Posted on 05/28/2014 1:39:14 AM PDT by grundle
The recalls are multiplying, and the bailout stigma remains.
You may have noticed that General Motors recalled a lot of vehicles lately.
You may not have noticed just how many separate recalls the company announced, 30 since January 1, or just how many vehicles are being recalled — 13.79 million vehicles in the U.S.
For perspective, consider that GM sold roughly 2.6 million vehicles in 2012.
... consumer-data research indicates that pickup-truck buyers skew Republican by a margin five to one, according to a 2008 survey.
Whether GM wants to admit it or not, the “Government Motors” label did serious damage to its reputation and may not wash away so quickly.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
The Koreans brought value and reliability, something sorely lacking in the US Market since the Japanese brands became premium brands... they used to make abject crap, (hyundai excel anyone?) but they made a concerted effort to build a quality product and brand... Kia/Hyundai are now mainstays in the value minded consumer (Kia in particular by offering as standard what most others sold as options).
GMs problems are systemic and go back at least 4-5 decades. Had they been forced to prove their right to exist they might have changed, but they were given a complete pass, so to expect that anything significant has changed at GM since before the bailout is foolish.
Push em through a real BK, make them take loans not bailouts to exist, force them to risk starving on the vine and they will change, until that happens its nothing but window dressing.
Somebody else would have purchased the assets of GM and Chrysler, and I believe that would have mitigated any supply chain impacts.
Blaming the Union for GM’s systemic problems is foolish... GM’s problems are 4-5 decades old, and bailing them out instead of forcing them to change meant they would keep doing the same old crap... and that’s exactly what they did.
GM didn’t have to prove it had a right to exist, it had nothing to lose, so it didn’t change. Its the same GM today as it was before the bailout.. same people doing the same jobs, making the same decisions etc etc etc.
GM got bailed out, Chrysler got conditional loans.. GM could and can screw up all it wants because its got no skin in the game, Chrysler had to sink or swim, and it has come back strong.
You are foolish then, Chrysler would have been parted for scrap had it not been given loans from treasury, period, and no one was going to acquire GM’s assets and liabilities out of BK in a timely enough manner to have kept it operational and not had the supply chain collapse.
Those two things are facts, not ideological dogma.
Then you might as well admit then these companies are in fact Government companies, because if they fail, the taxpayer is on the hook for them.
But then again, does Government even remember that we have anti-trust laws, anymore?
When you have produced crap for 50 yrs. you build a reputation that is hard to undo. They took bailout money so they are persona non grata, just like GM to me.
If you don’t understand the fundamental difference between what went on with GM and what went on with Chrysler, then there is no point in trying to have any further discussion.
You can cling to your ideological dogma, or you can get informed.
Whether I agree or not with how Treasury handled any of this is irrelevant, there is a huge difference between we will loan you money with you personally signing on the dotted line for it, and we will give you a huge cash influx.
Chrysler was given loans, not cash, it had to fix itself or die, GM was given cash with no need to fix itself... and guess which one has fixed its issues and paid back its loans? And which one is still in the toilet and cost the taxpayers more than $11 BILLION in losses?
GM didn’t change because it didn’t have to, Chrysler changed because it had no choice. GM will NEVER change until it is put in a position where it has no choice, and the bailout made sure it had a choice. And it chose to keep doing what it was doing, same people, same culture, same process... You can only change a 40-50 year old broken culture by assuring it that starvation is a possibility... GM never faced starvation... Chrysler was 1 month away from being on the scrap heap for years while it fixed itself, and it fixed itself.
If you think GM and Chrysler are the same, or that how they were treated and dealt with during the bailout, you need to get a bit more informed.
Chrysler was so grossly mismanaged by investment bankers who had no idea how to manufacture, that its a wonder they hadn’t collapsed sooner. GM was grossly mismanaged by arrogance and graft for longer than I have walked this planet.... They drank so much of their own kool aid for so long they knew nothing else.
I quit buying Gubbermint motors cars 10 years ago, when I worked in their supply chain back in michigan, and realized what they were all about.
the bailout only served to cement the fact that I despise them.
the recalls? I am not suprised they tried to cover up their crap.
the future? Let ‘em burn. the chickens done come home to roost.
my parents....lifelong GM owners....just bought a brand new Hyundai....
For myself....my garage is full of Toyotas
Again, you are trying to argue dogma, not reality.
GM was indeed a complete government company because the government violated its own laws to save it in a way to pay political capital to folks.
Saving GM and Chrysler may be ideologically impure in the minds of some folks here, but from the pragmatic reality of the effects of them collapsing would have had on the overall economy, not to mention the manufacturing capability of the US as a whole, an argument for intervention to help can be made and made strongly and coherently.
If you believe watching the entire auto industry in the US collapse, because that’s exactly what would have happened, We aren’t talking just GM and Chrysler, we are talking nearly ever single part supplier in the nation would have been out of business inside of a few months, Ford literally would not have been able to build a car had this happened, those assembly plants for Toyota, Hyundai, Kia etc would have all ground to a halt as well as the supply chain literally collapsed under them.
That’s a huge issue, and a national one, and while your ideological dogma may say, let it happen the world will be better afterwards, that’s a 5 year global depression you are signing the US and World Economy up for to prove your ideological point, that like it or not, no sane leader, regardless of political stripe would sign up for.
So, something to save them was going to happen. If you think otherwise, you are just delusional. And no, it didn’t happen to save any unions... though sadly, there is no doubt that once a bailout was decided upon, folks did use it to exercise political pull and push to do some very nefarious things because like all parasites, if an opportunity happens to present itself they will take advantage of it.
Now, GM got a flat out bailout, treasury literally gave them cash in hand with no obligation to pay back... they got “stock” in a company that they later sold for an $11 Billion loss. So, GM got a complete pass, they avoided a true BK, their creditors were screwed over, and they could keep on doing what they had always been doing.. and guess what? They did.
Chrysler was given loans it had to repay, and so it had to change or die and guess what? of the two, which one do you think changed? Which one paid every penny back to the taxpayers? and is now a stronger, changed and better company?
Again, you can argue that nothing should have been done, but that’s just political ideological dogma, the facts on the ground were that like it or not, no politician was going to let a complete collapse of manufacturing occur. You may like to think they should have, and may not have liked how they handled it, but the reality is, no politician of any stripe was going to let that happen... your options were down to nationalization of them or subsidizing them.... Then the manner in which they would be subsidized.
Chrysler got a subsidization, GM got a temporary nationalization as well as a subsidization.
I haven’t owned a GM since 1997. They lost me when they killed off Oldsmobile and Pontiac. I would say something nice about Ford if the 1998 Mustang GT I bought wasn’t plagued with build quility issues as soon as the warranty expired.
Ok, but at the very least GM should have been broken up as a condition. Or else you’re just asking for the same thing to happen again.
And the same applied to all the banks that were bailed out. Too Big to Fail? Break ‘em up!
The point is they shouldn’t have been given one red cent from the taxpaying citizens. They should have been required to do as all companies do when they are broke, go through the bankruptcy process. Really what has changed here? Is the UAW still there? Yes. Has management changed that much? I’m not seeing it.
To big to fail is the reason we are up to our neck in debt and corruption is rampant in government and big business. No accountability whatsoever and why care when the taxpaying citizen is always on the hook for a bailout, loan or however you want to phrase it to make it more palatable if someone screws up.
I agree that GM's problems are four to five decades old, and bailing them out was foolish. But the union added extra dollars to the cost of each vehicle, maybe on the order of $5,000/car, or more.
That, plus the lack of change to lead technological innovation instead of following technology produced by Japan and the Europeans, contributed to their current road to ultimate bankruptcy or Chapter 11 reorganization. GM is second rate at best right now.
The bailout ruined some other, younger, smarter company’s chance of growing their market share. Capitalism is a blood sport, failure is necessary.
It’s obvious this is a disaster for GM (er, excuse me, the UAW). Sadly, it won’t have any affect on the real root of the problem - terrible products that cost too much that are made by overpaid workers who retire with huge pensions and benefits! Sadly, none of those problems will change. They’ll keep telling us it’s not fair to change benefits for someone already retired! Boo Hoo!
The union isn’t interested at all in the quality of the product or the cost of it. They only care about dues-paying members. If a robot does a job faster and better, it doesn’t matter. They continue to employ ten men to do that job. The fact that they have to keep paying them and retiring them with pensions and huge benefits packages shows where their allegiance lies.!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.