Originally Posted by trm0002

To answer your question, the financial markets are a confidence issue; they will rebound with a "little" help.

Originally Posted by blackflag

It's not a confidence issue...it's a housing market crash, foreclosure, lack of liquidity...issue. It's not imaginary.

And I wouldn't call $700 BILLION a "little" help.

Originally Posted by trm0002

Once the banks have enough confidence to lend again, things will start to flow IMO.

Originally Posted by blackflag

The banks don't have any cash to lend. That's the whole point of the $700B. And that's why these banks are on the verge of collapse, and why some already have. You don't go out of business by sitting on cash.

And you don't give somebody a "loan" by forcing the taxpayers to give the money. A loan would be selling stocks and bonds to the market. When you're forced to do it, it's a giveaway. And, if it's a loan - what's the interest rate?

If anything at all, it would be the fed rate of 1%? For a failed company. Yes, that's a giveaway.

Originally Posted by trm0002

Washington has agreed to inject US$20-billion into Citigroup and backstop losses on a US$306-billion pool of loans after investors lost confidence in the ability of one of the world's largest banks to weather the financial crisis.

The deal was unveiled late on Sunday night after negotiations between Citi executives and senior officials, and will see the bank provide the government with preferred shares that pay an 8% dividend.

Originally Posted by blackflag

I'm talking about the $700 billion, and the money they've already given to AIG, and Goldman Sachs...what's the interest rate on all of that? I'm glad they got a whopping 8% on $20 (which is not enough to get the market to invest). But you're ignoring the other $700.

And that doesn't change the fact that the banks have no cash.

Originally Posted by guionM

This is the very first thread I have ever commented on that I did not read completely through and at this moment have no intention to because this subject has been answered many times over. I guess far too many people ate paint chip cereal as kids.

The internet is a place where there is alot of great and accurate information can be found. But even a post by God himself doesn't stop those with little inkling of what's going on or have their own phobias and issues making posts that basically rip apart not just what he might have posted, but goes against any and all logic let alone facts. Some people you simply have to hit on the head with a sledgehammer (some very, very, very hard) before they'll admit that a hammer actually exists.

This is one of those instances.


If GM's bueracracy had it's way, the new Camaro would have never existed. Many here ignore the fact that public intrest had to be overwhelming, the financial case had to be Niagra Falls in proportions, and the cost to develop it had to be by GM's standards nearly nonexistant for the Camaro to even see the light of day. Then those same people lose sight that the Ford Mustang is the 2nd biggest selling car at Ford and the Dodge Challenger sales are within a few hundred cars of outselling the 300. The fact is these cars sell. They make money. The get showroom traffic.

The Camaro likely cost no more to make than the Holden Statesman did over the Commodore (roughly $350 million... barely more than the cost of the 1998 F-body redesign), and that the most expensive part of Camaro development was revamping the Oshawa plant where the Camaro will be made.

In short, General Motors itself was a far bigger hinderence to the Camaro being made than Congress was and will ever be. Yet It's amazing that many of the same people who not long ago fully understood and often posted here that GM didn't make the Camaro anymore because it didn't have the profit margins of of a Tahoe, now are the same ones who fear it's Congress that will take the Camaro away.

Get a grip.



If GENERAL MOTORS decides to kill the Camaro, then the Camaro is gone. That's not a Congress issue. That means General Motors will have Camaro in showrooms this February as long as General Motors is still in business. If General Motors doesn't have Camaro in showrooms this February, then GM is going to be toast soon afterwards anyway so the matter is moot.

Consider (for the umteenth time):

* The Camaro will have bigger per-vehicle profit margins than the Cobalt and perhaps the Malibu as well.

* Oshawa's only other cars are the Lacrosse and the Impala, a fraction of the cars the plant formerly made. Camaro raises the percentage of the plant's capacity being used.

* All of Camaro's hardware has been paid for via Holden's Commodore, Statesman, & Caprice.

* Workers will have to be paid whether GM makes the Camaro or not. It's more profitable for GM to have those people making something of value that makes a good per-vehicle profit than simply sending them home and having the space, investment, and personnel sitting idle.



The case to continue with Camaro (even without the other Zeta cars) is very strong for at least the 1st few years with even only modest demand. Scott has chimed in on this subject numerous times, and I have communicated with other people about this who actually are in the loop. Other people here on this site have even more access than I do. I'm sure we all look at these doom & gloom posts the same way: "Here we go again.



There's always going to be someone dropping in and either putting their legitamate fears about something on a post as was done by the threadstarter here (no, I'm not blaming you ). But then what follows is a series of posts from people who should know better because they post here regularly. This mini rant isn't aimed at any particular person. It's aimed at a collective that likes to take something and bend it to fit a fear philosophy.

Let's stick to the facts people.

Congress wants a survivability plan. Their firepower has been aimed at the Big 3's focus on trucks and SUVs at the expense of cars. That's something that almost every person here from the begining of this website railed about.

Congress is also rightfully blasting the Big 3 (almost centrally GM) for wanting a taxpayer money simply to keep the lights on and the bills paid instead of showing where taxpayer money is going to return them to profitability.

Those of you saying that Congress doesn't know anything about cars yet dictating to the Big 3, I submit to you the question: Who's going to whom for money to survive???

Telling congress you won't last another 2 months without help after losing $24 billion this year and over $70 billion the past 7 doesn't exactly look like you know about the car business either.

The issue here is business and the compentancy to run it. They have to sell you on why you should buy their stocks. If Viagra is the best selling drug of it's kind (by over 3-1 over the next best selling brand) but is losing money like crazy, and the much lower volume Ciallas has half of the assests Viagra has, you're going to want to know how are they going to turn things around & keep...er... up.. with the competition.

Congress is loaning YOUR money to the Big 3. Most all of us were upset when Congress did that with Financial institutions without asking questions and demanding that big changes were made to prevent this from happening again. This time they are. They want to make sure they get their money back. They want to make sure that instead of throwing money into big trucks and SUVs again (especially now that gas is back below $2 per gallon) they instead focus on competing with and directly engaging import brands.

I watched Sunday morning. Michigan's own Jennifer Granholm told CNN that it's up to US automakers to prove their ability to return to profitability before gaining taxpayer money. Richard Shelby is rightfully concerned that we'll end up paying out several hundred billion dollars and the big 3 will still fail. None of these people are what you'd call treehugging democrats... all are Republicans.

Every congressional person knows what a Mustang is. Mitt Romney even mentioned it as the type of car America does right on a Wolf Blitzer interview. No one has painted a bullseye on the Camaro. There are a few scattered politicians who know about the new Camaro and applaud it.

GM hasn't turned in a single month's profit in 5 years. Cerberus has looked like a company that either wants to use Chrysler as leverage to expand it's lending empire or dismember Chrysler's parts for additional profit for the past few months. As much as I love the job Ford's Alan Mulally is doing, flying to hearing in a private jet and having a private jet fly him home from Detroit every week (he lives in Washington state) probably did as much damage as GM Rick Wagoner's talking in circles. Ironically, it was Chrysler's Nardelli that scored points by being the only one of the 3 to volunteer to take $1 per year pay if it would help his company to get congressional help.


Yes I went far beyond the Camaro question.
No, I actually did this on purpose.

I wanted to show how minor and how much of a small and almost nonissue Camaro is in the big game being played out.

Camaro is safe. As long as GM gets it's act together by December 2nd.

If Camaro doesn't happen or "whiters" before it sees production, it's not because of Congress, Democrats, treehuggers, magic evil pixie fairies, or even underpants gnomes.

It would be because GM itself through it's culumative actions this decade came home to roost.

That said.....

no..... Camaro isn't in trouble.

Originally Posted by GMPG7783

Finally an educated, analytical, fact-based, balanced assessment. You found the words and did a great job laying out the situation.

Well done!

Originally Posted by guionM

Those of you saying that Congress doesn't know anything about cars yet dictating to the Big 3, I submit to you the question: Who's going to whom for money to survive???