: GM's "Thanks" for the bailout...



Lord Cadillac
12-01-10, 11:31 AM
Yr94zStsk8E

Stingroo
12-01-10, 11:56 AM
I saw the ad. I also saw people whining and bitching about it on facebook. Why? They've done exceptionally well, and already had their IPO. I hear people whining that the government didn't get all the money back, so we lost out. But those people are idiots. The government didn't sell all of their stock yet. They sold SOME of it, and got SOME of the money. They're no longer majority stakeholders in the company, so the next time I hear someone use "Government Motors" I'm gonna strike them in the face with a blunt object. I'm tired of hearing about it already. If all these computer chair executives knew so damn much, they'd be in college and run their own businesses.

But guess what? They don't. So everyone should shut the f*ck up and let it run its course.

[/rant]

Sincerely,
A bailout weary American

Lord Cadillac
12-01-10, 12:09 PM
I just like the commercial...

Stingroo
12-01-10, 12:57 PM
lol Sorry for my rant, but I can almost FEEL the discussion coming on later tonight. It always does.

gdwriter
12-01-10, 01:09 PM
It's a little cheesy in spots, but I certainly appreciate the sentiment. You're certainly not going to get a "thank you" from Goldman Sachs, AIG or Bank of America.

Stingroo
12-01-10, 01:12 PM
^ True that.

orconn
12-01-10, 01:19 PM
I also like the ad, call it cheesy if you want, but I think it expresses the ability of the American system to give second chances. I am not always in favor of the way we so freely give out second chances to those who fall into disrepute in our society (Michael Vick for example) but it seems to be the American way ..... let us hope that the management of GM is up to the task of returning their company to prominence in the automotive field it will make a difference to all of us!

Jesda
12-01-10, 07:38 PM
We prop up poorly run organizations and then have the audacity to turn around and say "derp derp I wonder why America cant compete derp derp"

Oh, hi Chrysler! Didn't see you sitting over there, being quiet and twiddling your thumbs.

Stingroo
12-01-10, 09:30 PM
Chrywho?

hueterm
12-01-10, 09:47 PM
Meh...

Save the cost of the ad and put it toward a N*II, or give it back to the "real GM" shareholders that got fcuked.

BS PR not required, nor desired...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-01-10, 09:56 PM
It's a nice gesture, but a true thank you will be loads of high quality, highly desirable cars to fill every niche.

Jesda
12-01-10, 10:23 PM
I agree, I'd rather see all this marketing money spent on moving metal and building specific brands and models rather than glorifying the corporate image. If they want me to forget about the retirees with bonds who got shafted while the UAW had a payday, they can stop making stupid short-term decisions and stop talking about it.

77CDV
12-01-10, 10:25 PM
I agree with Chad.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-01-10, 10:37 PM
I don't wanna see them follow in Chrysler's footsteps. Get bailed out and promise to make better products, then spend 25 years making mediocre stuff, get in a financial crisis and require a second bailout. What caused Chrysler to get so out of whack in the late '70s anyways?

I honestly think that GM really is trying a lot harder now than they used to. The proof is in the pudding, as many repair shops that I frequent for work aren't as busy as they used to be, 10-20 years ago, as cars are much better built and are lasting longer. All GM has gotta do is keep trucking, as many of their cars are leading their respective segments in overall quality and owner satisfaction. What their next big issue will be is to create some truly awesome cars that are desirable by everyone and bring back the "Americans can kick ass" stigma that was lost in the '70s, '80s and '90s.

77CDV
12-01-10, 10:45 PM
Chrysler was in trouble as early as the early 1960s. The labor unrest, regulatory upheavals, and oil embargo driven changes in consumer taste that coalesced in the 1970s, coupled with the Carter recession, were enough combined to push Chrysler over the edge.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-01-10, 10:47 PM
Sounds like they're running on borrowed time.

billc83
12-01-10, 10:54 PM
You have to remember, compared to GM and Ford, Chrysler's market share has always been MUCH smaller. AMC beforehand was even more miniscule.

Being a smaller company allowed (or in some cases, forced) Chrysler to take more risks and move quicker than the others. That's why they were such a hot commodity in the early 90s. Cab forward, Ram truck design, and the Viper, were all OK'd and out to market much quicker than your average car cycle.

Also, after Chrysler acquired AMC, they also gained many of the AMC engineers, who were already well-versed in working with limited resources.

77CDV
12-01-10, 10:55 PM
They've been on borrowed time since about 1962. Sadly for them, the note's about to come due.

Lord Cadillac
12-02-10, 11:27 AM
Are they still making stupid short-term decisions? If so, can you go into that a little bit?


I agree, I'd rather see all this marketing money spent on moving metal and building specific brands and models rather than glorifying the corporate image. If they want me to forget about the retirees with bonds who got shafted while the UAW had a payday, they can stop making stupid short-term decisions and stop talking about it.

Jesda
12-02-10, 08:05 PM
Are they still making stupid short-term decisions? If so, can you go into that a little bit?

I'm referring more to the last 3 or 4 decades. By rotating top management every 90 days as GM has since bankruptcy, its impossible to maintain any kind of long term vision. GM did this with Saab in the 90s (I'll post the article in another thread), shuffling management around in an attempt to save its brands. In the end, it resulted in a series of dumb choices intended to make management look effective in the short term -- cheaper parts, sales incentives, rebadging, rental fleet sales -- all things that make a vehicle less appealing.

At GM, if you weren't being moved from department to department every couple years, you weren't perceived as being effective. Absolutely boneheaded.

The-Dullahan
12-03-10, 01:05 AM
Someone is going to disagree with it, but here's how I feel about it.

The ad was right.

There is a difference between a Bailout and a LOAN.

No one who owns a foreign car is permitted to complain about an American Car Company needing help, because not only are they not part of the solution, they are the ENTIRE PROBLEM. For that matter, anyone who owns a foreign car has little-to-no right to even mention that the economy is bad. A large part of America's economy was once built on the BUY AMERICAN notion and American automobile companies did rather well for a time. Tragically, none of my family got to witness that era, we weren't refugees to the U.S.A. yet.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-03-10, 01:24 AM
No one who owns a foreign car is permitted to complain about an American Car Company needing help, because not only are they not part of the solution, they are the ENTIRE PROBLEM. For that matter, anyone who owns a foreign car has little-to-no right to even mention that the economy is bad. A large part of America's economy was once built on the BUY AMERICAN notion and American automobile companies did rather well for a time. Tragically, none of my family got to witness that era, we weren't refugees to the U.S.A. yet.

That's ridiculous. Do you know how many foreign cars are built in America, using American labor? If people stopped buying all the foreign cars built in America, that would put all those hundreds of thousands of employees out of business and out on the street in the welfare lines, only enhancing the problem.

This isn't 1952. The economy is global.

Jesda
12-03-10, 01:43 AM
Someone is going to disagree with it, but here's how I feel about it.

The ad was right.

There is a difference between a Bailout and a LOAN.

No one who owns a foreign car is permitted to complain about an American Car Company needing help, because not only are they not part of the solution, they are the ENTIRE PROBLEM. For that matter, anyone who owns a foreign car has little-to-no right to even mention that the economy is bad. A large part of America's economy was once built on the BUY AMERICAN notion and American automobile companies did rather well for a time. Tragically, none of my family got to witness that era, we weren't refugees to the U.S.A. yet.

No, no, no.

America was not built on "buy American". It was built on a free market that forces QUALITY to rise and CRAP to fall. When GM was on top, it built the best damn cars on the planet. When GM fell on its face, it was a result of decades of serious mismanagement, marketing blunders, a total lack of concern for quality, and poor product planning.


You can't blame consumers for voting with their pockets.


As for the bankruptcy and loan, give your speech to the retirees and near-retirees who converted their equity into bonds thinking it was a safe bet and got shafted while the UAW enjoyed a payday. In America, bondholders are among the first in line to collect in a bankruptcy, but not in GM's case. These older people in their 50s, 60s, and older are people who often DID buy American cars, tons of them, and believed enough in GM to loan it money by purchasing its bonds directly or indirectly through bond funds.

Let me simplify this:
--By and large, this group of people bought American cars.
--These people sought security by investing directly in an American company by loaning GM their money.
--That American company that they believed in basically told them to piss off.



If GM wants my loyalty, a sappy 60-second ad with Tim The Toolman Taylor isn't going to work. GM spent three decades playing up the "but we're the heart of America!" angle while the rest of us took the bait. If GM wants my loyalty and support, it can earn it the AMERICAN WAY by managing its operations in a mature long-term fashion with respect for ALL of its stakeholders, not just the labor unions, and continuing to build competitive, innovative, long-lasting products.

Destroyer
12-03-10, 09:27 AM
It's a nice gesture, but a true thank you will be loads of high quality, highly desirable cars to fill every niche.
You nailed it Chad. Still, it is a pretty cool ad and not just a gesture, it will help sell cars. GM desperately needed a major overhaul and it took something of this magnitude (bankruptcy) to finally give them a wake up call. They had too many divisions building essentially the same low quality cars. The automotive world owes our President a big thanks for keeping GM alive.

Jesda
12-03-10, 01:42 PM
You nailed it Chad. Still, it is a pretty cool ad and not just a gesture, it will help sell cars. GM desperately needed a major overhaul and it took something of this magnitude (bankruptcy) to finally give them a wake up call. They had too many divisions building essentially the same low quality cars. The automotive world owes our President a big thanks for keeping GM alive.

NO, he doesn't, especially for the despicable way in which this bankruptcy was handled, nor does George W Bush deserve any credit for handing over billions without any conditions or guidelines.

For a large global organization like GM, bankruptcy procedures rarely result in total liquidation. With the airlines, its used as an opportunity to protect itself from creditors in the short term while reorganizing, making new labor deals, and restructuring its organization.

Its supposed to be the business equivalent of momentary rest for a marathon runner. Bankruptcy is NOT supposed to be an opportunity to hand equity over to labor unions while telling retirees with bonds "too bad!" Standard rules and procedures are in place to deal with certain types of lenders and investors, and under this administration's handling of the bankruptcy, those who typically would have been first in line for relief were sent to the bottom, treating individual American investors like high-risk mortgage lenders.

And this IPO has been an insignificant relief for bondholders who got screwed:
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/11/gm_bondholders_are_like_wall_s.html


It MATTERS because outside of our admiration for GM as car enthusiasts, there's a precedent being set that this is now the norm, that its okay to do this sh*t with other industries in future crises.

I'M NOT OKAY WITH THAT.

hueterm
12-03-10, 05:04 PM
And they didn't have too many divisions -- they just didn't utilize them properly. There's no reason that Hummer couldn't have put out a Jeep Wrangler fighter. The G8 was the best thing Pontiac did in years, and a new Trans Am would have satiated mullet wearers all over the country. Most already shared dealership space w/Buick and GMC -- so what was the big outlay? Saturn could have been used for all of these little clown cars that the Nannystate wants to shove down our throats. But instead, they just throw them away. Stupid.

CIWS
12-03-10, 07:38 PM
The TV spot seemed fine to me. Not too much.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-03-10, 07:51 PM
Wow, I think Jesda actually hates bailouts more than I do.

MudAnt
12-03-10, 08:49 PM
I hope the sound wasn't out of sync in the tv version.

Playdrv4me
12-03-10, 09:19 PM
And they didn't have too many divisions -- they just didn't utilize them properly. There's no reason that Hummer couldn't have put out a Jeep Wrangler fighter. The G8 was the best thing Pontiac did in years, and a new Trans Am would have satiated mullet wearers all over the country. Most already shared dealership space w/Buick and GMC -- so what was the big outlay? Saturn could have been used for all of these little clown cars that the Nannystate wants to shove down our throats. But instead, they just throw them away. Stupid.

No kidding. The killing off of Hummer was a COMPLETE waste of solid brand equity.

EChas3
12-03-10, 09:20 PM
In the great scheme of things, the cost of a commercial is small change; even with the cost of prime airtime. Advertising sells. Increased sales volume puts people to work, lowers costs and makes profits possible. Profit is good. It is not greed.

Most people don't have the willingness to discard their preconceptions and understand the realities of business. I want to drive a fine American car. The more choices I have, the better my chances. I hope GM thrives.

johnny kannapo
12-03-10, 09:58 PM
Whats the problem? The treasury is printing 600,000,000 as we speak.

http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/billytheshoe/junk/obamadolla.jpg?t=1291427894

EChas3
12-03-10, 10:31 PM
Lol!

Destroyer
12-03-10, 11:54 PM
NO, he doesn't, especially for the despicable way in which this bankruptcy was handled, nor does George W Bush deserve any credit for handing over billions without any conditions or guidelines.

For a large global organization like GM, bankruptcy procedures rarely result in total liquidation. With the airlines, its used as an opportunity to protect itself from creditors in the short term while reorganizing, making new labor deals, and restructuring its organization.

Its supposed to be the business equivalent of momentary rest for a marathon runner. Bankruptcy is NOT supposed to be an opportunity to hand equity over to labor unions while telling retirees with bonds "too bad!" Standard rules and procedures are in place to deal with certain types of lenders and investors, and under this administration's handling of the bankruptcy, those who typically would have been first in line for relief were sent to the bottom, treating individual American investors like high-risk mortgage lenders.

And this IPO has been an insignificant relief for bondholders who got screwed:
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/11/gm_bondholders_are_like_wall_s.html


It MATTERS because outside of our admiration for GM as car enthusiasts, there's a precedent being set that this is now the norm, that its okay to do this sh*t with other industries in future crises.

I'M NOT OKAY WITH THAT.I agree about the banks, I agree about Bush and I get it, now what? Alright. What would have happened to GM without intervention? You don't know and I don't know either but now we both know that the General isn't going away anytime soon and we know that with certainty we didn't know before. Who do you think should get the credit for this?:hmm:

Jesda
12-04-10, 02:23 AM
I agree about the banks, I agree about Bush and I get it, now what? Alright. What would have happened to GM without intervention? You don't know and I don't know either but now we both know that the General isn't going away anytime soon and we know that with certainty we didn't know before. Who do you think should get the credit for this?:hmm:

Actually, I do know. GM would have entered bankruptcy protection like any other large organization and worked out its debts and restructured its operations -without- giving the whole hog to the UAW and -without- stabbing small investors in the back. Or rather, without stabbing them in the face, because what happened to bondholders was an unsubtle betrayal.

All bankruptcies are managed by government, specifically the courts (which are less politically motivated and more fair-minded by their very nature), but GM's bankruptcy was a product of shady deals and exchanges made in order to acquire a massive loan. Whats worse, federally-managed GM had the audacity to turn around and try to tell the American public that it already paid back its loan! Same old tricks.
"New GM", meet Motors Liquidation. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Now, in fairness, GM's unusually talented engineers, salespeople, designers, marketers, and other front-line people deserve none of the blame or burden for how the Obama and Bush administrations handled this crisis or for how top management over the course of 30+ years left a gaping hole in Michigan's economy and America's ability to compete internationally, but they're saddled with a situation that's worse for them and the public in the long run.

Going forward, large firms will feel entitled to a loan and a special deal so long as it favors the friends of the existing administration (no matter what party is in charge). It creates a new kind of corporate welfare diaper that rewards poor management and will remain a cancer on our economic system for the rest of time.

Oh sure, we saved GM. Lets pat ourselves on the back, run some self-congratulatory ads, clink some champagne glasses, and pretend all is well. Heck, GM itself might even do well from here onward, but in the end, everyone else got screwed in the rear. Of course, you could argue that it was really Chrysler who set much of the precedent for this, and look how that turned out.

77CDV
12-04-10, 02:30 AM
Of course, you could argue that it was really Chrysler who set much of the precedent for this, and look how that turned out.

Look how that turned out again.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-05-10, 09:01 AM
Lee Iacocca, you crazy bastard, look what you got us into.

billc83
12-05-10, 09:34 AM
Chrysler set the precident for this in 1980, but they're deal was MUCH different. They only received federally backed loan guarantees. Also, Chrylser had a plan to become viable with new products coming out within a year.

GM and Chrysler in 2008 were required to submit their action plans much like Chrylser did in '80. Did anyone actually read through those plans? I did. They were mostly corporate double talk and very basic. GM pointed to the Volt and "products that would be competitive as some of our more recent products." Chrysler touted their electric trio ENVI (IIRC) project, that happened to be scrapped after the bailouts were a done deal. Neither side pointed out any real specific changes for their business or production side.

If your buddy ran a business that was going under, would you loan him money to keep him afloat? I sure wouldn't, not without a more detailed business plan than what GM and Chrysler submitted to the U.S. Government.

The bailouts were handled completely wrong. GM and Chrysler should have been told to file bankruptcy and THEN received their money once they got out of the courts. Once GM and Chrysler hit bankruptcy, I (and many other people) asked, "Why didn't they just let them go to bankruptcy before the first set of loans?"

Nevermind the fact that GM gets more of a pass for receiving bailout money because 1) Chrysler's market share is rather insignifigant when compared to GM, and 2) Chrysler was a PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY at the time. Cerberus just didn't want to cough up any dough to keep them afloat. A similar situation happened with Studebaker, who never filed for bankruptcy in 1965/66. The Studebaker Corporation decided the car business wasn't worth it.

Now that it's all said and done, I know it's just sour grapes...

hueterm
12-05-10, 05:01 PM
Lee Iacocca, you crazy bastard, look what you got us into.


I prefer the bailout to the Mustang.... (Just sayin'...)

orconn
12-05-10, 05:59 PM
I prefer the bailout to the Mustang.... (Just sayin'...)

Yeah, I wish he'd let it rest with the Mustang ..... after the bailout the crazy bastard tried to buy Lamborghini and Alfa Romeo (although Chrysler engineering and parts did wonders for the Alfa 164 electrics and accessories). Guess Fiat's takeover of Chrysler had some Iaccoca roots too!