Nicely explained.

 Reply

And it reminds me just how stupid I am to make a statement like I did and expect it to be interpreted within the context of the discussion at hand. Well played, sir. Well played.

And as an addendum, I just heard on Fox that the whole free trade issue wasn't a condition of Bush's bailout support, but a separate issue discussed during the meeting, which makes it seem so much less like a pork barrel rider. Although the infobabe reporting the fact seemed about as sure of what she was saying as Palin during a Couric interview.

 Reply

Here's the relevance aspect:

If it is the case that the opening of free trade with Columbia is to be used as a bargaining chip in exchange for signing the bailout, then yes, it is relevant, as it has the potential to affect the timetable of the bailout. Obama's willingness to negotiate upon that point would be the determining factor in whether or not the automakers get the loan now or if they get it too late.

As far as the context of the question you had initially asked, you didn't provide much, so it was more or less open to interpretation, and DoctorNine did a comendable job of explaining why it is important enough to be used as a potential bargaining chip during the negotation of the bailout loans.

 Reply

Those of us that are both progressive, and interested in seeing personal auto transportation and private enthusiast vehicles make it into the 21st century, need to be vocal about what we think needs to be done.

There are enough Chicken Little's that folks are starting to believe that the sky comes apart, and falls onto the ground in jagged chunks. This propaganda, if repeated often and forcefully enough, will eventually be taken as true. Once taken as true, it will BECOME true.

And that IS important. Whether the fart is wet or dry.

 Reply

Well played comment, sir, well played.

 Reply

Again: The best cars are developed in countries with very high gas prices and tight competition. Doubling the gas price, basing car taxes on engine size or weight or both, would be the only way to force car makers to begin engineering again.

Admittedly, changing a company to be able to compete in these tougher conditions would be hard, which is where a $25B loan comes in handy.

 Reply

It's called "lets block Obama every step of the way so that the lame-duck administration can go ahead and do nothing".

 Reply

Scaaary.

 Reply

What?

Malibu - 33 mpg, Fusion 30 something, and those are just the larger cars. Escape Hybrid, Aura hybrid....

GM makes THE MOST cars getting over 30. So, you've done a good job of posting the general wrong perception as you're "experience", congrats.

 Reply

My personal take on it is that the unions forgot who they were supposed to represent and got greedy. The union members forgot that they needed an industry and got greedy. The car companies forgot they needed product and got greedy.

And the consumers really don't care about anything other than (for the most part) who makes the best car for cheap don't really understand how tied to the economy production is. Apparently neither do the cheap labor bastards that outsourced everything for a couple cents profit or they just don't care.

But it's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 Reply

No, see post above. If sales are down %30 due to economic conditions, and money can't be borrowed, period, this is not "normal" operating conditions, for anyone.

 Reply

The turnaround that's been in place the past year or two is pretty robust, otherwise Ford/GM would have been beyond screwed a while ago. (think about the loss of volume/revenue and some of the recent losses, they are relatively "small" compared to the first years of loss, which had much higher revenue.)

As for other guidelines, our execs get no bonuses, spending is and will remain tight, etc. Strings aren't an issue, there aren't any foreign hunting trips or "seminars" planned in tropical places. (looking at you AIG).

I'm not a big fan of socialism, etc, but these are pretty desperate times and every other major auto producing country does a ton more to support thier OEM's, and actually support them. (pride I guess?)

 Reply

They've been doing that, I'm pretty sure Wagoner's been walking people in Wash through it in detail.

Also, all that's being asked for is a loan, and it will be repaid. What exactly are taxpayers out, if it's succesful? I'm assuming the gov't can borrow for less than they are loaning, meaning really they can make money on it?

 Reply

It isn't a matter of what they will or will not actually be out in the end, it is a matter of what they perceive. Many of the replies in this thread and the others dealing with the US auto industry of late are evidence enough of that; it is what people think that matters, and that is also something that GM needs to leverage and take it into account.

Wagoner may have been talking the people in Washington through the details, but those in Washington are pretty much the only ones that have an inkling of what is going on. The taxpayers may not be out anything in the end, but they feel like they are being slighted right now, and just to add a little salt to the wounds they perceive they are being dealt, it seems to them that it is going to happen no matter what they say or do. And, let's face it: it is.

But if GM were to make more of an effort on a PR side and be completely, blatantly, almost obnoxiously obvious about what they were doing with the money every single step of the way, and make every effort to disseminate that information to the average citizen, then it might just create a different view of GM. People may still grumble that they were being bailed out in the first place, but at the same time, they might just think to themselves "Well, at least they're being honest and keeping us informed; more than can be said other aspects of the government."

The generally negative perception that much of the public has about GM is hurting them just as much, if not more so, than their financial situation. If played correctly, this loan could very easily be used as a means of improving both.

 Reply

And yet, oddly enough, in between the years 1991 and, say, 2005, they somehow managed to be the largest automaker in the world. Something tells me that that just doesn't happen to a company incapable of turning a profit, but you may want to do a brief financial analysis from 1991-2008 and see how that pans out. I have been wrong before, after all.

 Reply

Why look at reality, when its easier to frame your negative thoughts with a single year that fits your "ideas"?

 Reply

Because sometimes it's just easier, dammit!

I dunno. I can understand why a lot of people do it; it truly, simply is easier, and most of the people with whom you think won't even bother noticing that you are doing it. It's an easy thing to fall into; I sometimes find myself doing that when the conversation turns to Bush's legacy as president. My first instinct is just to blame him for everything, but then I realize that that isn't entirely fair, as there is a good deal more context to be taken in consideration. The same goes with GM, as you have pointed out. Some people simply do not even care enough to take that added context into account, and sometimes, as you politely pointed out to me, people are simply unaware of that context.

I would say, though, that for the most part, I have done a fair job of trying to take what I do know in context rather than simply pigeon-holing GM.

 Reply

I hear you on the Bush comment, and was just having the conversation this morning on how much it sickens me to see the lack of respect this country has for its leader, and the ignorant statements and ideas about him. Somehow he's responsible for all of the bad things that have happened, he must've been much busier than I imagined.

I just think it comes to a lack of pride this country chooses to show in itself, and its scary.

 Reply

I agree, it is somewhat scary in many ways.

But I think that a big part of the problem has been the general apathy that Bush and many others in the automotive industry have taken towards the perceptions of the general populace. It is these impressions that matter, and if left unattended, can fester into the almost irrational hatred that many people have directed at both Bush and GM.

So while I agree that they are not entirely to blame for all that has happened, they do share a fair portion of the blame for allowing the perceptions of the populace to reach the point that it has now.

 Reply

They quickly found, though, that that simply would not work, as there simply was not enough overlap in the requirements of different markets to make the "global car" feasible. Instead, they have both focused on creating "global platforms" that are the same on a fundamental basis, but can be greatly varied according to the needs of the market it is being sold in. The Epsilon, Zeta, and Lambda platforms are examples of this.

I think that you are correct in your assertion that it is now just a tad too late to develop platforms that are designed to work only in the US market, but I also think that that is not a problem that either GM or Ford has been having with the development of their new platforms (full-size truck platforms notwithstanding).

 Reply