var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Jim Topoleski
May 11, 2009 4:03 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Fate of Saturn will probably be just like Chrysler. GM will go bankrupt and whoever is buying Saturn (last I looked it was most likely Renault) will get it for MUCH cheaper than it originally was going to be sold to them for.

Saabs toast though, not even the Swedes want it.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
heltoupee
May 11, 2009 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski: Saab: Swedish Automobile, Always Broken.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR
May 11, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski: I just wish that Fiat had picked up Saturn/Opel instead of Chrysler. Sure, they get more dealer showrooms out of it, but at the cost of a bloated, lackluster company being strapped to their backs.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jim Topoleski
May 11, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FooSchnickens: Its looking less and less likely Opel will be going to Fiat though. The germans where pussyfooting around with the brand up until Fiat expressed serious interest and only NOW have decided they dont like the idea of a Italian automaker buying the german brand, especially if it means they will shut down all german production which was very likely.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rpm773
May 11, 2009 4:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski: With the exception of the Saabaru and the Saablazer, GM really didn't much of anything with/to Saab.

The reason I have a place in my heart for Saab is that the 9-5 is (rather unbelievably) still the same car as it was when I was in school, when I thought about getting one 7 years later, and as it is today another 6 years later. I don't think there's anything still out there being sold as new that was introduced in the mid '90s

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
May 11, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The only thing that will save domestic auto makers is if they come up with even more models. Having 100 models, most of them just rebadged versions of other cars, simply isn't enough for most consumers. We need at least 10 different large SUVs, 10 different medium, and 10 small. We need 15 versions of a small car, 15 medium and 15 large. The only way they are going to pull out of this downward slope is if they focus on delivering several hundred versions of cars with varying degrees of reliability and build design, rather than focusing on several well built cars that everyone would want to buy. Not!

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
m4ximusprim3
May 11, 2009 9:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: I'm a saudi prince who buys one of everything. I like this plan!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jpdanzig
May 11, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And let's face it: cars have gotten seriously complicated and expensive.


We need a new Beetle for the new millenium.


Maybe that little Indian car might inspire some new ideas...

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Papercutninja
May 11, 2009 7:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jpdanzig: it isn't going to happen. anything \"revolutionary\" like the original Beetle, Mini, smart and the upcoming Nano is going to be billed as a PREMIUM vehicle here in the US. Apparently even people that can only afford sub $20K cars still \"need\" leather seats and factory sat-nav.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lannister80
May 11, 2009 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jpdanzig: A Beetle in SPIRIT/FUNCTION. The new beetle sucks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GreatWhiteNorth
May 11, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jpdanzig: Dude... we have the new beetle already... especially in the turbo diesel model!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Pinget
May 11, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No, please, let Hummer die.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
zombie_batch
May 11, 2009 8:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pinget: I agree. I don't see potential buyers of the Hummer brand to be a bright spot. Sure GM needs cash, but the planet needs oil for more important things than transporting rappers, basketball players, middle-aged men, spoiled teenagers and their soccer moms/ wives.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jimconsumer
May 12, 2009 7:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zombie_batch: \"Wahh, wahh, I hate Hummers and will just rag on them incessantly for using too much fuel.\"

Well, while you're at it, I hope you're also banning full size pickups, boats, RVs, exotic V10 & V12 sports cars, any V8 vehicle made before about 1990, and private aircraft, all of which burn as much or much more fuel than 12 mile per gallon Hummers.

Go on - make the argument that all of the above should be banned, that Americans shouldn't have true freedom and should be forced to drive econoboxes \"for the greater good.\" While you're at it, take away private homes bigger than 1,500 square feet, because, you know, that's a waste of resources, too, and nobody really needs that much space.

You're either a filthy communist or you just have an irrational hatred of Hummers that extends far beyond their supposed outrageous use of fuel.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jayphat
May 11, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pinget: But what till the rappers and basketball players drive then?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
b.k.
May 11, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pinget: Hummer's main customer is still the United States military, as it should be. It won't die.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Notsewfast
May 11, 2009 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@b.k.:
The Hummer is not used by the Military... The Humvee, manufactured by AM General (a military contractor) is.

AM General sold naming rights for 'Hummer' to GM. GM is not a military contractor.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
B
May 11, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@b.k.: The Hummvee is made by AM General and sold to the US Military, the Hummer is a GM brand. AM General and the Humvee isn't going anywhere, but the Hummer brand is dead.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 11, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@b.k.: I think there's a significant difference between the hummer used by the military and the neon yellow ones I see rumbling down the street, driven by middle-aged men and teenage boys.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TCinIowa
May 11, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The new Beetle could already be the platform.


Where's the Beetle with one of those super-clean high MPG diesel in it that VW already makes?


Where's the Hybrid Beetle?


Where's the all electric 50 mile range Beetle (Plug Bug?)


VW is missing the boat as bad as all the others.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
jimconsumer
May 12, 2009 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCinIowa: Nobody really wants hybrids. They sell very poorly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
heltoupee
May 11, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCinIowa: The new beetle is crap. Pure crap. Worst car VW has ever made.

I drive a jetta - that's the platform you want to shoot for. The new rabbit is good for what it is - they share a platform. Might be a bit too big for a true economy car.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
May 11, 2009 4:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCinIowa: I'd prefer if the \"new beetle\" or any VW car never be mentioned again

My wife's crappy Beetle is currently in the shop again.

You can't do anything on the new cars.. 90 dollars for a tail light bulb.......

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 11, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCinIowa:

Oh god, not the Beetle. We had an '02 Beetle, and it was the worst POS car I've ever owned. Looks cute, but is a mechanical NIGHTMARE.

I agree that we need a new \"people's car\" for the new millenium. What needs to happen is that Saturn gets sold to somebody with a brain in their head. Design a new car similar to the original S-series (American made, affordable, good quality, good gas mileage, etc.), build it here, use the Saturn reputation to sell it, and bury GM in the process.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lpranal
May 11, 2009 7:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SiyaCachilyo: +1 on the s-series. all those things you described sum it up, and it's almost masochistically reliable. I really feel like I'm going to feel really spoiled when I go to look for my next car. Probably not going to have to do that til 300k though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
m4ximusprim3
May 11, 2009 9:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lpranal: As long as I get my R32's, I don't care what else VW makes.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
IamNotToddDavis
May 11, 2009 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe the government could lend them another few billion?


Surely this time it will work.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
May 11, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@IamNotToddDavis: No doubt. Revelation will strike and they'll develop an entirely new business model. Their workforce will be inspired and efficient, they'll produce stylish, well-built cars, and the GM name will be transformed. Their stock price will shoot up. People will gladly pay the sticker price and in some cases will have to be waitlisted for the most desirable models.

Time to take my medicine.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
IamNotToddDavis
May 11, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: I like the blue ones the best. They make me feel all tingly.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
May 11, 2009 4:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hank Paulson, George Bush, Barack Obama, and Tim Geithner might be surprised by this news but I don't think anyone else is.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
alexcassidy
May 11, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: Shh.... they still think that anybody is going to buy a GM or Chrysler after they fleeced us for billions.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jenkinsbball
May 11, 2009 4:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Don't get rid of Saturn, please. My wife and I want a Vue or Outlook when we can afford the payments (next year).

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
geeky_reader
May 11, 2009 5:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jenkinsbball: But aren't the views now just a rebranded Equinox? They're not Saturn-specific.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jim Topoleski
May 11, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@geeky_reader: other way around actually.

Thats the sad joke of Saturn, GM gave them great cars, but while they sold like crap from Saturn, they just threw a bowtie on it and get them to sell like hotcakes as a Chevy

cases in point

Saturn Vue rebranded as the chevy Equinox even though the Vue was first.
Saturn Ion was reconfigured into the Chevy Cobalt, but the drivetrain is basically the same car.
Saturn Outlook/Buick Enclave was rebadged as the Chevy Traverse.
Saturn Aura has some basis on the Vectra, but was really its own vehicle. Needless to say GM threw a new body on it and THAT is the new Malibu with its XR engine and tranny combo also being moved to the G6 even though the Aura had it first.

What it basically amounts to is GM debuted some excellent vehicles for Saturn, and then completely dropped the ball on marketing them. Hell I STILL have never seen a Astra commercial, and thats probably hands down the BEST compact car on the market today, and sells like crazy in Europe.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RStui
May 11, 2009 7:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski: Saturn was GM's real chance at making forays into the new car market, and they decided to Suck, instead.


I'm sure someone will buy Saturn, the brand has a great following and really great reputations.


I currently drive a Benz (status car for work), but I wouldn't bad-mouth a Saturn. I had one for 10 years, and that car is STILL going, 200,000 miles later. And yeah...I still have it. It's a BEAST!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
May 11, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jenkinsbball:

Isn't Saturn already slated to be killed?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Heresy_Fnord
May 12, 2009 2:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Slated to be sold or to continue on it's own.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
May 11, 2009 4:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: I think they're being put on the market, but I haven't heard if there are any takers yet. I love Saturn cars, and like Jenkinsbball said, I'd love to buy one as soon as I can afford it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Boogaloo2
May 11, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: Yeah, haven't you seen those Saturn commercials airing on TV nonstop lately? They're obviously trying to appeal to companies that might want to buy them out & keep them alive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jim Topoleski
May 11, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: Renault is the likely buyer, along with a group of dealers who are footing some of the bill.

Renault is looking to bring their cars back into the US as true Renaults and not rebadged Nissans, buying Saturn is the cheapest way for them to do it because they will have the dealer base already built for them and most are independent dealers with no ties to GM and no other GM models being sold.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nataku8_e30
May 11, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski: I might actually consider buying a new car if I could get a Saturn Clio.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 11, 2009 4:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Yes, but the cars are still in existence. I think they'll probably continue to sell them as long as they can, but not produce any more new ones.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
minsky
May 11, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just friggin' get it over with already!

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
May 11, 2009 4:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seriously. Mercy killing.

But I feel terrible for all those ppl who will join the unemployment rolls.... :(

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
The_Legend
May 11, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

All fun and games for you trollers until one of the thousands of ancillary companies that does business with GM has to layoff since they are not getting paid. And they have nothing with building cars.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
May 11, 2009 6:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Legend: I think the problem is, the US is based on capitalism. People are complaining the government is too \"socialist\". Then they complain if the government steps in to save a failing company. Can't have it both ways.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TomCoughlin
May 11, 2009 7:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Not sure if you're confused or I am, but complaining about the government stepping in to save a failing company and complaining about socialism sort of go hand-in-hand. I don't think they're really contradictory.


For the most part it would be the same people complaining about the government going socialist and the government stepping in to \"save\" companies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sean Masters
May 11, 2009 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Legend: and? That's how free markets are supposed to work. Instead, we get this mixed-market-government-interference crap. I didn't see anyone bailing Microsoft out when they laid off over 5,000 employees between mid-Oct '08 and Xmas '08. I didn't see anyone bailing Microsoft out when over 100 partner companies collapsed because MS halted all projects including those in production.

Note very similar things happened at IBM, Intel, Dell, and other huge IT enterprises. These monolithic IT companies basically run the free world, and yet we're bailing out automobile manufacturers.

Screw the US automotive industry. We need small, agile car manufacturing firms who can agree on a small number (2-3) of standard, interchangeable parts and then compete based on body/shell style, tweaks, and service/warranty... NOT hunkered down, nauseatingly slow to change, horribly mis-managed auto giants.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
IamNotToddDavis
May 11, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Legend: Ha, you think they were getting paid now anyways? GM owes its creditors billions of dollars. And the recent bailout scheme just prolonged the inevitable.


The irony, as noted by Paul Ingrassia today in the WSJ-


[online.wsj.com]



Last week, GM reported a $6 billion loss for the first quarter. The company wants to wipe away 90% of its $27 billion in unsecured debt as part of its path to viability. But to do that it will almost certainly have to follow Chrysler into bankruptcy court. That will be the cleanest and quickest way for GM to get relief from obligations that it can't afford to meet. Beyond this, GMAC's status as a bank holding company qualifies it for government assistance that Ford's lending arm, Ford Motor Credit, can't get.


You can see where this leaves us. Ford has about $26 billion in automotive debt -- about the same as GM's $27 billion. Ford's debt is secured by its assets. And secured lenders must be repaid -- unless they happen to be Chrysler lenders and get clipped by a company bankruptcy plan that's backed by President Obama.


So Ford is like a homeowner who planned prudently and can pay his mortgage, while his spendthrift neighbors get their mortgage reduced by some new federal program.


Ford executives are probably fretting about this, but there isn't much that can be done. They already have exchanged some of their debt for equity, and might do more of that. But the bottom line is that we live in a world where wisdom can be punished and where foolishness can be rewarded.


Reply
\"user-pic\"
AgitatedDot
May 11, 2009 5:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Legend:

So I'm a troll if I disagree with you and think GM is beyond help? OK.

I hope US car industry dies a quick death. That means all of the supporting companies too. We can't drag this on forever. It's just too costly. You don't keep a brain dead patient alive, there is no point, donate the organs to the highest bidder and stop cranking up the medical bill ;)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TomCoughlin
May 11, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Legend: So do you think it's a better idea to continue propping up a failing company with taxpayer dollars, paying them to produce a product that people don't want at the price GM has to charge in order to pay their bloated union wages and pensions?


How is that better in the long run?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The_Legend
May 11, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TomCoughlin: Ok, let's say your company does business with GM that in no way is supplying car parts. Maybe you are doing IT, or construction services. Or you are a business in a GM town. That sells goods and services to people that work at GM and those other companies?


And I want to puke at the feeble comments about products that people don't want (I guess that's why Toyota lost 8 billion too), and the bloated union wages and pensions (sorry about that, union is taking those over). Thanks for playing though. Come back when you have a valid argument. Maybe you work for one of those banks that is suckling at the teat of Uncle Sam.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trick
May 12, 2009 12:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Legend:

Toyota lost money for the first time because the economy sucks. Toyota can continue to lose money for several more years and they still won't be anywhere near what GM has lost over the past few years. Plus they will still survive as they have a far better business model than GM or Chrysler.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TomCoughlin
May 11, 2009 6:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Legend: Sorry, was there a question in your first paragraph there? Why do you have a question mark at the end? I can only assume that your position is that taxpayers should keep GM in business in order to keep from hurting the ancillary industries, even though GM is losing money hand-over-fist and shows absolutely no signs of changing. Why? That's basically the essence of the cliche \"throwing good money after bad.\" And how long do you propose we continue doing this? Five years? Ten years? Six months?


And I don't understand - are you trying to argue that people do actually wants the cars that GM is making by stating that Toyota's sales are dropping too? And what exactly are you saying with regards to the unions?


Honestly, not sure why I'm bothering to respond to you, between your lack of a coherent argument and your baseless ad hominem attacks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The_Legend
May 11, 2009 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TomCoughlin: Trust me, I really don't know why you are making a feeble attempt to answer. Here are the facts:
1. Everybody is having trouble selling cars, not just the US manufacturers.
2. Available credit (not just in the auto industry) has more to do with the \"perfect storm\" than anything else.
3. The unions have done more to assist the automakers than the creditors by assuming the legacy costs. It now costs $29 per hour to build a GM car vs $30 to build a Toyota.
4. The USA has *NEVER* been a capitalist country, and most likely never will be.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
edebaby
May 11, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Legend: If you are not asking for welfare, what is your solution?
You need to understand that the taxpayers see all of this as a massive welfare plan. And they do not like it; never have.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
AgitatedDot
May 11, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This needs to stop. No more money wasted on failed companies. We should all take the loss and let them close up the shop.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
nataku8_e30
May 11, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You know, all of this focus on GM's losses and potential bankruptcy while completely ignoring that Toyota lost more money than GM last quarter really isn't doing much to dispel the whole \"Consumer Reports has an irrational love of Toyota\" rumors, as unfounded as they may be...

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
May 11, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nataku83:


That $8BN number is kind of bogus - a huge proportion of that was noncash charges related to the very strong Yen. If you look at Free Cash Flow (revenue, less operating costs, less equipment purchases, less interest, less taxes), Toyota had about $1.5BN in losses last quarter, while GM had $11BN in losses.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Foodie92
May 11, 2009 5:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nataku83: I'm glad that you are well informed enough to point this out. Thank you!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mbz32190
May 11, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nataku83: So what? Toyota could lose more money than GM, but people are still going to buy their cars. Not so much for GM. IMO, no automaker is really safe. When people don't have money, a new car is at the bottom of the priority list.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jim Topoleski
May 11, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mbz32190: Actually that whole lost more money thing has to deal with people are NOT buying Toyotas cars right now.

In fact I would be more worried about them if it where not for the fact that unlike the US, Japans government is willing to bend over backwards to help their auto industry and has done given them money while baring foreign auto manufacturers from Japanese soil for DECADES now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nataku8_e30
May 11, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mbz32190: Well, my point is that this blog is somewhat biased in the way they shit all over GM but not competitors. Plus, even before GM's bankruptcy was guaranteed, consumerist has been consistently reporting losses. It just seems to me their omission of Toyota's losses this first quarter is demonstrating some sort of bias. Also, I don't know where this idea came from that GM doesn't make cars Americans want to buy, Chevy alone sold 1.8 million cars in 2008. How is this not considered people buying GM cars?

Also, I completely agree - no automaker is safe - people aren't buying new cars right now because the bottom fell out of our fake economy. Why then all the hate for GM? Yes, they're definitely not managed as well as Toyota or Honda or Nissan, but with the incredible product improvements they've made in the last few years, they would be surviving right now if the economy hadn't tanked. Yet people are calling for their death, and stating that the company should be put to sleep? This seems pretty extreme when the poster child for the automotive industry is also hemorrhaging cash.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Foodie92
May 11, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nataku83: @mbz32190: You may be surprised to learn that GM is actually selling quite well in other parts of the world. There are GM factories in China that are running 24/7 to meet demand there. The Buick Escalade is especially popular and is perceived as a luxury import. It seems that the whole world has a \"the grass is always greener\" complex.


What GM needs to work on is improving consumer perception here in the US and running more efficiently. Bankruptcy may be necessary to restructure the company to these ends. It won't be the end of GM; it will just be the end of the old GM.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Foodie92
May 11, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Good catch. That should read Buick Enclave, though as a side note, the Cadillac Escalade is also popular in the Chinese market.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
anduin
May 12, 2009 8:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Foodie92:
only reason they sell well overseas is because they are perceived to be a luxury item by the wealthy. I remember visiting relatives in Europe and while in Germany, a few people owned Ford or GM vehicles because they were \"rare\", similar to what the mercedes/bmw/audi craze is in NA...like you own one of those and \"you've made it\". It's not because Ford or GM are better cars than mercedes or bmw (they are most definitely not) but perception overides all common knowledge. Ford is still ok with their trucks, they're decent and do what they're supposed to do but GM has been a joke for a long long time.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Zclyh3
May 11, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sorry but business is business. If GM can't cut it, then it's time to go bankrupt. Only the strong survive and it's not like people are going to stop buying cars, they're just going to buy from companies that give them what they want. CLEARLY GM wasn't able to achieve this.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
mechmike
May 11, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Zclyh3:

\"(People are) going to buy from companies that give them what they want.\"

Chevrolet sold 93,720 Silverado pickups in the first four months of 2009.

Honda sold 76,782 Civics in the first four months of 2009.

The numbers are here: [online.wsj.com]

Next argument?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chauncy that billups
May 11, 2009 8:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mechmike:
It's not how many cars were sold, it's at what profit. GM takes an average loss of about $2,300 per vehicle sold (and that's in 2005). Toyota and Honda make about $1,600 per vehicle sold.


[www.econ.iastate.edu]


So at this moment, GM can never make its money back. the product they are selling is not profitable.


GM could make a car that takes care of your children and gives you the greatest orgasms you'd ever had; they'll still go bankrupt.


In the end, it doesn't matter. They'll be forced into a restructuring deal that gives the UAW, the organization that has run that company into the ground, majority share.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
BaseballBookshelf
May 11, 2009 5:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That many dealers closing would be another punch to the gut of newspapers, who depend on car ads for much of their steady ad revenue. This would disproportionally hit the smaller, suburban papers.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
htrodblder
May 11, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Its so easy to say, \"let the companies just die\" Yet if that happens and thousands of dealers close, plants close and the local economy if smaller cities are destroyed, there will be no \"do overs\" or \"take backs\".


Then I think you will hear a different tune out of the major news media.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
TomCoughlin
May 11, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@htrodblder: Actually, I think the problem is that the easy choice is to continue throwing money at the companies, artificially propping them up.


The hard choice is to let them die. Lots of people get put out of work in the short term and people get angry at the politicians who \"let\" this happen, with their anger stoked by populist media interviews with the folks who are out of work.


In the short term, it's relatively easy and popular to throw some bailout money at them, but that only prolongs the death throes until someone else is in office. Make the tough choice, let these sick companies die, and clear the way for new healthy companies to take their place.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
May 11, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TomCoughlin:

I'd rather see these companies restructured/retooled to build things people want or america needs. HONESTLY, do we need to perpetually spend billions of taxpayer dollars so they can keep building cars no one is buying? Why not restructure so they build high speed internet components, or wind power instruments, solar batteries or SOMETHING someone will actually use?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TomCoughlin
May 11, 2009 7:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: I don't know where I was arguing that we should be throwing more money at GM and the like. I think I was arguing the opposite, that we should stop and let them die.


But re your idea, retooling, I fear that trying to do that would only result in similarly inefficient bloated companies with the same union problems as the car industry. But if it could be done efficiently, with minimal (if any) government intervention or taxpayer cost, I'd be fine with it, but I fear neither one of those qualifications would be met.


Any solution is going to be painful, economically, my position is that to let them die now and allow other companies to replace them (whether auto industry or another industry) would be the least painful, the lesser of the evils. But that's getting into a basic argument over free market capitalism versus central planning, etc that I doubt we're going to solve here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
citizensmith: I may be stupid but:
May 11, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@htrodblder: And when the dealership on the edge of town closes, how much sales tax revenue will the city council loose? Where will their cutbacks be made.

Huge problem isn't it. GM and Chrysler deserve to die, but are we really sure we want to handle the collateral damage of loosing them. I think the answer is probably no.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
usa_gatekeeper
May 11, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@htrodblder: These dying companies have ALREADY dumped employees like crazy, closed plants all over the place and cut back on all expenditures.

By the time they formally file Ch.11, they'll only be a shell of their former selves. Economic damage HAS ALREADY been done.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
kraftmayo
May 11, 2009 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And if we'd let it fail the first time and let capitalism work like it's supposed to, the American people wouldnt be out many billions of wasted dollars.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
OmniZero
May 11, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I just bought a brand new Chevy Cobalt at the end of September. Why? Because my monthly payment is only $215 a month and I've trusted them before.

Now, before you mock me, remember that there are people out there who like(d) Circuit City, Bank of America, Target and any other company we frequently frown upon because they've never had a bad experience with them. That is my case with the GM vehicles I've owned.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
May 11, 2009 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OmniZero:

I think my problem is past experience. My mom has always bought fords, and my dad has always bought chevy. (My mom also has a terrible Chrysler). I've always bought used foreign cars with 3x the mileage of my parents' cars, and I've always had 1/10 the problems. I currently have a Ford and I am mystified at a lot of the poor design decisions (as I have to have the same repairs done every 1-2 years). Back to Honda/Mazda/Toyota after this one.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Heresy_Fnord
May 12, 2009 2:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Foreign cars have problems too. An old friend of mine had a honda and the \"vtec\" variable timing failed repeatedly starting at under 20k miles.

Foreign cars DO NOT ALWAYS equal better.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
May 11, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Bankrupcy would be a good thing for GM, and for the taxpayers who are currently bailing them out. Bankrupcy would potentially allow GM to kick out the union workers that are bleeding the company to death, and bring in skilled workers who are willing to work for an honest wage. If GM could get its labour costs under control, it'd have a fighting chance.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
theodicey
May 11, 2009 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@vladthepaler: Fact check: the hourly wage of workers at GM is the same as Toyota and Honda's US operations, and lower than their Japanese operations.

Labor costs aren't a problem, despite what you have apparently heard. Their legacy costs, especially retiree health care, are.

Bankruptcy might save them from those costs, but that just means taxpayers are going to pick up the tab. I assume you don't care about that because you spell \"labour\" with a 'u'.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
May 11, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theodicey: That's correct, the pensions are backed by a government program that protects all pensions, and of course dumping their retiree health care dumps them right into the 'safety net' - Medicare. All taxpayer funded forever.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TomCoughlin
May 11, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theodicey: How can you divorce \"legacy\" costs from labor costs? They're all part of the same package, whether they're paid as part of a weekly paycheck or paid after the worker has retired.


Either way, unions and their workers need to be willing to make (large-scale) concessions, on the front end or the back, if they want to keep their jobs. To expect everyone else in the country to continue to bail them out when they're unwilling to consider paycuts or pension reductions is asinine. Most people have to save money out of our paychecks for retirement. Why should unions be any different?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chauncy that billups
May 11, 2009 8:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TomCoughlin:


Why the hell would the UAW make \"major concessions\" when they've just seen the president force Chrysler into a restructuring deal that rewards the union and protects their legacy costs from all creditors? There is no incentive for them to reduce costs at all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TomCoughlin
May 11, 2009 9:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bilups: re Union Concessions - I wasn't saying that it was GOING to happen (in fact, you're exactly right, the government is giving the unions absolutely no reason that they should compromise), I was saying that I think it SHOULD happen as a prerequisite for any sort of bailout (which I don't think should be happening in the first place).

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 11, 2009 6:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I live near Dayton, Ohio - a dying town... About ten years ago I was talking to a guy who had made $120,000.00 per year at GM/Delphi. He was a painter, he painted walls. Granted he spent lots of hours at the plant, he soaked up weekend overtime as much as he could. I know of many, many stories like this, from both sides of the aisles and it doesn't just happen at GM. Nevertheless, I just can't feel sorry for GM or companies which allowed these things to go on - the management that allowed these things to happen and the Unions that took advantage are both to blame. I don't recall seeing GM employee's wearing jackets with the GM logo on it all these years - they all wore jackets with the union insignia on the back of it, because that's who they were indebted to. I do feel bad for the companies and unions that worked honestly but are now having horrible problems.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bananaboat
May 11, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I just hope they don't repeat the 70's. When the Big 3 had to rapidly switch to small cars to compete but instead produced a bunch of junk - Pintos, Gremlins, Chevettes, Courier, 4-banger Mustang.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
grapedog
May 11, 2009 7:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let the companies fail, it's the only way to go. I'd be pissed if I was Ford...

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
kwsventures
May 11, 2009 9:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

General Motors will file BK and change its name to Government Motors.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
joepa1
May 12, 2009 1:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Gm to UAW....See ya

[www.cnbc.com]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Black-Cat
May 12, 2009 8:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I just wish Garbage Motors would hurry up and die. They suck. It's their fault they are going under. People need to stop making excuses for them and feeling sorry for them. If you are/were a union auto worker, I hope you saved some of the money you were over-payed.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
IronCrow
May 13, 2009 2:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Again, its about the derivatives that the debt holders have on GM. Its worth more to them to let GM fail than to see it alive. Now slate is saying the exact same thing:
[www.slate.com]

Reply
");