It could have well made all the difference in the world, for GM to acknowledge in their product line, that not everyone in America either wanted or needed a vehicle largest enough to live in. My car is a Toyota Matrix (which replaced a KIA Sportage) and my other four cars are Cannondale bicycles (all made in America).
GM was arrogant and unthinking. I too had the opportunity to invest in GM, but chose not to because I could see that they were not responsive to the true forces shaping the global market. --ryan On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Charles Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Chris Gehlker wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Charles Bennett wrote: > > Neither, I just think it's a shame that the bond holders were > > portrayed as a bunch of fat cats that could afford to take 10 cents on > > the dollar, when, in reality there are a lot of small folks that are > > going to get hurt. *if* the government was going to get involved at > > all, it should have made sure that the small bond holders. say 150k or > > less, were protected first. > > > I'm not without sympathy for the small bondholders but my sympathy is > tempered by the realization that when GM decided to abandon their > electric car and de-emphasize smaller lines like the Saturn in favor > or pushing Hummers it was pretty obvious that they were making a big > bet on declining real oil prices. My recollection is that GM bonds > have been low rated for years. They were a fairly risky investment and > most people knew it. > > I have this bad feeling that we will end up driving Trabants because > > some Barney Franks type > > will decide that GM needs to make a small car, regardless of whether > > anyone wants to buy it and he will have the full power of the treasury > > to insure that they stay in business. > > > This argument would carry a lot more weight if events hadn't proved > the Barney Franks of the world right. I'm a big white guy and I own a > big white truck but I have to shake my head in wonder when some of my > buddies talk as if GM's problem was that they didn't appeal to our > demographic. Their problem is they didn't do anything else. Should've > listened to Barney Frank. > > > > I do see your point that they didn't do anything else, but I don't know > that it would have made much of a difference. > They weren't winning the quality wars anyway and their cost of sales was > too high compared to the foreign cars. Honda, Lexus and Accord on the high > end, Hundai KIA etc on the low end. > > Really, their truck sales and the fleet sales of cars like the Impala were > the only things I can think of that was going their way. > > My truck is whatever fancy word Dodge uses for gold this week. OTOH, our > other car is a VW new Beetle. > (I love driving it when I can get it away from my wife) but the truth is I > accept that I'm happy banging around in a truck. > > I would buy a hybrid truck if they made one I could afford and it had 4wd > capable of hauling logs, brush and deer out of the back of my farm. Perhaps > by the time my wife is making the big bucks someone will make a viable one. > > > > > Add to that that the unions vote can now be bought by simply pouring > > government money into their company, profitable or not, and you have a > > witches brew that boggles the mind. > > > You can make an argument that unions still have too much political > power but to be credible you have to start out acknowledging that > their power has been diminishing for decades and that they certainly > don't bear much responsibility for the current financial collapse. > > > > The only part that the unions really played is the huge burden of > the retirement packages and I'm not blaming them, just recognizing that that > obligation hurt GMs bottom line and set a base price for a car that didn't > compete in the world market. > > I don't really blame the union at all for negotiating the best deal they > could get and GM should have been actually putting the money in a fund that > would support their obligations, you know like the social security fund. > Oh, wait.. > > In any case it's pretty much all at GM management's feet as far as I'm > concerned. > > My, poorly stated, worry is not about assigning blame for the past but that > going forward, the government has a vested (literally) interest in pandering > to a union that in turn will vote for them as long as the company is not > allowed to fail. > > Who will set the wages now? The government? > > They can actually buy vote for themselves by not negotiating the best deal, > and that worries me a lot. > > Chuck > > > > Precious Metals: Gold, Silver, Brass & Lead > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] > http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters > List hosted at http://cat5.org/ >
_______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
