GM has a profitable European division, and they do make plenty of small cars in Europe.

really? but not for a long time yet?.....And arent the profitable cars not the ones they own via Opel and Saab? I mean Opel and Saab work well.....too bad they will die with GM.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007 ... eandhealth

Toyota: 29.93 hours per vehicle
Honda: 31.36
Nissan: 29.97

GM: 32.36
Chrysler: 32.90
Ford: 35.10

Opel and Saab are divisions of GM, just like Chevrolet, GMC and Pontiac are.

Opel has been a part of GM for like 80 years now.

So....George has done it.

Bump.


I know this isn't really apart of the bailout but,


In USA Today, Ford has reworked a deal with the UAW to save about $500 mil a year and to finally start to take away some of the ridiculous benefits that the UAW has. This includes lowering the hourly wage + benefits to about $55 compared to $49 for the foreign companies. It also scales back the benefits that retired & unemployed would receive. More details below,

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/200 ... ract_N.htm


My personal opinion is, good.

Certainly not a bad thing. GM also came out today and said they didn't need the $2 Billion in cash they were supposed to get this month from the government due to realization of some of the cost reductions they've implemented which resulted in about $2 billion of extra cash.

So no more hookers for salesman of the year?

Woah now, let's not get crazy.

Obama seems more seriously serious on that then most though I think. I guess in D.C. they see a future with only two US car producers.

Crysler simply can't stand on it's own, GM can, so Crysler will just be sold to another car company, in this case Fiat. This has been a long time coming, and isn't really much of a surprise.

GM can? Wow! Is that why they've siphoned tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money?

Fiat saving another car company I never thought I would see that day.

Why doesn't Ron Paul like the Chrysler bailout?
It's paid for with Fiat currency.

From LiveJournal

Well, I really should have said GM has a better chance than Crysler and apparently Obama thinks they can, personally, I really don't know. There's so much risk and variability in oil, who knows.

What does oil have to do with this? GM is lucky if it survives the next 60 days; price of oil has nothing to do with their immediate future.

lol...Wagner gets 20 mio USD......not bad for making a hole of 80b.

Question, if GM goes down will that send the dow into a spiral again?

GM stock is already at 2.70, so it by itself won't affect the Dow much. As for broader implications - who knows. To some extent GM failure is already priced into the Dow.

I guess there will be a short panic reaction (Like: oh god oh god US industry will go down).
Of course the news that up to maybe a milion (?) workers loose their job directly or indicrectly wont help the future expectations of course.

The variability in the price of oil is one of the key factors that brought the US auto industry to it's knees, and is one of the key issues that must be dealt with to retain viability in the future. In general, so much variability in an industry can be very chaotic to any business model selling a product based on that industry.

I disagree, for two reasons.

1. Whether or not oil prices are volatile, there is an innate demand for cars in the U.S. The bottom line is that the U.S. automakers were not able to effectively compete on the models themselves (Toyota and Honda have for a long time been the best rated cars in the U.S.) and cost. To some degree high oil prices exacerbated this issue by pointing out the weakness of U.S. automakers relying on gas-guzzlers to move their inventory, but it in no way caused the issues.

2. In the short term, there is nothing that oil prices can do to significantly affect GM's fate. We are talking about a 30-60 day timeline here; there's simply nothing that oil can do to change GM's cash needs.

No, there's nothing oil can do in such a short timeframe, but it can effect the long term viability of the industry. I don't really see how you argue the first point. I never said it was the only cause of this downturn, and your certainly right that US automakers were operating on flawed models, but even Toyota and Honda lost a ton of money because of the effects of a volatile oil industry. It brought the entire auto industry to it's knees, and the companies with poor business models and low margins quickly started bleeding money, but even the companies ran correctly saw margins completly disappear.

The volatility of oil isn't the only issue facing the auto industry, but ANY significant volatility in a business model is a big deal and something that can't be overlooked. There were many issues at play, but oil was one of them, it played a role, and you can't ignore it.

You can draw a comparison to any consumer goods company. Their margins are impacted directly by the volitility of raw materials like tin, etc. As the prices have gone up, their margins have shrunk. The auto industry has a similar issue, it just happens to be one degree removed, thus an indirect relationship, but it's a cause and effect relationship none-the-less. That relationship has been exacerbated by the economy and other factors, but the relationship still exists, and ignoring it is what got these companies into this mess.

Yeah, I agree there will be adverse effect in the short run. But in the long run it is good for the car industry and the US government. The road to recovery is near for Ford and others once the bumps are removed and they can pick up some "good parts" on the way. The government will be relieved of one big burden and regain some credibility in the eyes of the private sector.

Eh.... did GM just ask to become a state-owned enterprise?