ForYourMalice

Neither is ok. And to even consider describing GM as a "victim" is laughable.

trm0002

GM is a victim- of it's own stupidity. First, they make cars WE ask for instead of what Congress wants. Then, it goes and writes a new UAW contract that allows it to lower new incoming wages and shifts the healthcare burden to the UAW in 2010. What were they thinking?

-sarcasm off-

Actually their big mistake is/was the current UAW contract that provided no "out" for downsizing if/when markets adjusted down. The fact that the UAW job bank cost them $560 million last year is a prime example of that. That the Big 3 could allow their per worker cost to exceed $70/hr while the foreign competition in the US has costs around $45, was very short-sighted and has "caught up to them" in this downturn. The "new" setup should allow them to regain profitability but it will be a long road. Retiree benefits are killing them and until the people in the system "die off" there will be a huge burden on the Big 3.

It's a shame that the light has turned on at the end of the tunnel but they've run out of gas to get there. IMO, the only way to get more gas is to declare Chapter 11, shed the long-term costs, and get the new pay scale in place now. It may mean that WE get put on the hook for them (retirement benefits) as a country but isn't that a better option than giving what I believe will end up being continual life-lines to them?

SSPORT10

NOBODY should have been helped, even the banks and these other failed companies!

HuJass

And yet the problems with the finance and banking industries ARE self-inflicted. Nothing to perceive there. They caused their own problems, and the gov. feels it's OK to bail them out.
But when the Big 3 come begging for just a fraction of the bailout money ALREADY earmarked, they are told to go pound salt.

Why is it OK for one industry to get help but not another?

trm0002

Banks are not an industry so to speak IMO. Bottom line, there are a LOT MORE people affected by changes to the banking institutions and the way they interact with each other than are affected by the Big 3. That's just reality.

ForYourMalice

You're right, the fact that they consistently spat unreliable garbage off of their production lines for decades has nothing to do with it.

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.

95firehawk

So when people don't go out and buy new cars because of the financial crunch (of which none of it was created by the Big 3) then what do you call them?

I agree that they have made critical mistakes but why are their mistakes scrutinized more than others?

What was their reasoning for doing so? Possibly because that is what the consumer demanded from them for decades. Should they have looked into the crystal ball a little harder? You bet, but they really didn't do anything different than what the banking industry did. People demanded SUV's and large trucks regardless of what the future's outlook might be. Just as the banking industry put people in larger and larger houses without thinking of the consequences. So again why are they being shown the door whereas others are being handed suitcases full of cash?

ForYourMalice

I don't see Honda or Toyota, both of which are global (like GM) and have a very strong presence in the US market, asking for money. Yes, the financial crisis does not help GM. But calling them the victim is just ridiculous. They are in the position they are in because of how they chose to run their business. The financial crisis is just the last threatening nail for their coffin.

jg95z28

The US doesn't penalize import brands as badly as some other countries, hense they're having an easier time. (Although the entire industry is hurting right now, not just the domestics.)

trm0002

To be fair, I don't think 10 or even 5 years ago the Big 3 forsaw Congress' new CAFE standards. It's like most government mandates- you have to do "X" by (insert date) or face the consequences. Congress has given them neither enough time nor enough money to meet the requirement(s) IMO. I still hold that the Big 3 only gave us what we asked for. "We" were asking for big SUV's and trucks and that's what they provided. What they made isn't the issue IMO; what it cost in labor for them to make those vehicles vs what it cost the "foreign" companies to make them is.

2010_5thgen

im with you.i heard someone on tv talking about the same thing with the trucks and SUV's. there was a huge demand for those trucks and SUV's. the Tahoe,Yukon<and especially the Escalade have been huge for gm in the last few years. especially since the design change they have been selling like crazy. i hate listening to the radio and tv becasue everyone out there that gets on these shows are tree huggers and anti- truck/suv.

95firehawk

This still doesn't answer my question. Even though I don't entirely agree I get the fact that you think its solely the Big 3's fault. When the financial market essentially made the same mistakes that the Big 3 made why is it that they get the bailout but Detroit's got to jump thru hurdles?

blackflag

Honda and Toyota have asked for cash and other benefits from Japan over the years. I'm not sure if they are now, but I wouldn't be surprised. Their sales have crashed, also.

And I think everybody who has been affected by the crash in the last few months is a victim of the Fed and the banks. That includes Big 3, and me, for that matter.

trm0002

To answer your question, the financial markets are a confidence issue; they will rebound with a "little" help. The Big3 problem has nothing to do with confidence; GM hasn't made a profit since 2004. You can't rebound from that without drastic changes-regardless of how much interim money you throw at them.