I dunno... that may or may not be true.

My beef here is that, yes, the previous 'administration' at GM could not get things in order enough to weather this recession... but that doesn't mean that the govt is now better, or have more expertise in how to run an automobile manufacturer than people who actually do this for a living.

Anyway, whether this works or not, whether it needs to be done or not... all beside the point for me.

I am really 'in the middle' on a lot of this stuff... I, in principal do not agree with govt assistance to non-govt business, but I certainly understand and agree with why they were helped. It's the part about the govt now pointing the way for the company because money has been lended that I do not like.

 

To a degree... and I knew that wasn't exactly a perfect parellel to the GM situation. To be so, you'd have to have the choice of borrowing the money for the car you do not want or.... well, dying, and taking tens of thousands with you... which isn't totally realsitic, but I thought it kinda got the gist of it out there....

 

Anyone who believes that the Gov't would make good car manufacturers is smoking the good stuff. My point here is that the government has forced GM to make a real assessment of its dire financial situation and do whatever is necessary to stand on its own. TO THIS POINT, they have made no mention of "forcing" GM to build any particular type of car.

I have no doubts that many "Nancys" on the Hill are salivating over the possibility of forcing GM to build nothing but hybrids, or to cut the V8 program, or whatever. Again, I am hoping that business sense will beat back any wacked out agenda that does not pertain to making money - that is, giving customers what they want, including enthusiast vehicles. If Obama announces next week that continued government reorganization/funding assistance will require GM to start developing nothing but cars with Volt powertrains, then you better believe the poo will hit the fan from me and many others.

 

It is an interesting argument. You would think the likelihood of reclaiming would be reflected in interest rates of the loan. I do wonder if there would be other legal problems for saying I won't loan you the money for a car because of resale value. If it becomes subjective, you could also restrict cars that don't have 5 star crash ratings or are more likely to be totaled in an accident, and losses that could be associated with it.

It would be a better comparison with small business loans where the banker is telling the business what products to make and to sell. The banker isn't likely an expert in the type of small business that is being run. It would be interesting to see what happens.

 

Fair enough. I'll be sharpening my pitchfork just in case.

 

The idea that the government will now force US manufacturers to build hybrid/small cars and stop manufacturing performance cars quickly loses its teeth when you consider such action will only make matters worse. Auto enthusiasts will be forced to make a choice, either be patriotic and buy an American economy car, or go with your need for speed and buy an import performance car. In light of the fact that so little of today's American made cars are actually made in the States, I think the latter will be the more common choice.

As much as I love GM and Chevrolet in particular, if they no longer build a Camaro or Corvette, I'm looking elsewhere for my next sports coupe purchase, and surprise, it probably wouldn't be a Ford.

 

Believe me Charlie, this whole thing gives me the creeps. I don't trust people in Washington at all. But for now, I have to trust that the "bottom line" is the ONLY motivational factor here. I think I'd lose my sanity if I didn't.

Put it this way, if Pontiac was currently (1) a profitable division, or even (2) if it was moving sustainable volume, we'd really have something to talk about here. But Pontiac isn't (1), it doesn't (2), so it unfortunately has to go.

 

I agree completely. I don't think the government is going to do a better job of running GM than GM did itself. Government intervention does offer some unique opportunities that might not exist otherwise as far as restructuring and shedding debt though that could end up being beneficial. I'm not happy about the government having control either. I just don't like the alternative right now.

I know what your saying. We are probably not far apart on this really. The government is blurring the lines between creditor and owner.

 

Any idea that the governement can do a better job running GM than private industry is fullish. You do realize that right now our government is the biggest money losing entity man kind has ever seen. The only reason it stays afloat is it has access to lending private companies currently do not.

 

That's the key word here.... currently.

Let's look at Cadillac's turn around... at leats from a product perspective.

Bad timing for Pontiac, I suppose.


BTW: I can't express enough how fun it is to discuss things in such a calm manor. For some reason, this thread has been refreshign to me on a subject that seems to give me headaches. Kudos to all the posters.

 

Nope - not at all. Making a profit is the name of the game in free enterprise.

A monopoly/oligopoly that is allowed by governmentsand even nurtured by finacial institutions (that control policy through PAC and lobbying) is not viewed as "beneficial" to the average consumer in my opinion.

 

Here is a point being ignored:

It may make sense to kill most of the Pontiac line, but I have yet to see any logical reason to kill the entire brand over the much more sane approach of keeping it as a niche with the acclaimed, and profitable G8 as its center.

Other than Solstice, the rest of the line is crap and needed to go.

 

Respectfully disagree.

If you have GOOD CREDIT, you can go to any lender and get money to buy whatever you want and do with it what you please. This is the case with most of us working, payment-making Joes that are playing the game by the rules.

When you have borrowed from every bank in town, you are not making your payments to any of them, and you go to Luigi Three-Toes to get your next loan because he is the only one in the world that will loan you a buck... Well, THEN you will get what he wants you to get and do it on his terms (50% interest compounded daily, broken arms, relatives disappear, etc, etc INCLUDED).

Huge difference here friend.
GM has been around the lending block more than Debbie has in Dallas.
Every Joe with a nickel to lend has been asked, and every other company that could be a partner with a wallet has been asked. When everyone else in the world said no, and the end was within a moon's cycle, they went to their last resort. That is a DIRE situation... hardly a situation where you can be making demands and telling your lenders "how it's going to be".

 

I agree that the more unreliable are and should have to pay consequences for their poor credit history... but that generally comes in the form of harsher terms (higher interest rates) rather than the lender dictating what kind of vehicle can be bought.

 

You answered your own question below...




I couldn't agree more. But HOW is the government "running" GM?
Are they saying, "Put aluminum trim on that truck that is .024 thick and only 18" long without anodizing it" or are they saying, "Mr. W, you have been at the helm for XX years and the trend has been going down the entire time you have been in charge. You have not shown us anything to indicate that you are changing the current business model. We have seen you authorize projects and turn right around and kill them. We have seen you invest huge money into a program that is expected to generate loss for you. I'm sorry, but we really need for you to step aside and let someone else have a shot at this for a bit, or we're going to have to quit giving you money."

I see them getting involved by making recommendations and suggestions regarding the BUSINESS. I do not see the government coming in and saying, "You must stop making the Corvette, you must stop making the G8, you must start making E-Z-Go Golf Carts."

I personally can see a line in the sand between trying to get a company to make good business decisions versus telling a company how they will design their product, choose colors, and seat coverings for them. I am not seeing the latter one yet.

PS - Please excuse my sarcasm here, and it is being sarcastic... But has anyone in Washington said that GM can not make the G8 and put a bowtie on the front and "Chevelle" badges on the fenders? See my point?