against it in the fall.

Who was in control of Congress at the time? Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi. Head nitwits.

[1centaur]

It is certainly not the RIGHT of government to oust a CEO of a company that has been bailed out, but it is an option for any lender to ask. What would such a lender have to gain from changing a CEO? Greater assurance that more value would be created and thus that the loan would be paid back than with the current CEO (it has nothing to do with history, only the future). Is that the case here? Probably not. Arguably, GM does not need a real CEO for now if its future value will be decided by politicians. So if the government is no more likely to get its money back on these loans, why did they ask the CEO to resign? Appearances, ego, symbolism? This is where the discomfort comes in. One of the great problems with political decisions is that they often focus on appearances of the shallowest sort at the expense of all else. In doing so they trouble people looking at subtler, longer-term consequences that are difficult to convey to marginal observers in sound bites. This is how the ball gets moved in modern politics - via incremental impressions. "Don't know where you're heading there Socrates, but we're up against a break so what one thing would you leave our viewers with?"

Looks like they booted him because they could, maybe because labor would enjoy the symbolism, maybe because America was supposed to see that the administration is serious about stuff in the wake of all the misimpressions surrounding AIG. The rationale was probably that the turnaround plan was not good enough and it was done entirely on his watch. His board could have told the government to take a hike, but they would have been seen again in bankruptcy as the only lender with sufficient size to get things done. Post bankruptcy, the new equity holders (ex-lenders) would pick someone new anyway. So, the writing was on the wall and why not get out of the way and start enjoying life a little more? Win-win.

As for the incremental economics of fuel-efficient vehicles, well, look for gas prices to go up a lot and for billions to be spent inefficiently on new vehicle power technologies while consumers continue to make rational choices flavored with emotion for the pleasure to be had from comfort and speed. Look for tax incentives to further distort economics in order to achieve a political goal.

[RPS]

Gas engines are dead.
Turbo diesel rules and the US is way behind the curve on this.
Our big advances are to put a hybrid sticker and a green leaf on a SUV.Don't dismiss direct injection gasoline so quickly. It's somewhat like a diesel that runs on gasoline. Cheaper, quieter, and cleaner too.

[93legendti]

Obama emphasized in his speech a few minutes ago that the auto workers are not responsible in any way; that all fault lies with Washington and Detroit management. :confused:

IMHO legacy costs are higher and have made it harder for US firms to compete with foreigners. And in that area, all three entities – government, Detroit management, and labor – are all involved. Now tax payers too. :rolleyes: I don’t see how he can blame only previous DC and Detroit management for problems that have been coming for decades.

Additionally, by government taking over GM, he plans to build more fuel efficient cars. Not that that is a bad idea as I stated previously, but should that be Washington’s role as GM managers? Not IMO.

Take your pick:
1. The UAW supported Pres. Obama.
2. Class warfare sells these days - eat "the rich".
3. ACORN didn't teach Pres. Obama how companies work in our system.

NO WAY would Pres. Obama treat UAW as he has the Big 3 (or AIG). NO WAY.

[R2D2]

Don't dismiss direct injection gasoline so quickly. It's somewhat like a diesel that runs on gasoline. Cheaper, quieter, and cleaner too.

Diesel has been clean for a number of years now.
Half of Europe is on diesel power.
The Audi diesels tore up Lemans.

Diesel is much easier to extract than gasoline. And much cheaper that gas if you subtract road taxes which are high due to the trucks.
Not to mention bio-diesel etc.

[Tobias]

And where does that leave the GM Volt? :confused: There is no way – even as a plug-in – that it can save enough gas over either of these two to pay for the anticipated incremental cost. Even at $4 a gallon and if the Volt used “zero” fuel or electricity, it would be impossible to justify compared to a Prius or Insight based on total cost. Is the Volt effectively DOA, or will enough people buy it anyway if marketed against high-cost hybrids like Lexus?If the incremental cost is in the order of $20,000 over an Insight or Prius, and it can save no more than 300 gallons of fuel a year, then the decision "should" be easy. I don't see how anyone can justify a Volt, and I don't see how GM management did either. It's almost a repeat of the EV-1, a good attempt knowing it won't fly.

[Pete Serotta]

THe King and Queen and how government can make things better :confused:

man too many folks are agreeing here...


I was against it in the fall.

Who was in control of Congress at the time? Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi. Head nitwits.

[Tobias]

Diesel has been clean for a number of years now.
Half of Europe is on diesel power.New exhaust treatment is more expensive than if gasoline. European standard would have not passed here.

[93legendti]

THe King and Queen and how government can make things better :confused:

man too many folks are agreeing here...
1rst Saab and now you agreeing with me? Pass me the Red! I am going to start drinking again!!!:)

[I Want Sachs?]

After this:

If you take a Gov't student loan, Pres. Obama will tell you what you have to major in;
If you take a tax deduction for your mortgage, Pres. Obama will tell you how to run your home;
If you want to donate to charity, Pres. Obama will tell you which charities to donate to;



Is it okay for students to take the student loan to gamble in Vegas?

Is it okay for Michael Vickes to take tax deduction for money losing house for dog fighting?

Is it okay for United Way to invest in druglords in Mexico for a good return on the donations?

GM has option of saying no to loan and doing it the "GM" way. The lender can put restrictions and let the borrower decide whether to take it or leave it.

[R2D2]

New exhaust treatment is more expensive than if gasoline. European standard would have not passed here.

VW TDI does. Audi is re-entering the US market.
We'll just agree on direct injection.
The point is the electric car is a pipe dream until we build more nukes.
Or windmills or whatever.
We'll run out of power on the grid.

[Climb01742]

two words: lehman brothers.

who can say, for sure, whether letting any big company go belly up is better or worse.

[saab2000]

We could learn from cycling on this and realize that few cyclists would use their “fast” race bike to run errands around town. If riding to the local hardware store on sidewalks or trails, are you not more likely to ride a different bike? Fast or fastest doesn’t mean most practical or the right tool for the job.



Because of my situation I have had my car out east since last summer. First in Raleigh, then in Norfolk.

While at home in Michigan I have been doing exactly that! Running errands on the race bike. Sometimes it's the Serotta CIII. Other times on the Look. And still others on the Merckx. Got a big backpack! PITA, but so far, so good!

Just last night I brought the Colorado III out for a trip to the grocery store. Most folks think I'm some A-hole who has a couple of DUIs and no longer has a drivers license! I can just picture the soccer moms and dads telling their kids as they climb into their Suburbans, "Don't drink and drive or you'll have to ride your bike to the grocery store. Like that guy." :banana:

For the record, I have no DUI. Just one car and it's not where my house is for the moment. So the bike has to suffice for errands.

[Richard]

"Most folks think I'm some A-hole who has a couple of DUIs and no longer has a drivers license!"

Why -- do you have your bars rotated upside down? That's the DUI signature bike setup.

[saab2000]

"Most folks think I'm some A-hole who has a couple of DUIs and no longer has a drivers license!"

Why -- do you have your bars rotated upside down? That's the DUI signature bike setup.

Not yet. But it would be easier to ride with a 30 lb backpack full of food. And beer. :beer:

[Pete Serotta]

The ouster of GM's chief executive was long overdue. But will his successor be any better?

The fall of General Motors Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner was unavoidable. There is no way President Obama could hand out more billions to a management with a practically unblemished record of failure.

Yes, it's certainly good news; the Wagoner management was never going to turn around General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ). Never. After all, Wagoner has been chief executive since 2000 and head of North American auto operations six more years before that. His predecessor and mentor, Jack Smith, became chief in 1992. GM lost market share in the U.S. in all but a couple of those years. The losses in Wagoner's last four years topped $80 billion.

Worse, GM seemed adrift in this crisis. Its European operations--and they are key to saving GM--seem to be without serious direction. In the U.S. we hear mostly of program cancellations, and the Vice Chairman Robert Lutz, the only real "car guy" in top management, is giving up and retiring at the end of the year.

But it might be a mistake to cheer Wagoner's leaving, because we don't know if his replacement will be any better. The second in command, the president and chief operating officer, is Fritz Henderson, and he is expected to succeed Wagoner, at least for now. Frankly, it is difficult to see what he did to become president of the once largest automaker in the world. Like Wagoner, he is a fairly colorless financial officer. But it's unfair to knock him before he's had a chance to do something.

What GM needs in this crisis, of course, is a spirited leader, a fighter, who can speak to the American people and convince us that GM is coming back. He's got to have a feel for the business, for the product, for the car buyer, and not just for the balance sheet. And he's got to be willing to wave the flag too in these desperate times. We're talking about the likes of Lee Iacocca, who brought Chrysler back, and George Romney, who saved American Motors. Finance men can be heroes too: Sergio Marchionne, who is leading the recovery of Fiat (nyse: FIA - news - people ), is a good example.

Rick Wagoner had some successes. The 0% financing offers after Sept. 11 might have kept the country out of a recession. He always pushed China. And hiring Robert Lutz, the retired president of Chrysler, to lead a GM product renaissance was an excellent move, although it showed how weak GM had become in products, so weak it needed an outsider to fix its cars.

But these strokes are overshadowed by the constant failures. Wagoner took over as chief of North American auto operations back in 1994. He was given the job by Jack Smith, although Wagoner knew nothing about the American auto business. He had been chief financial officer. At that time GM's U.S market share was 33%. The last month counted, February, the share was 18% and sinking.

And GM under Wagoner missed trend after trend: GM was late into crossovers, meaning sport utility vehicles built on car platforms, which are big thing now. GM was late into small SUVs, like Ford Motor's (nyse: F - news - people ) Escape or Honda's (nyse: HMC - news - people ) CR-V. GM was not only late in hybrids--it doesn't seem to understand that the lure is high miles per gallon, 40 to 50 miles per gallon. It's bringing out a Camaro now, years after Ford redid its Mustang and after Chrysler redid its Dodge Challenger. If anything represents GM vehicles under Wagoner, it might be the failed Pontiac Aztek, which was considered the ugliest American vehicle in modern days.

[RPS]

Not yet. But it would be easier to ride with a 30 lb backpack full of food. And beer. :beer:In the past when I've tried riding a race bike with a backpack it kept rolling off to one side or the other (mine didn't have a strap around the chest). That was a PITA.

I think Tobias' point is valid. If those of us who like to drive fast sometimes had a dedicated go-fast vehicle to get it out of our system and then drove around most of the time in a sensible car we could save a lot of fuel. A simple version of a Lotus 7 or Elise (much like a motorcycle) for fast days complemented by something like a Honda Fit for practicality.

[goonster]

The ouster of GM's chief executive was long overdue. But will his successor be any better?

This article seems like a pretty fair assessment. I don't see Wagoner as a villain, but he was not going to be GM's saviour.

I understand that very smart people worked on the Aztek, and that the project was started with the best intentions. However, any organization that could ultimately bring that thing to market was always going to be in trouble.

[Pete Serotta]

thing[/I] to market was always going to be in trouble.

and they spend real $$s on it... :confused:

[Climb01742]

my god, what commie pinko hate-america on please make us socialist rag would call for wagoner to be ousted...oh, forbes. :beer: :p :D :banana:

[93legendti]

my god, what commie pinko hate-america on please make us socialist rag would call for wagoner to be ousted...oh, forbes. :beer: :p :D :banana:
Jim, did you hear Geitner yesterday?
"...when we come out of this, people will care less about what they make and more about what they do..."

[Chief]

Bankrupt!

[RPS]

Bankrupt!I hope that adage doesn’t hold true any longer.

OTOH we are not far behind, are we?

[rwsaunders]

Hey, if it weren't for Chrysler, there would have been no Murphmobile in Wayne's World.

[Tobias]

"As GM goes, so goes the Nation."

Bankrupt!Similarities between the problems GM and the US face are profound; and daunting.

Unaffordable and unsustainable legacy costs mirror social security, health care that of Medicare, and job banks unemployment benefits. All these are great ideas and worthwhile, but when they make a Company or a Nation uncompetitive to the point of not making a profit, then there is only bankruptcy left.

Those who think we as a nation are above failure are taking a huge gamble with our future. Once we find ourselves in GM’s position with the Chinese, Indians, and others in control of world economies we’ll know how GM felt about having to compete with Toyota and Honda from a position of economic disadvantage.

[Tobias]

Hey, if it weren't for Chrysler, there would have been no Murphmobile in Wayne's World.AMC went bankrupt after all; as should have Chrysler. Maybe then we'd have a stronger auto industry today.

[Pete Serotta]

Another reason to invest for the long term in our people, innovation, leading technologies, etc....Education is key for our young and also investment by corporations - without the max focus on quarterly profits...Yeah I am in dream land! :)


Similarities between the problems GM and the US face are profound; and daunting.

Unaffordable and unsustainable legacy costs mirror social security, health care that of Medicare, and job banks unemployment benefits. All these are great ideas and worthwhile, but when they make a Company or a Nation uncompetitive to the point of not making a profit, then there is only bankruptcy left.

Those who think we as a nation are above failure are taking a huge gamble with our future. Once we find ourselves in GM’s position with the Chinese, Indians, and others in control of world economies we’ll know how GM felt about having to compete with Toyota and Honda from a position of economic disadvantage.

[MilanoTom]

Take your pick:
1. The UAW supported Pres. Obama.
2. Class warfare sells these days - eat "the rich".
3. ACORN didn't teach Pres. Obama how companies work in our system.

NO WAY would Pres. Obama treat UAW as he has the Big 3 (or AIG). NO WAY.

Class warfare sells because it might be somewhat justified, at least in corporate settings. The pay gap between executives and the rank-and-file continued to widen over the last several years, and those same executives didn't hesitate to cut jobs or ship them overseas as cost-cutting measures (which usually resulted in higher stock prices and increased value of those same executives' stock options). How's somebody who's not on the corporate gravy train supposed to feel? Like unworthy wretches who deserve their fate?

I recognize that the AIG bonus situation was overblown. The fact remains, however, that's mighty tough to explain to a laid-off worker (who didn't do a damn thing to deserve his or her plight) to understand why a CEO who is forced to resign based on corporate performance (e.g. Nardelli at Home Depot) should end up with a severance package worth more than that worker could make in five or ten lifetimes (that is, if the worker could find a job).

Maybe the problem isn't that Obama was not properly taught how "companies work in our system," but rather that the people running them could give a rat's a** about whether those companies succeed in the long term, as long as in the short term, the pockets of a select few are sufficiently lined. Even though this nation's opportunities made it possible for them to achieve their success, they couldn't care less if the United States goes down the tubes. They've made their money, and they'll just sail their yachts to another port of call.

Regards,
Tom

[Ray]

Those who think we as a nation are above failure are taking a huge gamble with our future.
Who believes that?

I think most of the important players on both sides of the issue understand that we're taking a huge gamble with our future no matter how we address the current set of circumstances. There's plenty of legitimate disagreement between those who feel government must stay out of it and those who feel that government has to step in. I think most see it as a pretty big gamble either way. Most economists seem to think doing nothing is a significantly bigger gamble than taking the action we're taking (or something like it - plenty of debate over the details), but I don't get the impression from interviews that most of them are certain - on either side of the issue.

I'm far from certain and just hope the prevailing wisdom is right - sometimes it is, sometimes its not. You seem pretty certain and I envy you that to an extent, but I don't think that necessarily makes you right. :cool:

-Ray

[palincss]

Hey, if it weren't for Chrysler, there would have been no Murphmobile in Wayne's World.

That photo is of an AMC (American Motors Corp, descendent of Nash and Hudson) Pacer, not a Chrysler product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Motors

[93legendti]

Class warfare sells because it might be somewhat justified, at least in corporate settings. The pay gap between executives and the rank-and-file continued to widen over the last several years, and those same executives didn't hesitate to cut jobs or ship them overseas as cost-cutting measures (which usually resulted in higher stock prices and increased value of those same executives' stock options). How's somebody who's not on the corporate gravy train supposed to feel? Like unworthy wretches who deserve their fate?

I recognize that the AIG bonus situation was overblown. The fact remains, however, that's mighty tough to explain to a laid-off worker (who didn't do a damn thing to deserve his or her plight) to understand why a CEO who is forced to resign based on corporate performance (e.g. Nardelli at Home Depot) should end up with a severance package worth more than that worker could make in five or ten lifetimes (that is, if the worker could find a job).

Maybe the problem isn't that Obama was not properly taught how "companies work in our system," but rather that the people running them could give a rat's a** about whether those companies succeed in the long term, as long as in the short term, the pockets of a select few are sufficiently lined. Even though this nation's opportunities made it possible for them to achieve their success, they couldn't care less if the United States goes down the tubes. They've made their money, and they'll just sail their yachts to another port of call.

Regards,
Tom
You realize UAW members make an average $30 more per hour than foreign auto makers' workers, yes? At $70/hour, UAW's rank and file pay, along with the legacy costs, drove the Big 3 into the ground. The only entity which didn't care about the company's success is the UAW.

Pres. Obama would never treat AIG or UAW the way he treated GM. For that matter, Congress' treatment of the BIG 3 compared to AIG and UAW is a disgrace.

[Richard]

"...UAW members make an average $30 more per hour than foreign auto makers' workers..."

This may be true when comparing Koreans with UAW, but it is far from true when comparing UAW with the US operations of foreign manufacturers. The comparison is closer to a couple of dollars in operations and a rather significant difference when the fringe benefits of retirees is figured. This is, in large part, due to the fact that US operations of foreign manufacturers haven't been around long enough to incur and accrue these costs as have the domestics. It is incorrect to foist all blame on labor. Decisions about product mix are at least as responsible, if not more so, for the issues surrounding the failure of the companies.

Somewhere in this forum, I posted a chart demonstrating just that. As you are very good at searching out posts of others, I suggest you look for that post. I am, admittedly, too lazy and not interested enough to search.

[93legendti]

"...UAW members make an average $30 more per hour than foreign auto makers' workers..."

...It is incorrect to foist all blame on labor. Decisions about product mix are at least as responsible, if not more so, for the issues surrounding the failure of the companies...

Fair point.
Product mix played a role.

[giordana93]

You realize UAW members make an average $30 more per hour than foreign auto makers' workers, yes? At $70/hour, UAW's rank and file pay, along with the legacy costs, drove the Big 3 into the ground. The only entity which didn't care about the company's success is the UAW.


someone do the math for me b/c I'm too lazy right now. How many UAW workers earning $70 an hour (assuming this number is accurate, and not inclusive of other employer costs) add up to Wagoner's 14.9 million per annum? and how many of you would be willing to sign up for the uaw workers "cushy" jobs?

[1centaur]

Most economists seem to think doing nothing is a significantly bigger gamble than taking the action we're taking (or something like it - plenty of debate over the details), but I don't get the impression from interviews that most of them are certain - on either side of the issue.-Ray

One of the lessons I have learned in recent months is what economists are and are not. They are modelers and provide intuition for their models. That does not mean they have intuition/insight/foresight in general. This is why economic consensus is often tightly bounded and why economists can seem so blind. They have studied the history of input and output, drivers and results, but usually in a data dependent way. For example, the multiplier effect of stimulus is a guesstimate based on history, but that history is no more predictive than the one that says stocks are cheap at a 10 PE and expensive at 25. When Obama dismissively said at a press conference about the difference between spending and stimulus that spending IS stimulus, that's the point, right? he was working the playbook of a particular economist's academic work, not considering the effects of different kinds of spending in this particular era with our particular mindset. $4B to ACORN = $4B to fix bridges = $4B to build a windmill factory in that economic multiplier world, regardless of what the nation is left with when the money's spent.

All statistics are products of their era, including specific influences that will never repeat, yet people being simple latch onto the outputs and extrapolate. Being a contrarian in the stock market is great during the American century (reversion to mean around a rising trend), but will it be great in the Chinese century? I have watched economists green eye-shading (now there's a verb) their models and unwilling to hear the soft arguments for why it's different this time.

So when we think about economics, let's view it as a modeling input to be filtered through evolving intuition. There's a good reason for economists to be uncertain this time, and there's good reason for those raising intuitive concerns about subtle changes in society around those economic plans. We're all uncertain, but some of us have models that allow us to be dogmatic.

[Sandy]

Who believes that?

I think most of the important players on both sides of the issue understand that we're taking a huge gamble with our future no matter how we address the current set of circumstances. There's plenty of legitimate disagreement between those who feel government must stay out of it and those who feel that government has to step in. I think most see it as a pretty big gamble either way. Most economists seem to think doing nothing is a significantly bigger gamble than taking the action we're taking (or something like it - plenty of debate over the details), but I don't get the impression from interviews that most of them are certain - on either side of the issue.

I'm far from certain and just hope the prevailing wisdom is right - sometimes it is, sometimes its not. You seem pretty certain and I envy you that to an extent, but I don't think that necessarily makes you right. :cool:

-Ray

Assume there is a forest with 50,000 acres. There is a raging fire in a portion of the forest, which threatens all the wildlife in the forest and adjacent homes. One should want some entity to step in and efficiently and effectively put out the fire before the forest burns completely and all is lost. Immediate action is needed or nothing will be left. So the firefighter force goes into the forest and extinguises the forest fire with some additional damage, but at least the fire is over. The forest has been saved. Great firefighters! But now the firefighters should leave and perhaps make suggestions as to how to prevent said forest fires in the future. Maybe even have some laws written in order to make the forests safer in the future.

But then a couple of the top firefighters think that they should take a much more intrusive and lasting position in managing the safety of forests against future fires. In fact somehow they decide what trees will replace the burnt out trees in the fire, and what trees, species of animals, and methods of extinguishing future fires, will be allowed. They have gained the authority to be the sole decision maker. But now they control not only the 50,000 acres but millions of acres. In addition, the top firefighters think they should decide what flowers go in my garden......

As you said- "...There's plenty of legitimate disagreement between those who think the government must stay out of it and those who feel the government must step in..." But I worry about how far will the Government step in, how long will it stay, and what role it will play during and after the time it steps in. That is my major concern. Some BALANCE between staying out of it and stepping in. I am afraid those at the top want our Government to step in, stay in, and change what the forest looks like forever- All the forests. Gardens too. Balance is fine. Skewed way to one side is scarey.


Scared Sandy

[palincss]

I worry about how far will the Government step in, how long will it stay, and what role it will play during and after the time it steps in. That is my major concern. Some BALANCE between staying out of it and stepping in. I am afraid those at the top want our Government to step in, stay in, and change what the forest looks like forever- All the forests. Gardens too. Balance is fine. Skewed way to one side is scarey.


"Burn, baby, burn!" is skewed way to one side, too.

[Louis]

GM folly: Hummer Dealer (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/business/31hummer.html?hp)

I drive by this dealership nearly every day. I don't think I'll be too bummed out when it closes down. Even before the recent "downturn" I've been telling folks it was just a matter of time until they went out of business.

The end is near.

Louis

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=palincss]"Burn, baby, burn!" is skewed way to one side, too.[/QUOTE

Correct. That is why I think we need a balanced approach. Not skewed to the left or right.

Sandy

[Tobias]

Who believes that?

I think most of the important players on both sides of the issue understand that we're taking a huge gamble with our future no matter how we address the current set of circumstances. There's plenty of legitimate disagreement between those who feel government must stay out of it and those who feel that government has to step in. I think most see it as a pretty big gamble either way. Most economists seem to think doing nothing is a significantly bigger gamble than taking the action we're taking (or something like it - plenty of debate over the details), but I don't get the impression from interviews that most of them are certain - on either side of the issue.

I'm far from certain and just hope the prevailing wisdom is right - sometimes it is, sometimes its not. You seem pretty certain and I envy you that to an extent, but I don't think that necessarily makes you right. :cool:

-RayRay, with all due respect, I don’t think you got my intent at all. I was not thinking primarily about the bailouts and whether or not the government should get involved as you seem to think I was. To me all these bailouts are a relatively small problem by comparison.

[Kirk007]

Hmmm,

Let's see, for the past 8 years (OR MORE and maybe still) America has been run by Corporations who have controlled Congress. New America is running corporations. The pendulum swings - back and forth we go. It will swing back, always does as neither party any longer knows how to govern for a term longer than the next election or two. And with no long term perspective by most in D.C. (perhaps extend that to most of the world's governments) and it's a bleak picture any way you look at it.

[ti_boi]

I am not sure why the government thinks pumping money into a select group of huge corporations....while more companies continue to layoff their people...will avoid anything like the inevitable market correction.

GM CEO gone....good riddance.

Now get me some perp walks for bankers.

[Climb01742]

i read as much as i could about this last night and this morning. my 2 cents:

obama firing wagoner seems like baseball's high and tight "purpose pitch". to really get detroit's attention.

the guy running GM now was the heir apparent, a lifelong car guy. so no washington politico is at the helm.

from what i read, various stakeholders in the reorg were holding out for better deals under the belief that washington would bail everyone out without substantial concessions (gee, wonder where they got_that_idea?)

my sense is, shoving the CEO out wasn't a power grab but a signal to ALL parties -- management, unions, bondholders -- to cut the shiite, get real heart-attack serious or else a bankruptcy judge would give them all a haircut.

i, too, have questions about where the line is in the gov't/private sector dance but these are unusual days. when billions of taxpayer dollars are being asked for by companies, conditions aren't out of the question. as was pointed out in what i read, there are almost always loan conditions among private parties, and often change of management is one. we can debate the merits of this, certainly; but to imply that this is somehow totally without precedent is, i think, a stretch indeed.

i think it was obama giving all parties a little chin music to get serious about deep, structural changes. granted, i'm inclined to give BO the benefit of the doubt, but even with that, i think this is a fair, or at least plausible, reading of the situation. i'm not so sure the capitalist sky is falling (insert cute symbol.)

as an aside, a few of the pieces i read referenced reagan firing the air traffic controllers. presidential intervention isn't new, is it?

[Elefantino]

as an aside, a few of the pieces i read referenced reagan firing the air traffic controllers. presidential intervention isn't new, is it?
Good lord ... if the PATCO firings have entered the bailout conversation, we are so royally screwed ...

Ask any ATC about the Raygun legacy.

[Ray]

Ray, with all due respect, I don’t think you got my intent at all. I was not thinking primarily about the bailouts and whether or not the government should get involved as you seem to think I was. To me all these bailouts are a relatively small problem by comparison.
You're right - I should have been clearer. I knew you were talking about our current entitlement mess and I was talking primarily about the various bailouts and the more general issues of government<----->private sector balance that this auto situation brings, yet again, to the fore.

Some BALANCE between staying out of it and stepping in. I am afraid those at the top want our Government to step in, stay in, and change what the forest looks like forever- All the forests. Gardens too. Balance is fine. Skewed way to one side is scarey.

Sandy, I agree that everyone wants BALANCE, but balance is as subject to the eye of the beholder as beauty. I don't think there's any such thing as balance. As Kirk points out, we have a pendulum in our democracy. It swings back and forth and periodically passes through dead center (balance, at least to a centrist) on its way to either left or right. During the Bush years, we were imbalanced to the right imho. We had a few problems IIRC and people voted the bastids out and now we're swinging back to the left. During our move to the right, lots of conservatives thought we were still moving toward a balanced state while lots of liberals thought we'd already fallen off the right side of the universe. The reverse will be true now - people calling for balance generally just don't like the direction its heading. To me, we're now moving in the right direction but I'm quite sure I have a very different definition of "balanced" than many here. So, I agree with you in principle but I don't think the principle is a particularly meaningful one as much as a bromide when applied to political debate.

I also think the right balance point varies by issue, not just by the beholder. For example, I want the government to get in and STAY in with health care, I want them to get in and get out of the financial sector, but to increase their regulatory role well beyond what it's been since the repeal of Glass-Steagal in 1999. In autos, I'm pretty agnostic - I'm in favor of helping GM not go totally bust in the middle of this recession, but beyond that, I think the government should mostly get out as quickly as possible. But that's just me - your balance points, like your mileage, may vary.

-Ray

[93legendti]

It is ironic that Pres. Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers' union is being held up here as support for Pres. Obama's firing of the president of GM. If only Pres. Obama had the courage to break a union.

As historical support, the firings by Pres. Reagan fall short: The controllers were FEDERAL employees. Striking had previously been made ILLEGAL by Congress.

"...On this day in 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers who ignored his order to return to work. The sweeping mass firing of federal employees slowed commercial air travel, but it did not cripple the system as the strikers had forecast.

Two days earlier, nearly 13,000 controllers walked out after talks with the Federal Aviation Administration collapsed. As a result, some 7,000 flights across the country were canceled on that day at the peak of the summer travel season.

Robert Poli, president of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, sought an across-the-board annual wage increase of $10,000 for the controllers, whose pay ranged from $20,462 to $49,229 per year. He also sought a reduction of their five-day, 40-hour workweek to a four-day, 32-hour workweek. The FAA made a $40 million counteroffer, far short of the $770 million package that the union sought.

...In 1955, Congress made such strikes punishable by fines or a one-year jail term — a law the Supreme Court upheld in 1971..."

Now that Pres. Reagan's legacy has been invoked, let's talk about how you react in a recession.

[rwsaunders]

I was thinking about this last evening. Basically all of the automakers on the planet right now are sucking wind, including the previously thought invincible, Toyota. Singling GM's CEO out right now is an easy thing to do, as they appear to be the poster child for manufacturing inefficiency and market positioning.

Does anybody remember Franklin Raines? He was the former CEO of Fannie Mae, who was dismissed during their accounting scandal in 2004, which many consider one of the precursors to the mortgage backed securities fiasco. He settled with the government for a severance of $24.7M...not bad for 6 years of work.

It goes way beyond Wagoner and the automotive industry...it's still about "Who's your friend and who's your Daddy" in Washington, folks. Remember that on 15 April when you stroke your tax check.

[ti_boi]

Sorry folks but Detroit has priced themselves out of the market. They were making money on the SUV boom hand over fist for people willing to fork over big bucks for a 'truck'.

They were behind the curve when things changed with $5 gasoline.

As for Obama. If he and his crew can help to turn GM around all the better. I cannot see it getting any worse besides and all out chapter 11 filing which in some ways is 'better' for the taxpayer.

As for the typical partisan stuff. *yawn*