How to Fix GM

[Samilcar]

Katy Perry is to Madonna as (???) is to GM? What a couple of babbling buffoons. I guess Toyota is in trouble too, as they keep expanding their "mid-western" plants and will most probably close down NUMMI. ETA: I'm also amused by their definition of the "mid-west" as anything more than 12 miles from an ocean.

 

[Samilcar]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a.Q0WIQlwXhI Veering slightly OT, I found the quote from this article illuminating: "Nummi made money only in 1992, the result of California’s taxes on business and strict labor and pollution rules, as well as the plant’s UAW contracts, according to an estimate by Tokyo- based Credit Suisse analyst Koji Endo." I knew NUMMI was operating at a disadvantage to other auto plants in the US, but didn't realize it was only profitable one year out of 25. Yikes. I have a feeling Toyota's unblemished record of never closing a plant is going to end soon.

 

[Bamaro]

 Originally Posted By: artificialist

Many people who used to consider them now refuse to because GM accepted corporate welfare.

Which totally defies any logic.

 

[Tempest]

 Originally Posted By: Bamaro

 Originally Posted By: artificialist

Many people who used to consider them now refuse to because GM accepted corporate welfare.

Which totally defies any logic.

Why?

 

[Art_Vandelay]

GM needs a lot of things. American cars in general need a lot of things. Make some rear wheel drive cars for God Sake. BMW and Mercedes do actually know what they are doing. The public wants fun cars too. Front wheel drive shouldn't be 95% of the product line. Make a big rear wheel drive Cadillac again. Make a portion of them convertible. The public is fascinated with convertibles. Everyone always turns and looks. Give them something to look at. Make sure they are beautiful inside and out and it won't matter if they are expensive. That would do more than a $100 million advertising campaign. So even if it loses money it makes it back in brand recognition and reputation. The Malibu looks like a solid step in the right direction. Take that and make it the best looking car in its class. Give it an interior to match. Every knob, button, lever needs to feel awesome. Extend that to every car and truck made without fail. GM should study Volkswagen. Styling and perceived quality should be immediate goals. Volkswagen demonstrates that better than any manufacturer in the world in my opinion. Their reliability is probably no better than GM, certainly quite a bit lower than major Japanese brands, yet people slam a door and think the thing is military grade hardware. Makes them feel it will last forever. Even if it won't. Digital cameras went to metal casings a couple of years ago because the way things feel matter a lot. The Motorola Razr was an expensive, killer success. If it were fashioned out of plastic would it have been? People are attracted to things based on the way they look and feel and make buying decisions based on that. They ARE willing to spend more for what they think is better too. You can buy a low end Lexus or Infiniti for the price of a Passat. How in the world does Volkswagen even sell 1 of them a year against that competition? Some people think the Volkswagen is actually more beautiful and solid. Look at its interior. Probably one of the nicest in the world for the money. Makes people want it. GM can learn something there. If anyone thinks GM can, anytime soon, make competitive small cars with the likes of Toyota, Honda and Nissan then their capacity for denial eclipses that of the average intravenous drug user. GM is way better off trying to inject the lust factor into as much of the product line as possible. The cars don't need to be as good or better than the Japanese, they need to be more desirable. Give the cars that carved from a block of granite feel to them and they'll sell lots of them. It's time to Rock and Roll. The biggest asset Toyota has is its reputation. GM needs to buy a reputation in order to replace the one that drove it to bankruptcy. That means they need to play to their strengths. The Corvette proves GM is very relevant. Make everything relevant and ride the momentum back to the top. Just never stop being better. When you are lucky enough to build the American Dream you should never take the job for granted.

 

[The Critic]

 Originally Posted By: D.K.

Critic I am not calling you dumb, but that has to be some the dumbest [censored] ever posted on BITOG. I will never get that time back. GM needs to build cars that are reliable, look good, and get as good or better MPG than the foreign brand names that are perceived as better in this country.

I agree with your second paragraph, and that is what Sadlier and Magrath were essentially saying. However, in order to do so, they are going to have to attract fresh talent in order to bring new ideas to Detroit.

 

[cousincletus]

 Originally Posted By: Bamaro

 Originally Posted By: artificialist

Many people who used to consider them now refuse to because GM accepted corporate welfare.

Which totally defies any logic.

I agree. Don't forget all the Japanese and Korean transplants accepted corporate welfare, but in a different way. They got huge tax incentives from the states they are in, and guess who makes up the difference?

 

[Eddie]

Get capable people to run the company such as Penske. Fire the present board of directors, CEO, FEO and other decision making managers. In short, start over, even if it means a new name (GM will always equate to failure) and start with a clean sheet of paper. Design a completely new line of cars. In addition; keep the union on the BOD but, never let them be in a position of dictating or else. JMO

 

[Bamaro]

 Originally Posted By: Tempest

 Originally Posted By: Bamaro

 Originally Posted By: artificialist

Many people who used to consider them now refuse to because GM accepted corporate welfare.

Which totally defies any logic.

Why?

Since we as taxpayers now own part of GM, the logic would dictate that it would be in our interest to have our investment succeed, not fail. Seems childish to not buy GM solely because of the gov bailout.

 

[Samilcar]

 Originally Posted By: Bamaro

 Originally Posted By: Tempest

 Originally Posted By: Bamaro

 Originally Posted By: artificialist

Many people who used to consider them now refuse to because GM accepted corporate welfare.

Which totally defies any logic.

Why?

Since we as taxpayers now own part of GM, the logic would dictate that it would be in our interest to have our investment succeed, not fail. Seems childish to not buy GM solely because of the gov bailout.

Where this argument breaks down is in the payback on that investment. Normally, if you own stock in a company, when that company does well, you are rewarded financially through dividends or in increase in the value of that stock. Likewise, if the company does poorly, you get financially punished. In the recent case of "our" ownership of GM, neither of these is true. We were punished financially right off the bat by shelling out major taxpayer dollars for majority ownership in a failed, financially worthless auto company. If in the future that failed company, by some miracle, turns itself around and becomes profitable, where is the payback to the American taxpayer? Will we get our money back? The answer is no. So then, why is it in the taxpayers (now owners) interest to see GM succeed?

 

[smokey1]

less recalls would help .

 

[cousincletus]

 Originally Posted By: Samilcar

 Originally Posted By: Bamaro

 Originally Posted By: Tempest

 Originally Posted By: Bamaro

 Originally Posted By: artificialist

Many people who used to consider them now refuse to because GM accepted corporate welfare.

Which totally defies any logic.

Why?

Since we as taxpayers now own part of GM, the logic would dictate that it would be in our interest to have our investment succeed, not fail. Seems childish to not buy GM solely because of the gov bailout.

Where this argument breaks down is in the payback on that investment. Normally, if you own stock in a company, when that company does well, you are rewarded financially through dividends or in increase in the value of that stock. Likewise, if the company does poorly, you get financially punished. In the recent case of "our" ownership of GM, neither of these is true. We were punished financially right off the bat by shelling out major taxpayer dollars for majority ownership in a failed, financially worthless auto company. If in the future that failed company, by some miracle, turns itself around and becomes profitable, where is the payback to the American taxpayer? Will we get our money back? The answer is no. So then, why is it in the taxpayers (now owners) interest to see GM succeed?

Uh, maybe because if they don't there could be massive unemployment with all the related jobs that would be lost (conservative estimate was 3 million last time I checked). BTW I see a lot of parroting AM radio talk show propaganda here. That's where I first heard about that (not buying GM because it got bailout money).

 

[d00df00d]

 Originally Posted By: Samilcar

If in the future that failed company, by some miracle, turns itself around and becomes profitable, where is the payback to the American taxpayer? Will we get our money back? The answer is no. So then, why is it in the taxpayers (now owners) interest to see GM succeed?

First, their turnaround wouldn't be as miraculous as you think. Many of their cars are good now. They just need to round out their lineups, trim the fat, and fight the image they've made for themselves. Seems like a tall order, but don't forget that Hyundai did it from far more humble beginnings. Second, they are a large, iconic company. Their success would have a LOT of economic effects and do a lot to bolster domestic morale. That point shouldn't require elaboration. Third, GM can now credibly resurrect the muscle car and the American luxury car. I personally would never buy either kind of car, but diversity is never a bad thing.

 

[Samilcar]

 Originally Posted By: cousincletus

 Originally Posted By: Samilcar

 Originally Posted By: Bamaro

 Originally Posted By: Tempest

 Originally Posted By: Bamaro

 Originally Posted By: artificialist

Many people who used to consider them now refuse to because GM accepted corporate welfare.

Which totally defies any logic.

Why?

Since we as taxpayers now own part of GM, the logic would dictate that it would be in our interest to have our investment succeed, not fail. Seems childish to not buy GM solely because of the gov bailout.

Where this argument breaks down is in the payback on that investment. Normally, if you own stock in a company, when that company does well, you are rewarded financially through dividends or in increase in the value of that stock. Likewise, if the company does poorly, you get financially punished. In the recent case of "our" ownership of GM, neither of these is true. We were punished financially right off the bat by shelling out major taxpayer dollars for majority ownership in a failed, financially worthless auto company. If in the future that failed company, by some miracle, turns itself around and becomes profitable, where is the payback to the American taxpayer? Will we get our money back? The answer is no. So then, why is it in the taxpayers (now owners) interest to see GM succeed?

Uh, maybe because if they don't there could be massive unemployment with all the related jobs that would be lost (conservative estimate was 3 million last time I checked). BTW I see a lot of parroting AM radio talk show propaganda here. That's where I first heard about that (not buying GM because it got bailout money).

I understand the "too big to fail" argument, I just don't agree with it. IMHO if a company is "too big to fail" it needs to be broken into smaller pieces. Not given unlimited amounts of taxpayer money to keep it from failing.

 

[Tempest]

 Originally Posted By: cousincletus

Uh, maybe because if they don't there could be massive unemployment with all the related jobs that would be lost (conservative estimate was 3 million last time I checked). BTW I see a lot of parroting AM radio talk show propaganda here. That's where I first heard about that (not buying GM because it got bailout money).

So American tax payers that average far less compensation than the people that work at GM should be forced to pay for GM jobs? How does that figure?

 

[Tempest]

 Originally Posted By: Bamaro

Since we as taxpayers now own part of GM, the logic would dictate that it would be in our interest to have our investment succeed, not fail. Seems childish to not buy GM solely because of the gov bailout.

Nothing like encouraging the government to nationalize industries...

 

[PT1]

 Originally Posted By: artificialist

GM cant be fixed. Many people who used to consider them now refuse to because GM accepted corporate welfare.

I am one of those and know at least 10 other long term GM buyers who will not buy another GM vehicle because of that. Bye Bye GM.

 

[PT1]

 Originally Posted By: Bamaro

Since we as taxpayers now own part of GM, the logic would dictate that it would be in our interest to have our investment succeed, not fail. Seems childish to not buy GM solely because of the gov bailout.

Childish? How about smart. It is no different than Hitler's vw IMO. I don't want the US government dictating what we buy. PERIOD!

 

[cousincletus]

 Originally Posted By: Tempest

 Originally Posted By: cousincletus

Uh, maybe because if they don't there could be massive unemployment with all the related jobs that would be lost (conservative estimate was 3 million last time I checked). BTW I see a lot of parroting AM radio talk show propaganda here. That's where I first heard about that (not buying GM because it got bailout money).

So American tax payers that average far less compensation than the people that work at GM should be forced to pay for GM jobs? More parroting for sure. How does that figure?

I seem to recall you posting that the reason unions are losing membership and mfg jobs are leaving the USA was because people were becoming more affluent, and these jobs pay less than what is replacing them. Now you're saying the opposite?

 

[Tempest]

 Quote:

I seem to recall you posting that the reason unions are losing membership and mfg jobs are leaving the USA was because people were becoming more affluent

Please show me where I stated this.