Mitt Romney on the Detroit Autos

[MannyIsGod]

Everyone knows this right? Toyota and Honda built plants here so they could get out of paying tariffs set up by our fore fathers. They hire the bare minimum of workers to get around those, and if it comes time to expand they expand in Japan because they take care of their own homeland first...something we obviously don't do. They pay their corporate taxes to Japan, not the US. That money goes to Japan, not the US

Then we should remove the tariffs, not buy from GM. I don't see how this is in any way a bonus for GM.

Its not cheating the system. Buy not offering fleet sales they are limiting their income. They've obviously made a judgment that paying the tariffs would be worse than what they bring in, so they've made a business decision. Its not like GM doesn't do business overseas as well.

[Thunder Dan]

Then we should remove the tariffs, not buy from GM. I don't see how this is in any way a bonus for GM.

Its not cheating the system. Buy not offering fleet sales they are limiting their income. They've obviously made a judgment that paying the tariffs would be worse than what they bring in, so they've made a business decision. Its not like GM doesn't do business overseas as well.

they do very well overseas doing the same thing Honda and Toyota do here, but the difference is Japan puts so many tariffs on US Cars that they won't sell over there- they don't want GM and Ford doing what Honda and Toyota are doing over here.


It's funny because my family owns a Chevrolet store, a Cadillac/Saab store and a Toyota/BMW store and my own father, who actually owns a Toyota franchise, won't let me buy a Toyota because of these reasons. BMW's don't cheat the system like the Japanese, which is why I don't have a problem with people buying BMWS, MBs or Audis

[MannyIsGod]

they do very well overseas doing the same thing Honda and Toyota do here, but the difference is Japan puts so many tariffs on US Cars that they won't sell over there- they don't want GM and Ford doing what Honda and Toyota are doing over here.


It's funny because my family owns a Chevrolet store, a Cadillac/Saab store and a Toyota/BMW store and my own father, who actually owns a Toyota franchise, won't let me buy a Toyota because of these reasons. BMW's don't cheat the system like the Japanese, which is why I don't have a problem with people buying BMWS, MBs or Audis

I know where your coming from man. And I'm no fan of the Japanese tarrifs, but Japanese cars HAVE been better on many fronts. I can't pull up the consumer reports stuff to show it since I no longer have a subscription, but its the truth.

[kwhitegocubs]

So your father makes money off of EvilToyota vehicles, but won't allow YOU to purchase one?

[boutons_]

GM's savior:

"G.M. says the car, which is scheduled to arrive in showrooms two years from now, will be able to travel 40 miles on a charge, but it will also have a small gas engine to extend the range to as much as 640 miles using both the battery and gasoline (the 1.4 liter, four-cylinder engine is intended to run a generator that will power the car and recharge the batteries once they are depleted). It is expected to cost about $40,000.

To some, the Volt will remain a niche vehicle until its cost drops sharply and its range rises dramatically.

“If you’re the affluent individual who wants to make a statement, it’s one thing,” said Ron Pinelli, president of MotorIntelligence.com, an industry analysis firm. “If you’re Joe the Commuter, you’re not going to spend $40,000 on an electric car. It’s insane.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/business/22volt.html

The other is very cheap gas so GM can keep pumping out high-margin SUVs and trucks, if fat-ass Americans have enough $$.

"Who Killed The Electric Car?"

[boutons_]

Lessons of the 1979 Chrysler loan guarantee

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

If the Big3 plan in a few days isn't aggressive and painful enough (anybody think these candy-ass, super-wealthy, over-paid, short-term execs give a sh!t about their companies?), let them go into bankruptcy and re-org.

[boutons_]

November 24, 2008

Big Three’s Troubles May Touch Financial Sector

By ZACHERY KOUWE and LOUISE STORY

To the long list of troubles plaguing the financial industry, add three big ones — make that Big Three ones.

The foundering Detroit automakers owe more than $100 billion to their bankers and bondholders, and Wall Street is starting to wonder how much of that will be paid back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/bu...gewanted=print

=======

ooops! Paulsen doesn't give a sh!t about workers, but he'll cover the Big3 debts to his financial buddies with taxpayer dollars.

[Centaur of the Sun]

It's getting to the point now where we need to just let these ass holes fail.

Restructure your business model, cut the fat, reduce redundant car models, offer cars people will actually want to buy, and call it a day.

The loan will be likened to putting a lifelong crack addict in rehab for a week and thinking he'll be ok. You need to put that er in a locked room with a bed and a bucket and make him go through withdrawals. It's gonna hurt like a mother er but everyone's better off (except the drug dealer) in the end.

[DarkReign]

It's getting to the point now where we need to just let these ass holes fail.

Restructure your business model, cut the fat, reduce redundant car models, offer cars people will actually want to buy, and call it a day.

The loan will be likened to putting a lifelong crack addict in rehab for a week and thinking he'll be ok. You need to put that er in a locked room with a bed and a bucket and make him go through withdrawals. It's gonna hurt like a mother er but everyone's better off (except the drug dealer) in the end.

Thank God it isnt your life/job in the balance, huh? That must be a nice view you have where putting 5 million people out of a job is likened to heroin addicts and poor analogies to Leonardo movies.

But lets give Citigroup ~300 billion. Theyre way more important.

[baseline bum]

Thank God it isnt your life/job in the balance, huh? That must be a nice view you have where putting 5 million people out of a job is likened to heroin addicts and poor analogies to Leonardo movies.

But lets give Citigroup ~300 billion. Theyre way more important.

Do you think those jobs are going to be safe if we keep pumping money into a company run by shortsighted morons who have proved time and again to be huge failures? This auto bailout will be nothing but a time delay on the death of GM if taxpayers keep rewarding incompetence.

[DarkReign]

Do you think those jobs are going to be safe if we keep pumping money into a company run by shortsighted morons who have proved time and again to be huge failures? This auto bailout will be nothing but a time delay on the death of GM if taxpayers keep rewarding incompetence.

Much like our financial ins utions?

I am not entirely pissed at people objecting to an auto bailout, so much as I am disgusted with politicians and their sudden tightening of the purse strings.

I am anti-bailout-anything to be clear.

But the recent slamming of the suto industry and the people affected in general is starting to piss me off. As if we are all just $28 an hour union s more concerned with where we can sleep inside the plant than actually working.

Its the broadbrush approach being spearheaded by the likes of Southern politicians who have nothing but horrible things to say about American car companies. As if they dont subsidize Toyota/Honda plants being built in their states.

Who does Toyota pay their corporate income taxes to? Honda? BMW? Volkswagon? Etc.

It is not the US government (you know that). Yet these ing re s hold up these companies as some sort of beacon of hope, that they are soooo kind as to actually employ Americans in the assembly of their vehicles.

Yet, American companies cant export to their countries due to the rest of the worlds protectionist policies.

So watching politicians suck the s of foreign companies isnt exactly my idea of honest criticism. Its blatant pandering benefitting only themselves.

Dont bailout the auto companies, I really dont care as a matter of principal (I should be endorsing it, but I cant). But when a majority of the country sees an opportunity to slam dunk the RustBelt and they have the audacity to do it with a smartass smile and a kick in the ass, dont worry....we'll be moving to your states taking your manufacturing jobs soon enough.

Then we'll see who is the lazy, backward ing re s of the country.

[clambake]

Dont bailout the auto companies, I really dont care as a matter of principal (I should be endorsing it, but I cant). But when a majority of the country sees an opportunity to slam dunk the RustBelt and they have the audacity to do it with a smartass smile and a kick in the ass, dont worry....we'll be moving to your states taking your manufacturing jobs soon enough.

Then we'll see who is the lazy, backward ing re s of the country.

Dr bringing the hammer down.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd rather have a Camary or Corrolla. Both get better millage and both are flat out better cars imo. I'm sure the Camary costs more but I think the Corrolla is cheaper.

I hope you're not in favor of bailing out the car companies. I don't blame you for buying the brands that have a better price vs. quality. However, you now have no room to ask for leniency on the US makers.

Personally, even though more money, I have always bought USA brands. Some have been built in Canada and one in Mexico, but always GM, Ford, or Chrysler. My one exception was about 30 years ago when I bought a Fiat convertible. It was just the right price at the right time, used, and in need of repair. I think I paid $100 for it. Sold it for much more after fixing the engine.

I support the US manufacturing industry when I can, but I cannot bring myself into rewarding bad management and excessive union control with a bailout.

[Wild Cobra]

And whats the resale value on either? Do the math.

Thunder Dan, Manny is right on this. American cars just don't retain the retail value used. You may pay a few thousand extra when you buy one, but it retains that few extra thousand and then some for trade in value. Then the import names that are in fact cheaper are more valuable three years later. Again, trade-in value.

[Extra Stout]

Rather than throw $25 billion at automakers, which at their rate of cash burn only buys them a few more months of life, why not just buy GM outright and then proceed with a Chapter 11-like reorganization? I think GM could have a viable business if its legacy costs get restructured and the beancounters get whacked.

I wish I could say the same for Chrysler, but anything the government might do with them is just putting good money after bad. I don't think Chapter 11 is even an option for them -- Chapter 7 is all that remains.

[DarkReign]

Thunder Dan, Manny is right on this. American cars just don't retain the retail value used. You may pay a few thousand extra when you buy one, but it retains that few extra thousand and then some for trade in value. Then the import names that are in fact cheaper are more valuable three years later. Again, trade-in value.

Yeah, but do you understand why they have a higher resale value?

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, but do you understand why they have a higher resale value?

I'm not sure what the experts say, but they are built better for the same money and lost longer, at least historically. Historical trends do not mean current trends are equal, but people remember history.

There are actually many reasons. One that I don't think most people realize are the different ways the cars are developed. In Japan for example, they can focus on a new product without the ten year mandatory repair parts storage. When they get a model they like, they can then beef up the structure for US crash standards. Their cost of development is far cheaper than ours.

[Extra Stout]

Yeah, but do you understand why they have a higher resale value?

The consumer-based reason is that the imports have a higher perceived value.

Another reason that applied until GM and Ford changed their strategy was that in order to keep volumes high they sold a lot of units to fleets, for example rental car companies. The fleet customers keep the cars for a couple of years, then sell them. This creates an oversupply of two-year-old used domestic cars, which depresses price. The loss of resale value erodes their retail customer base, which makes them even more dependent upon fleet sales. It's a vicious cycle, one from which GM and Ford tried to extricate themselves.

Chrysler embraced fleet sales wholeheartedly as GM and Ford pulled back from them. This makes sense for Chrysler since no retail customer in his right mind would buy one of their products, while fleet customers care mostly about price as opposed to quality.

(This doesn't take into account the loss of business some rental companies suffer as renters steer clear of them in order not to be stuck in a POS Chrysler.)

[Wild Cobra]

Another reason that applied until GM and Ford changed their strategy was that in order to keep volumes high they sold a lot of units to fleets, for example rental car companies. The fleet customers keep the cars for a couple of years, then sell them. This creates an oversupply of two-year-old used domestic cars, which depresses price. The loss of resale value erodes their retail customer base, which makes them even more dependent upon fleet sales. It's a vicious cycle, one from which GM and Ford tried to extricate themselves.

I never noticed that side of it before, but it makes perfect sense that you are correct.

Thanks for the insight.

[DarkReign]

The consumer-based reason is that the imports have a higher perceived value.

Another reason that applied until GM and Ford changed their strategy was that in order to keep volumes high they sold a lot of units to fleets, for example rental car companies. The fleet customers keep the cars for a couple of years, then sell them. This creates an oversupply of two-year-old used domestic cars, which depresses price. The loss of resale value erodes their retail customer base, which makes them even more dependent upon fleet sales. It's a vicious cycle, one from which GM and Ford tried to extricate themselves.

Chrysler embraced fleet sales wholeheartedly as GM and Ford pulled back from them. This makes sense for Chrysler since no retail customer in his right mind would buy one of their products, while fleet customers care mostly about price as opposed to quality.

(This doesn't take into account the loss of business some rental companies suffer as renters steer clear of them in order not to be stuck in a POS Chrysler.)

I was going to mention the fleet sales, but you put a far more finer point on it.

Damn, ES.

When I went to Hawaii, our rental was a 2008 Sebring (on both islands). What an absolute wreck of a vehicle. Horrible car in every imaginable way.

[boutons_]

GM asks FAA to block public from viewing movements of corporate jet

General Motors, under fire for flying its chief executive to Washington for hearings on an auto bailout on its corporate jet, has asked the FAA to block the public from being able to track its plane.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/GM_see...from_1128.html