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.
The only fact your analysis omits is that General Motors is operating in the black.
As I said before, when you bet against the American worker, YOU LOSE.
Operating in the black? They pay no taxes, we taxpayers are paying millions for their union's early retirement pensions, they lose $49,000 for each Volt they sell, and they owe the taxpayer tens of billions, and we have not even discussed the money GMAC owes us.
Operating in the black? They pay no taxes, we taxpayers are paying millions for their union's early retirement pensions, they lose $49,000 for each Volt they sell, and they owe the taxpayer tens of billions, and we have not even discussed the money GMAC owes us.
GM is disputing that report. "Plenty of vehicles besides the Volt lose money when their development costs are included in the analysis, analysts said." .....like: Nissan's Leaf, Honda's Fit, and Toyota's Prius.
"While sales are slow, the car is still doing better than other new-technology vehicles. Sales of the Nissan Leaf have fallen steadily since the electric vehicle’s launch in late 2010. Nissan sold fewer than 700 of the vehicles in August and just a little more than 4,000 so far this year. Whatever money GM is losing on the Volt has not put the company into the red."
Explain to me in the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, which included credit markets that had essentially seized, whose was going to buy the assets of GM and Chysler and who was going to provide the additional financing needed for the working capital necessary to run those companies?
you can bet that bmjw, mercedes, fiat, honda, toyota, and various chinese automakers, and tata motors would have stepped up and bought the assets of gm and chrysler had they gone into liquidation. in fact fiat was looking to buy chrysler BEFORE they went down. fiat wanted the extra production capacity, and the rights to sell the jeep in europe. hummer was almost sold to the chinese automaker before the chinese government nixed the deal. gm sold off saab, ford sold off aston martin, jaguar, land rover, and volvo. dont tell me that no one would have stepped up and bought the assets if gm and chrysler decided to liquidate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself
FACT: There was no private money to rescue GM or Chrysler so they would have been liquidated (perminently closed down and their assets sold off)
FACT: This WOULD have resulted in virtually all auto parts supplier companies in the country going bankrupt. That would have meant even companies like Ford, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda having to shut down production due to lack of parts. This is why those companies supported the government reorganization of those two companies.
Those are facts, not opinions, and anyone who denies those facts are full of fecal matter. Yes, Obama really did save the American auto industry even if some people are unhappy that it happened.
all rubbish in this post. as i pointed out above there were many companies that would have bought the assets. as for the parts manufacturers shutting down, more bull crap. even in bankruptcy liquidation the courts would have kept gm and chrysler running until a buyer for the assets could be lined up.
you can bet that bmjw, mercedes, fiat, honda, toyota, and various chinese automakers, and tata motors would have stepped up and bought the assets of gm and chrysler had they gone into liquidation. in fact fiat was looking to buy chrysler BEFORE they went down. fiat wanted the extra production capacity, and the rights to sell the jeep in europe. hummer was almost sold to the chinese automaker before the chinese government nixed the deal. gm sold off saab, ford sold off aston martin, jaguar, land rover, and volvo. dont tell me that no one would have stepped up and bought the assets if gm and chrysler decided to liquidate.
all rubbish in this post. as i pointed out above there were many companies that would have bought the assets. as for the parts manufacturers shutting down, more bull crap. even in bankruptcy liquidation the courts would have kept gm and chrysler running until a buyer for the assets could be lined up.
What part of a world-wide financial crisis don't you understand? When JazzyTallGuy posted the below sentence it didn't just apply to the U.S.A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy Explain to me in the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, which included credit markets that had essentially seized, whose was going to buy the assets of GM and Chysler and who was going to provide the additional financing needed for the working capital necessary to run those companies?
Why do any changes, good or bad, within the auto industry pertain specifically and/or only to Ohio?
The premise of this thread is ludicrous. Methinks the OP knows nothing about the auto industry, the geography of the United States, or the economy of Ohio.
What part of a world-wide financial crisis don't you understand? When JazzyTallGuy posted the below sentence it didn't just apply to the U.S.A.
dont forget that foreign automakers are subsidized by their governments, and as such their government would have ponied up the money to buy the assets of gm and chrysler. and while gm, ford and chrysler were in fact hurting sales wise, fiat was still selling cars at a good pace, and they did in fact have the money to buy chrysler. and you know if hummer had been less expensive to buy, it would be owned by china now rather than having been shut down. same with saturn, had penske gotten a manufacturing deal, saturn would be operating now instead of being on the pile of nameplates of history. heck even ford would have been a player for some of the assets had gm and chrysler liquidated. i am quite sure that allan mullally would have found a way to pick up something from the two companies, even if it meant that they would have to partner with someone else.
back in 2006 people were saying that ford was going down, and it was just a matter of time before it happened. i kept saying that history was on fords side to stay up and running. well ford didnt take bailout money, and they didnt file for bankruptcy, in fact they weathered the storm quite nicely thank you. i was right then, and i am right now.
dont forget that foreign automakers are subsidized by their governments, and as such their government would have ponied up the money to buy the assets of gm and chrysler. and while gm, ford and chrysler were in fact hurting sales wise, fiat was still selling cars at a good pace, and they did in fact have the money to buy chrysler. and you know if hummer had been less expensive to buy, it would be owned by china now rather than having been shut down. same with saturn, had penske gotten a manufacturing deal, saturn would be operating now instead of being on the pile of nameplates of history. heck even ford would have been a player for some of the assets had gm and chrysler liquidated. i am quite sure that allan mullally would have found a way to pick up something from the two companies, even if it meant that they would have to partner with someone else.
back in 2006 people were saying that ford was going down, and it was just a matter of time before it happened. i kept saying that history was on fords side to stay up and running. well ford didnt take bailout money, and they didnt file for bankruptcy, in fact they weathered the storm quite nicely thank you. i was right then, and i am right now.
Yes, those foreign automakers ARE subsidized by their governments because their recognize the value of having a series of manufacturing plants that can easily be retooled to make implements and equipment of war the way WE did during WWII---that's in addition to the obvious benefits to their economy. I don't get why so many people here don't care if our American Auto Industry gets taken over by foriegn owners. If a Chinese auto company operating in this country wanted to manufacture tanks or cruise missals to wage war against Russia guess who becomes airstrike targets. It's a national security issues to keep the American Big Three in the hands of Americans.
Yes, those foreign automakers ARE subsidized by their governments because their recognize the value of having a series of manufacturing plants that can easily be retooled to make implements and equipment of war the way WE did during WWII---that's in addition to the obvious benefits to their economy. I don't get why so many people here don't care if our American Auto Industry gets taken over by foriegn owners. If a Chinese auto company operating in this country wanted to manufacture tanks or cruise missals to wage war against Russia guess who becomes airstrike targets. It's a national security issues to keep the American Big Three in the hands of Americans.
actually i do care if our automakers get taken over by foreign manufacturers, however, i dont want our taxpayer money wasted on losing propositions here either. gm is still in quite the bad way as they have NOT made ANY changes to their management structure, and neither has chrysler. ford on the other hand HAS made structural changes to their management, from the ground up. as to our defense industry, and the involvement of foreign companies, i seriously doubt that china, or any other foreign country is going to build their military equipment in this country.
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.
