Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So they both borrowed money. Why is Ford doing well and the other two are not? Borrowing money at the wrong or right time was not the reason for their failures.
GM & Chrysler did more than just borrow money. They allowed the government to control every aspect of their business, they allowed the government to screw the initial creditors/investors by giving a major stake in the companies to the unions.
First of all GM is now pretty doing well too - and has already stated that it's had the best month (September) in a year.
And YES - borrowning money at the right or wrong time WAS a HUGE part of the problem. BOTH needed to borrow money - again BOTH needed to borrow money. Ford borrowed it when it was AVAILABLE, GM did NOT - and then when it went to borrow money it couldn't get any because the credit markets had siezed up. No one would loan GM money because no one was loaning money PERIOD. GM simply waited too long and as a result was forced to look to the government for that money.
So yeah - the TIMING of the borrowing was a HUGE factor (probably the deciding factor) in each companies fate. This shows the importance and criticality that a good managment decision can make. Ford management made a good decision, GM management made a BAD one. It was Free Enterprise at work in BOTH cases. The Government didn't become involved until the damage was already done at GM. Government didn't create the problem at GM - bad management in conjuction with the Free Enterprise system created the problem at GM.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 11-02-2009 at 09:36 AM..
Complete hogwash. Those are not the facts...at all.
Revisionist history...yes.
Obviously, Ford took the steps needed in the business model and restructuring, which included layoffs to once again become profitable.
GM and Chrysler were prevented from doing that by the government bailout. The problems they had before have not gone away.
Now THAT'S hogwash.
Ford Layoffs started 3 YEARS ago - LONGGGGGG before GM took the government bailout. As shown in the link I posted (Ford borrows $18B for restructuring - The Denver Post), Ford borrowed money and addressed it's issue wayyyyyy back. GM waited - not because of the government bailout - that govenment bailout was full 2 YEARS in the future at that point.
You do understand don't you that things that happen first, HAPPEN FIRST - and that things that happen SECOND don't CAUSE the things that HAPPENED FIRST?
And GM wouldn't have needed the government bailout if it's management had had the foresight to borrow money when Ford did. It really just came down to luck and a bad decision by GM not to borrow money earlier (when it was still available).
What's your point?
Ken
One took bail out money and lost 238000 jobs one chose to not take bailout money and lost 60,000 jobs that is the point and a fact
One took bail out money and lost 238000 jobs one chose to not take bailout money and lost 60,000 jobs that is the point and a fact
Yes - GM took the money BECAUSE they were in such sad shape (hence the larger number of layoffs) - they didn't have the larger layoffs BECAUSE they took the money.
You REALLY need to take a course in logic.
How old are you - 9?
Yes - GM took the money BECAUSE they were in such sad shape (hence the larger number of layoffs) - they didn't have the larger layoffs BECAUSE they took the money.
You REALLY need to take a course in logic.
How old are you - 9?
Geeze!
Ken
You need to take the course in logic and reading comprehension. I have just stated a fact. sorry you can not read.
I did not ever discuss why they took the money or what shape they were in. I did state a bottom line fact that you want to make a personal attack of .
Your personal attack does not change the fact given.
why do you on the left hate use of facts.
was ford better run 3 years ago then GM yes I agree . Did ford see the problem before GM yes they did.
Did Ford have to borrow government funds because they were better prepared , no funds needle decause they were.
Did Ford lose 60,000 jobs yes
Did GM lose 238000 jobs yes
Did Ford take bail out money no
Did GM yes.
Try living in facts instead of attacking me.
I know that is hard for you lefties because you do not deal logically with facts.
Yes - GM took the money BECAUSE they were in such sad shape (hence the larger number of layoffs) - they didn't have the larger layoffs BECAUSE they took the money.
You REALLY need to take a course in logic.
How old are you - 9?
Geeze!
Ken
Oh give me a break Ken.
If GM would have posted huge profits this last quarter and would have prevented layoffs, you would have given credit to the government bailout for "saving" all these jobs.
On the converse side, you give no credance to the fact that Ford, who took no govenrment money, and had less layoffs to "no mattering" in comparison to GM.
What a bunch of hog wash. You are playing both sides.
The facts remain... GM took money, GM had huge layoffs, GM is in huge financial trouble compared to Ford who didn't take government money.
You can say "it had nothing to do with the money" all you want, but that is just you speculating WHY he posted the facts, rather than actually looking at the facts and recogonizing that whether you like it or not, the bailout money DOES impact that profitability of companies.
The government shouldn't have propped up GM, it didn't help, Ford and the facts surrounding the two companies proves that.
So in other words if GM hadn't have taken the government money they would have had smaller layoffs like Ford did?
The larger layoffs at GM were coming regardless of whether or not they took government money - and I venture that had they NOT taken government money and simply collapsed the layoffs might well have been EVEN BIGGER.
The fact is, you are trying to make the claim (or at least imply) that the GM layoffs were bigger BECAUSE they took government bailouts - which is *ss-backwards from what the situation was. The government bailout didn't CAUSE the layoffs at GM - GM management's failure to address the issue early (the way Ford managment did) is what caused the heavier layoffs at GM).The longer they waited the worse the problem got. By the time the government stepped in the damage at GM was ALREADy in place and drastic action was going to be necessary.
Again, your apparent lack of even basic logic is appaling.
Ken
PS - and by the way, GM IS on the upswing:
"DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Co GM.UL said on Wednesday it was on track to post its first monthly year-over-year U.S. sales increase for the first time in 21 months, amid signs of a gradual recovery for the industry and the economy.
"I would say that clearly there are signs that the economy is emerging from the worst recession in 70 years," GM sales analyst Mike DiGiovanni said in a briefing with reporters at the automaker's Detroit headquarters.
DiGiovanni said GM's October U.S. auto sales were on track for the automaker to show its first year-over-year sales increase since January 2008. "This would be a really positive sign for GM," he said."
C'mon you guys, let's not personally attack one another here, or make this political.
If you folks have differences of opinions, ok, please try to post some links backing up your differences. nuff said?
All of you HAVE raised some very good questions and answers for FMC's successes, and other automaker's short comings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
