For the bashers...

[Z28SSMAN]

General Motors Corp (GM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), the largest U.S. automaker, has suffered major losses and significant U.S. market share declines this decade.

But the company remains a major part of the U.S. industrial economy and the largest U.S. manufacturer by key measures including sales and purchasing and its purchase of health-care benefits.
GM's share of the U.S. auto market dropped to 24 percent in 2008, from 46 percent in 1980. It now trails Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) for sales globally.

Key details of GM's role in the U.S. economy follow:
* Sales: GM is one of the largest U.S. companies by sales, with revenue totaling about $181 billion in 2007. It is the largest U.S. manufacturer by revenue.

* Employment: GM has 266,000 employees worldwide, including about 139,000 in North America . The company is No. 4 in the United States in terms of total employees, according to Fortune's Global 500 rankings. It remains the largest U.S. manufacturer by employment .
The U.S. auto industry employs an estimated 5 million Americans directly and through affiliated jobs at dealerships, suppliers and service providers.

* Benefits: GM provides health-care benefits to more than a million Americans. About 140,000 people are active workers, the rest are retirees, spouses and dependents.
The U.S. auto industry provides benefits to more than 2 million Americans and pays pension benefits to 800,000 retirees.

* Facilities: GM has plants and facilities in 30 U.S. states.

* Purchasing: GM's purchasing budget runs to about $94 billion annually. It works with about 3,200 suppliers, which build more than 160,000 parts.

* Capital investment: GM will spend $8 billion on capital investment in 2008. The U.S. auto industry spends about $12 billion on research and development each year. (Reporting by Soyoung Kim, editing by Dave Zimmerman)

[MR.hp]

I think you already know how I feel about bail outs so I guess I will bail on this one.
We can agree to disagree

[Z28SSMAN]

Well, if I go to the bank to borrow money, I don't consider that the bank is "bailing me out". It's a LOAN which is to be paid back with interest.

When you GIVE a company money they don't have to pay back...then that's a bailout.

If the big three have a business plan that convinces the gov to BORROW them the money then I think it's a great idea. If their plan doesn't make sense, then it's their own fault.

The big difference is either make a loan for 25 or 50 million to companies that provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of workers, suppliers, etc or be stubborn and end up paying possibly 20 times that amount or more by eliminating these companies and workers from the tax base and economy.

The foreign car companies have received a helluva lot more than this to open and operate plants here from their government and the states where they open plants. Hell, 5 years ago, Nissan was broke and they got loans to operate and now they are one of the most profitable companies today.

[Z28SSMAN]

Before Chrysler co-president Jim Press took his position with the Michigan-based automaker last September, Press had spent the last 37 years of his career at Toyota. In fact, Press was the first non-Japanese executive to be inducted to Toyota’s board of directors. But despite that close working relationship, Press and Toyota had a very different viewpoint of the goings-on at the Japanese automaker.

In a March 24th interview with Business Week, Press told the publication that “The Japanese government paid for 100 percent of the development of the battery and hybrid system that went into the Toyota Prius.”
However, Toyota fired back at Press on Wednesday, saying that his allegations are untrue. “I can say 100 percent that Toyota received absolutely no support — no money, no grants — from the Japanese government for the development of the Prius,” Toyota spokesman Paul Nolasco told The Detroit News.
While it’s not uncommon for the for the Japanese government to fund private-sector projects, Press’ allegations are the first that have accused Toyota of receiving funds from the Japanese government in the 10 year production run of the Prius.
If Toyota did in fact receive funding from the Japanese government, that would mean that the Japanese automaker had a huge advantage over U.S. automakers as they did not have the same kind of concessions from the U.S. government. However, since no one has ever heard or made these claims before, it seems a little hard to believe that Toyota would have received such funding — which would have been worth at least tens of millions of dollars — without anyone else knowing.
The Toyota Prius is the best-selling hybrid vehicle in the world and since its launch in 1997, Toyota has sold close to 1 million Prius vehicles worldwide.


Of course...the Japanese ALLWAYS play by the rules...

Japan 's Auto Makers Get Subsidy Via Weak Yen

Your Sept. 25 editorial "Auto Epiphany" about the plight of the American auto industry disregarded the weak yen as a non-problem made up by protectionists in Congress. I have voted for every free trade agreement that has come before me during my 15 years in Congress, but the Japanese government's policy of maintaining a weak yen is a real issue that deserves scrutiny.

Since 2001, the Japanese government has intervened repeatedly in currency markets to artificially devalue the yen by upward of 30%. As a result, Toyota and the other Japanese automakers receive a $4,000 to $14,000 subsidy on every vehicle they export to the U.S. Japan's currency manipulation is fueling the market share gains of Toyota, Honda and Nissan in the U.S. and putting downward pressure on UAW wages and benefits.

As long-standing proponents of free and open financial markets, this is not something the Journal should celebrate in editorials, especially since the profit edge Toyota has over the Big Three is roughly $3,800 per vehicle, or about the same edge it derives from the yen-subsidized Toyota Prius.

The unfair yen subsidy is particularly egregious considering that Toyota will earn 75% of its profits this year in the U.S. , while GM, Ford, and Chrysler will sell less than 20,000 vehicles in Japan .

Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R., Mich.)
Washington

[itsageo]

GM didn't really start making any kei cars until just recently, and kei cars are huge in Japan... So, blame GM for not making a product the people want... Sound familiar??? :D.

[MR.hp]

GM didn't really start making any kei cars until just recently, and kei cars are huge in Japan... So, blame GM for not making a product the people want... Sound familiar??? :D.

Post a pic of said car kinda hard to know what it is if we can't see it.

[itsageo]

Imagine a festiva had sex with a metro, then their spawn was a midget.

Or... this...



They have a max weight limit in the car of 200 kilos maybe? So, 440 pounds. 600cc's of fury.

[Z28SSMAN]

GM didn't really start making any kei cars until just recently, and kei cars are huge in Japan... So, blame GM for not making a product the people want... Sound familiar??? :D.

Here's a response to your comment which is repeated constantly throughout the anti-GM media...

Unlike the mass media, here's a recent effective and fact-filled article from Scrippsnews dated November 20th...

General Motors is on the verge of bankruptcy because it "builds cars that nobody wants to buy."

If you haven't heard that line in the bailout debate, you haven't been listening.

"They're a dinosaur in a sense," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said on NBC's Meet the Press. "I hate to see this because I would like to see them become lean and hungry and innovative. And if they did and put out the right products they could survive."

Such facile rhetoric has been in vogue since at least 1978 and is as obsolete as a Chevy Vega.

In 2007, more than 9.3 million "nobodies" bought GM cars and trucks, keeping the brand in a dead heat with Toyota as the world's largest automaker. It was the second-best sales year in GM's 100-year history.

Were buyers just being charitable? Does "nobody" want a Corvette? Do the more than 600,000 potential buyers lining up for the new 2010 Camaro not really want one? Clearly, no one wants to buy the Cadillac CTS, Motor Trend magazine's Car of the Year.

And what about the fact that Chevrolet dealers were screaming for more Malibus this year to satisfy demand? Was that just public relations? What about Malibu 's selection as 2008 North American Car of the Year by the fussy Detroit auto show press and the remodeled model's ranking as best mid-size car in initial quality by J.D. Power and Associates?

Chevrolet sales grew more than 4 percent in 2007 to 4.5 million vehicles, with a nearly 34 percent increase in Europe and a 22 percent rise in Asia . There must be a lot of "nobodies" in China , because GM ranks as the best-selling import brand there.

And apologies all around for those nasty old trucks that boosted market share for the Detroit Three in the 1990s. GM sold 3.8 million globally in 2007, an increase of 33,000 or 1 percent.

As someone who has been reviewing cars for nearly two decades, I can think of few GM products I didn't want to buy, though some of the early Luminas and the misbegotten Pontiac Aztek were quite resistible. The problem isn't that "nobody wants" a GM product, it's the fact that in a hyper-competitive world, a company that once dominated is going to see its market share inevitably slip. Thus, every action appears defensive.

The fact is, GM, Ford and Chrysler are still paying for the sins of the '70s and '80s long beyond their expiation(cq) date. Korean car maker Hyundai, meanwhile, is wreathed in laurels for reversing its quality fiascos of the 1980s and is devouring market share from the Detroit Three as well as Japan, Inc.

When I say the domestics are "paying for their sins," I mean that literally. GM products bear consistently lower sticker prices than their Asian and European competitors, despite the fact that they typically offer a richer menu of standard equipment and better power options.

Take the Cadillac CTS, for example, which retails for $38,980 and comes with a navigation system and OnStar Service as standard equipment. If you turned to import competitors, you might pay $50,625 for a BMW 5-Series or $45,675 for a Lexus GS350 without the nav system.

But the Detroit Three are not just paying for their past sins, they're also paying for their past successes. The thousands upon thousands of retirees GM still supports were working on the line when factories were running overtime to keep up with demand. The plants they have closed were built for less competitive times.

In 2004, health care cost GM $1,525 per vehicle, compared to Toyota 's $201, according to the management consulting firm A.T. Kearney. And health care costs increase with age. Toyota had only 250 retirees in North America in 2004. GM covered about 340,000, including spouses. And those contract provisions were painstakingly negotiated in many a midnight mediation over the decades.

It was inevitable that GM, Ford and Chrysler would lose the commanding market share they enjoyed after World War II. Asia and Europe crawled out of the postwar rubble and hit their stride when American industry was growing fat and lazy.

Since then, the import brands have expanded their fleets to compete in every market segment, complete with U.S. factories. The Detroit Three lost their virtual monopoly in full-size trucks when Toyota got serious about the Tundra, and Nissan rolled out the Titan, both built in Southern U.S. states hostile to unions and offering extravagant economic incentives.

GM has 7,000 dealerships, many of which are protected from closure by antiquated state laws. Toyota has 1,500.

While anyone who covers the industry can come up with any number of blunders by the Detroit Three, building unwanted products is not one of the biggies. Not anymore. That was a completely different era.

In fact, part of their recent trouble came from the fact that they built vehicles that people did want. Until a year ago, they had a hard time supplying enough Yukons and Silverados for a market flush with cash and credit. Toyota and Nissan were fighting hard for a piece of the action. When pump prices spiked, all of the makers were caught with fleets of gas guzzlers that few buyers could afford, even if they wanted them.

But were the automakers to blame for high fuel prices? There's a good argument to be made that the U.S. invasion of Iraq - a government action - and related world instability contributed to the soaring fuel prices that endangered not only the auto industry but the world economy.

That's not to say that GM didn't have plenty of high-quality, fuel-efficient cars. With 20 models that get 30 miles per gallon or more, GM offers more than any other maker. They also offer the most hybrid vehicles, ranging from the Malibu Hybrid to Cadillac Escalade And if you want conventional frugality, there's the dutiful little Chevy Aveo, which, at $12,120 costs about $2,000 less than a Toyota Yaris.

If it survives, GM will produce plug-in hybrids within a couple of years that should allow most commuters to go to work and back without running their internal combustion engines at all.

GM still catches a lot of grief for scrapping the electric EV1 in 1999, but the two-seater was believed to have cost GM $80,000 per unit and could only be leased, not sold. It was a costly boondoggle briefly mandated by one state -- California . Nonetheless, GM soldiers on with development of the Volt, a hybrid designed to run primarily on battery power that might enjoy better success but certainly won't save the company.

GM is also playing a key role in the development of so-called "Intelligent Transportation Systems" that will make driving safer and more efficient. In fact, cars that drive themselves are not that far off. Eleven years ago, GM linked eight Buick LeSabres electronically in a system called "platooning." Drivers at the event known as Demo 97 did not have to touch the accelerator, brake pedal or steering wheel.

GM's sophisticated OnStar communications system is also seen as a bargain basis for future communication between vehicles. The system would also provide 360-degree visibility and would cost much less than the government's proposed $3 billion to $10 network.

GM could be the beneficiary or the victim of government action, but the government has been deeply involved in the automotive business for most of its existence, from catalytic converters to air bags, which, by the way, GM pioneered.

Should the U.S. government lend taxpayer dollars to the Big Three? We're talking about a loan, here, not an outright gift like the hundreds of billions of dollars we have poured into Iraq , including $9 billion in cash that simply disappeared.

Some respected economists argue that bankruptcy may be the only way for GM to hack the Gordian knot of contracts, laws, regulations and debts dating back to an era of black-and-white TV. But GM questions whether the world's largest automaker could survive bankruptcy. Who would trust a warranty or parts supplies for a company that might not be around next year?

If you're occupying an ivory tower or a talk-show microphone, you have the luxury of debating economic theory. If you are among the one out of 10 workers who depend on the auto industry for your daily bread, the question is a little more immediate.

At the end of the day, GM may go under, taking much of the world's economy with it. To think that they survived the Great Depression but perished in their 100th year would be a bitter pill to swallow. But let's hope that historians don't blame the demise of the brand on cars that "nobody wanted."

[itsageo]

Interesting article. Biased, but interesting.

But it still doesn't say shit about the fact that they don't produce anything in Japan so, the other article earlier in this thread shouldn't really complain that they don't sell vehicles there.

[black_7]

Interesting article. Biased, but interesting.

But it still doesn't say shit about the fact that they don't produce anything in Japan so, the other article earlier in this thread shouldn't really complain that they don't sell vehicles there.

GM launches online car-shopping site in Japan September 17, 2001
http://www.computerworld.com/action/...rticleId=63960

http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/gl...cific/japa.jsp



People seem to forget the big 3 have ties with foreign car manufacturers.

[Z28SSMAN]

Itsageo:So....the article is biased huh? You mean when it says 9.3 million "nobodies" bought GM cars and trucks? Nope... Can't be that....

[MR.hp]

Interesting article. Biased, but interesting.

But it still doesn't say shit about the fact that they don't produce anything in Japan so, the other article earlier in this thread shouldn't really complain that they don't sell vehicles there.

I don't think there is a market that the big 3 see worth investing over there,
But look at the japanese buying lots of American made stuff like Gibson guitars and other stuff we make right here in the U.S.

If I were to buy a preformance car it would be a GM Why? because that what I know best and have liked over the years. If I were to but a daily driver car at this point it would be a honda or toyota Why? because I like the way they drive and run. If I were to but a truck to use or tow it would be a GM Why? because of the reliability that I have had with the brand.

Another thing who copied the Harley Davidson The Japanese and if they were so good then they would have made something brand new But no the copied the V-Twin Why because people associate H-D with the U.S. made products.

If I am not mistaken did not the U.S. Govt. help out H-D too?

[Z28SSMAN]

I dunno...everbody is entitled to their opinion.

For me? You'll never see this guy owning/driving a Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mitsu, etc. It doesn't matter if it were new, used whatever.

I don't like what the companies stand for and how they rape the country and send the majority of the profits back to Japan.

Driving one of those cars would be worse than racing a Ford and you'll never see me doing that. lol

The Camry comes in third against the Honda and the new Malibu. I have talked to people from Honda and Toyota and they have said how impressed they are with the Malibu. The G8 blows away cars costing thousands more and so does the CTS.

Of course it's just my opinion...no harm done

[MR.hp]

Sure hope this does not happen>


Today news came out that General Motors is considering parting ways with Pontiac, Saturn and Saab. It’s no secret that GM will likely have to cut more of their eight U.S. brands if federal assistance is to be granted by Congress. Another aspect of the business that GM is very eager to cut is their debt. At last report, GM was sitting on about $43 Billion in debt, but sources tell GMI that very little of that debt is secured by assets. GMI has also been told, well before the grave financial news, that Pontiac’s future is shaky at best. However GMI is now hearing that if GM were to dispose of the Saturn division, they could kill two birds with one stone.

As mentioned, most of GM’s debt is unsecured, but according to an article from the Chicago Tribune states that GM has a $1.5 Billion and $4.5 Billion revolving loan that are both secured by “equipment and assets of the Saturn brand.” Prior to about a year ago, GM’s Spring Hill, TN assembly plant was essentially the Saturn plant. Back when the division was created in 1985, that assembly plant was Saturn’s home. GMI has heard that along with most of the Saturn brand, that Spring Hill, TN plant is also secured in the debt. Currently that plant builds one vehicle; the Chevrolet Traverse. Due to the dwindling market demand of vehicles period, one has to wonder if GM could not easily start building the Traverse where its cousins are built; at the newly built Lansing-Delta assembly plant that produces all the other Lambda crossovers. The whole reason Spring Hill was selected to build the Traverse was so that it would have the capacity to meet the projected demand.

As the rumors have suggested, GM brass is looking at dumping Saturn. The interesting twist is that GMI is told GM is looking at working with the banks that GM has that debt secured with to take possession of Saturn. That would leave GM with one less brand and several billion dollars less in debt; secured debt at that. However it sounds as if it would leave them with one less assembly plant as well.

What would happen to Saturn if the banks took over the brand is largely unknown. Its assumed that the banks would sell Saturn to the highest bidder; which may not be an easy task in this global economy.

[itsageo]

I am not saying that GM couldn't have a big market in Japan, but they just don't build the right vehicles for over there. I have been to Japan 3 times and pretty much the only American cars I have seen are SUV's or vans.

I finally saw my first Japanese GM car in the little Kei car they make. If GM wanted to, they could probably sell alot of them over there, but I don't believe they want to try and pry japanese people away from their Suzuki, Toyota, Daihatsu, etc.

I do agree that GM getting in on China is a good idea for them, it should really pay off in 10-15 years.