General Motors: The money pit

[Shady]

The Toyota acceleration defect was real, and killed at least 5 people.

I'm not making excuses bad business behavior. As I told eyeball above, I'd be thrilled to see executives who made these decisions prosecuted.

I'm just pointing out that your interest in this particular recall is obviously due to a politics-related agenda.

-k

No, the Toyota recall is a shell of the GM recall. And there was actually no proof that it killed anyone. As opposed to GM, which killed dozens. And kept their knowledge of it a secret while a bailout of them was being debated. Perhaps there's a business reason why Toyota, Ford, and every other car company didn't need tax payer money. And GM better not be given another cent again. They shouldn't be protected from the terrible business practices.

[cybercoma]

Yeah! What Shady said. Thanks a lot, Obama!

[bush_cheney2004]

GM would have received the bailout regardless of disclosed or non-disclosed safety defects. There is no linkage.

[Wilber]

The EV1 did this over a decade ago. The Volt is nothing new. Some of the tech might be, but the concept of an electric vehicle was already tried, tested and very well accepted by those who drove the vehicle.

They may get credit for that, but a simple part that would have cost a couple dollars to fix at the start for each vehicle would save them the hassle now. They new about the flaws and let them go. Paying out lawsuits are cheaper. And that is quite sad.

The EV1 was a pure electric car and by all accounts a technical success but considering how sales of pure electrics are doing today, I doubt there would have been much of a market for a two seater electric back in the nineties. Also, lithium ion batteries were not available back then. The Volt is something new and thing that makes it different is its gas powered generator giving it the same range as gasoline vehicles and the ability to refuel quickly. If you are driving less than 60 km per day or between charges, you won't need gas at all, but you still have the capability to make long trips without worrying about electric range. Reading the Edmonds reviews, there was one guy who just does short commutes that said he bought 12 gallons of gas last year, but he still has a vehicle he can jump in and take a 1000 mile road trip if he wants.

On edit: BMW has announced it will be putting the I8 sports car into production. It uses similar technology to the Volt's.

High tech racing is also getting it. Formula 1 went hybrid in a big way for 2014 and the Audi R18 which won last years 24 hrs of Le Mans, and probably will again this year, uses its e-tron hybrid system.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

The EV1 and its leasing program (no direct sales) only existed because California and other state mandates for a blend of low and zero emissions vehicles. Once that mandate was effectively litigated away, there was no reason to continue losing money on a niche car like the EV1.

Edited April 16, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

Yeah! What Shady said. Thanks a lot, Obama!

Huh?

[Shady]

GM would have received the bailout regardless of disclosed or non-disclosed safety defects. There is no linkage.

You're right, but it would have made their case a lot less palatable poltically.

[waldo]

Maybe there's a reason they should have gone through structured bankruptcy.

way to fuel the memory of Romney... good on ya!

[Shady]

way to fuel the memory of Romney... good on ya!

Looks like he was right about this to. Just add it to the list!

[waldo]

Looks like he was right about this to. Just add it to the list!

you failed, big-time, with the initial premise of this thread... I've not bothered to follow it beyond that initial failed premise of yours... one that had nothing to do with bankruptcy. Spare me the details but, if you're able, please point me to any posts of yours that suggest/prove Romney was, as you say, right about the need for a structured bankruptcy. Thanks in advance.

[Shady]

Sorry, but that would be big time thread drift, and has nothing to do with my initial point.

[waldo]

Sorry, but that would be big time thread drift, and has nothing to do with my initial point.

since you just started your described thread drift with your 'structured bankruptcy' reference, I'll accept you now wanting to shut that claimed drift down. Obviously that phrase is tied to Romney... it's why I jumped on it. Since I've not followed this thread closely, beyond the initial early point I participated, I certainly didn't expect you were self-drifting with your own comment... I assumed this point had been covered in the many prior pages of the thread. In any case, that Romney assessment was incorrect and the rapid and forceful rebound of GM proves it.

[Shady]

since you just started your described thread drift with your 'structured bankruptcy' reference, I'll accept you now wanting to shut that claimed drift down. Obviously that phrase is tied to Romney... it's why I jumped on it. Since I've not followed this thread closely, beyond the initial early point I participated, I certainly didn't expect you were self-drifting with your own comment... I assumed this point had been covered in the many prior pages of the thread. In any case, that Romney assessment was incorrect and the rapid and forceful rebound of GM proves it.

Nonsense. GM's rebound had hardly been rapid. But nonetheless could've taken place, even more so with a structured bankruptcy, which would have saved tax payers billions. That way their bad business decisions would be their business, and tax payers wouldn't be financing it. Regardless, if theses bad decisions result in future problems for them, they better not receive one plug nickel.

[Shady]

On a side note. Does anyone know if GM is still the largest private purchaser of Viagra in the world?

[waldo]

On a side note. Does anyone know if GM is still the largest private purchaser of Viagra in the world?

and boner pills isn't another thread drift? It's a big company; if what you're saying is true, I expect it simply reflects on the nature of the health plan coverage options available to employees. Oh wait... is this a part of the "money pit" you originally tried to associate with the Volt? What kind of money are you talking here?

[Shady]

and boner pills isn't another thread drift? It's a big company; if what you're saying is true, I expect it simply reflects on the nature of the health plan coverage options available to employees. Oh wait... is this a part of the "money pit" you originally tried to associate with the Volt? What kind of money are you talking here?

I didn't try to associate anything with the volt. But you're right, it is a bit of a thread drift, but it popped into mind, so I figured I'd ask if anyone knew.

[waldo]

I didn't try to associate anything with the volt.

huh! Read the/your opening post of this, the thread you started... your post about the Volt in the thread you titled 'GM - the money pit'

[kimmy]

Looks like he was right about this to. Just add it to the list!

GM's profits since the bailout, and their quick buy-back of the treasury department's stake in the company, proves pretty conclusively that Romney wasn't right.

Romney wasn't right about moving Jeep production to China either. He wasn't right when he included Tesla Motors in the list of "losers" that Obama backed. Why does Romney hate American automakers?

The premise that the airbag controversy will cause the financial ruin of GM is pretty dubious, to say the least. The idea that it's a vindication of Romney's initial stance is laughable. The idea that a "structured bankruptcy" would have yielded better outcomes for American consumers who may have been harmed by GM negligence is also laughable. The idea that a "structured bankruptcy" would have yielded better outcomes for anybody other than private equity firms is also laughable.

-k

[Shady]

GM's profits since the bailout, and their quick buy-back of the treasury department's stake in the company, proves pretty conclusively that Romney wasn't right.

Romney wasn't right about moving Jeep production to China either. He wasn't right when he included Tesla Motors in the list of "losers" that Obama backed. Why does Romney hate American automakers?

The premise that the airbag controversy will cause the financial ruin of GM is pretty dubious, to say the least. The idea that it's a vindication of Romney's initial stance is laughable. The idea that a "structured bankruptcy" would have yielded better outcomes for American consumers who may have been harmed by GM negligence is also laughable. The idea that a "structured bankruptcy" would have yielded better outcomes for anybody other than private equity firms is also laughable.

-k

What quick buy back are you talking about? And nonsense, the tax payer's would've been yielded a much better outcome.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Shady

[bush_cheney2004]

What quick buy back are you talking about? And nonsense, the tax payer's would've been yielded a much better outcome.

True....U.S. taxpayers lost about $10 billion on Government Motors. This is politically justified by the presumed preservation of economic output in the automotive and related sectors that would not otherwise exist upon GM's failure.

[kimmy]

What quick buy back are you talking about?

GM bought back its shares from the treasury ahead of schedule. As did Chrysler.

Ford is the only automaker that still owes money to the US government.

And nonsense, the tax payer's would've been yielded a much better outcome.

As Dick correctly points out, the $10 billion loss is more than balanced out by the benefit of having GM remain a viable business: hundreds of thousands of Americans paying taxes instead of receiving benefits. Plus it prevented the snowball effect that would have resulted from those jobs disappearing.

The US government put about $50 billion into GM and recovered $40 billion. If GM had failed, the cost to the US tax base would have been a lot more than $10 billion. It proved to be a very good investment.

And, if you are going to use direct financial gains or losses as the metric of whether the bailouts were worthwhile for taxpayers, then ultimately the bailouts were a success. The $10 billion the US government lost on its investment in GM are more than balanced by the profits the treasury department made on its investment in the financial sector.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

...And, if you are going to use direct financial gains or losses as the metric of whether the bailouts were worthwhile for taxpayers, then ultimately the bailouts were a success. The $10 billion the US government lost on its investment in GM are more than balanced by the profits the treasury department made on its investment in the financial sector.

The complete and direct bailout benefits are assumed / presumed, not proven. GM and suppliers would have been partially replaced by other competition. Otherwise the government would be bailing out many more failed businesses.

Who is "Dick" ? Please be advised that pet names for other members is considered to be a violation of forum rules.

[kimmy]

The complete and direct bailout benefits are assumed / presumed, not proven. GM and suppliers would have been partially replaced by other competition. Otherwise the government would be bailing out many more failed businesses.

Who is "Dick" ? Please be advised that pet names for other members is considered to be a violation of forum rules.

I have always envisioned myself to be conversing with former Vice President Dick Cheney.

The extent to which GM and the business that depend on it might have been replaced by competitors is highly speculative... as is the premise that those competitors would create jobs in the United States.

The government would bail out more businesses if more businesses had the economic importance that GM does. Letting GM disappear at the best of times would be a serious economic impact. Letting GM disappear at a time when the economy was already snowballing towards an economic depression would have been an absurd risk. Two administrations agreed as much.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

...The extent to which GM and the business that depend on it might have been replaced by competitors is highly speculative... as is the premise that those competitors would create jobs in the United States.

U.S. and foreign competitors already do this, regardless of what happened to a long failing GM (and Chrysler...now staked by Fiat). Ford was smart enough to secure financing before the bottom dropped out.

[Wilber]

Chrysler is doing better than Fiat at the moment and may end up being the dominant part of this alliance.

In the meantime you can pick up one of these. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_4C

Just announced for sale in North America at the New York Auto Show.