Thread: General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again

Originally Posted by Dpetty

As long as there is market for cars in this country, there will always be a company out there to build and sell them. Saving a company from bankrupcy (which still would have allowed them to stay in business and build cars) does not solve the problem. Even if GM completly folded, another company would have filled the vaccuum thus replacing any jobs lost at GM. Thats the way the free market works. The fact that the original bailout obviously didnt work, should speak volumes, not only to the effectivness of throwing money at a problem, but also to the mindset of the people willing to do it TWICE!

Market system 101....high barrier entry sectors are a different beast. There's a reason there's a handful of car companies in the US and in every other industrialized country in the world. There's a reason governments step in when things like their airplane manufactoring sector or the steel manufactoring sector or their car manfuctoring sectors have problems.

It's not like the closure of a chain resturaunts where an entreprenuer can go out and get the funding for a place of business and stuff to cook with. Creating a car manufactoring company is in internet speak "serious business" with massive outlays of capital and the potential for very long run losses as you enter a global market against other companies that provide huge benefits to larger manufactorers.

So sure...in 10 or 20 years a up starter may try to step in and make a niche but the most likely result would be the market share gobbled up by established companies which equals less competition.

Also...the origional bailout obviously did work. GM is still a strong company with lots of assets set aside to weather any rough patches due to the macro economic climate.

Originally Posted by Hare

Wishing ill upon thousands of workers soley for political gain, what a class act!

Originally Posted by iliveonramen

GM is facing the same problems as Ford...which didn't receive a bailout. Both are running into the same problems regarding the slow down of Europe and both are facing the same issues here in the domestic market (see carrier fleet sales down)

If bailouts are the reason GM can't compete why is Ford also doing badly and Chrysler a company that was bailed out as well continuing to improve?

It's always interesting though to watch conservatives cheer for the failure of a company that employess a lot of Americans in order to prove an ideological point.

Its also interesting that liberals do the exact same thing while simultaneously engaging in false emotional appeals. They dont care about workers any more than it takes to get their vote. So they neither have compassion NOR principles.

Originally Posted by iliveonramen

Also...the origional bailout obviously did work. GM is still a strong company with lots of assets set aside to weather any rough patches due to the macro economic climate.

They arent even close to paying off the debt from the first bailout, so where are these assets you speak of set aside?

Originally Posted by Dpetty

They arent even close to paying off the debt from the first bailout, so where are these assets you speak of set aside?

I've already stated it...they have paid off the bailout. A portion was to be paid in cash (which they've paid off) and the rest in a sort of preferred stock (which they've already given over). Their liability to the US government is zero. The US government holds the shares of GM and will sell to recoup the other half.

Originally Posted by jonny5

Its also interesting that liberals do the exact same thing while simultaneously engaging in false emotional appeals. They dont care about workers any more than it takes to get their vote. So they neither have compassion NOR principles.

Specifics would be nice. Last I checked healthcare, wages, and working conditions are still major parts of a lot of Democratic legislation. I'm sure your baseless rant is really popular on some Von Misses debate site though!

Originally Posted by KevinKohler

I drive, compare, and then photograph cars. I do this for couple of sites, but mainly for guy.com.

The first issue is, there ARE no comparably priced chevrolets, or buicks, to a Lexus. Lexus is a luxury brand. So, compare it to Cadillac, or Lincoln, or SOME Chrystlers. And guess what? I've driven a few new caddies, and I drove the new Chrystler 300 SRT8. We're gonna leave out the CTS-V, for now, because it's not really...REALLY, a luxury car, it's a luxury sport/touring car. Sorta. But the standard CTS is still a formidable car. The Lexus IS is not really in the same class, but it's comparable in price, because it's pretty expensive for what you get. Sticker price is in the low 30s, starting out, but I think most anyone would be VERY hard pressed to walk off a toyota dealership having paid so little for the car. The Lexus LS, however, is much closer in class, in that it's around the same size, same features standard, same hp, four doors, etc. And it STARTS at 60K, and rockets up from there. You could easily order one up for 75K. Add ons add up QUICK. To be fair, they do the same for the Caddy...but the difference is, the Caddy starts out so much lower, that you could have one totally pimped out from the dealer, and still only be in the bank for 50K. And the problem here is, from inside, both cars are very similar. The leather is nice, the fit and finish is fine...the Lexus interior IS better looking, I'll give it that. The caddy interior still feels like it's being designed for old folks in FL...but it's a LOT better than it was 10 years ago. And the CTS-V...while I never got to drive it (it's an 80K car), I road in it for a test drive, and I just can't explain to you how awesome this car is. It's a midlife crisis that the wife can live with(joyfully), too. It's not just Lexus vs Caddy, though. The 300, an ICON, is simply awesome. Now, I've not been in any of the lower models, only the SRT8...but the SRT8 will blow anything in it's price range right out of the water. I drove this car just last month. Website says a starting price of 48K, but don't you believe it. It's more like 55. But for that cost, you get something that, I **** you not, can compare with, if not compete with or defeat, an M5. I'm sure that on some famous track in Germany, the M5 handily defeats this car. And I'll also wager that the M5 has a more sumptious interior. But when I try to think of a car to compare the 300 to, the M5 is the only thing that comes to mind. For 55K. To put that into perspective, you are NOT walking away with a new M5 for under 90K, no way, no how. Likely a LOT closer to 100K. The other luxury brands, like Infiniti, or Acura, simply have NOTHING that competes in that market. The US automakers don't really have anything in the Acura/Infiniti segment, either. Their luxury brands are too cheap in price to try to compare.

I can't stand it when people harp on and on about how the US doesn't build good cars. The US builds GREAT cars, and then sells them (at least in the US, anyway) for GREAT prices, when compared to other brands.

I've said this on other (car) forums, that the largest issue for the US brands, aside from unions and such, is MARKETING. The big three get CREAMED by nearly all the other major auto manufacturers in the marketing dept. What they NEED to do is hire some young, fresh out of marketing/film school car enthusiasts. What it feels like is, they employ 50-60 year old marketing "experts" who are NOT really car guys/gals. They need someone who is FIRST a car nut/petrol head, and 2nd, a marketing expert. I'd bet my bottom dollar that a few years of that will absolutely kill the stigma about US cars.

In comparing a Lexus to a Cadillac a major pojnt is resale value.

How does the Cadillac hold up to the Lexus? Historically speaking, they have not done very well.

Originally Posted by LowDown

Once upon a time, many years ago, unions were important for providing better working conditions. But now the government has taken that function over, and unions exist only to extort money to the detriment of customers, business owners, and ordinary workers.



Yes, when a company has to pay $60 a hour for labor there's nothing left to put quality into the cars, hence the lack of sales.

You forgot to influence elections on your list.

Originally Posted by iliveonramen

I've already stated it...they have paid off the bailout. A portion was to be paid in cash (which they've paid off) and the rest in a sort of preferred stock (which they've already given over). Their liability to the US government is zero. The US government holds the shares of GM and will sell to recoup the other half.

That is not true. GM is considered square with the government, but they have only repaid about half of the $50 billion that was loaned. That included the value of the stocks

Originally Posted by Dpetty

That is not true. GM is considered square with the government, but they have only repaid about half of the $50 billion that was loaned. That included the value of the stocks

Your question was regarding to my statement about their liquid assets. The portion left over is government owned stock. The 10's of billions they have in liquid assets isn't diminished by what they still owe the government...which is what you implied.

Originally Posted by iliveonramen

Specifics would be nice. Last I checked healthcare, wages, and working conditions are still major parts of a lot of Democratic legislation. I'm sure your baseless rant is really popular on some Von Misses debate site though!

I have no idea what that means. My rant was as baseless as your dig, so thanks for proving my point about hypocrasy. Freedom, liberty, fiscal sanity are still major parts of a lot of Republican legislation too. And Republicans are just as concerned with power over principle. No one in politics actually cares about workers or businesses or people in general. Only in using it to gain power. I just dont act like its one sided.