General Motors number 1 again

[machine23]

At the end of the day bro, neither republicans or dems have the best interest of the people... So stop being a hardcore democrat and open your eyes bro

 

[Arabian]

that number doesn't mean anything until you look at their balance sheet or p/l statement

maybe they wanted to sell so many vehicles at a loss to recapture market share. the 2nd link you posted is complete garbage without that information

one of the main things about GM and american car companies was poor structure and inefficiency. who knows what the margins were on those sales when you calculate all the fixed and variable costs

Calveless is 100% correct. GM has taken a loss on vehicles to be able to re-capture market share. They offer the consumer a so called $7500.00 rebate on vehicles to make it appear the consumer is getting a good deal compared to other vehicles in there class. Bottom line is , if there is a huge rebate on the model in question , then that unit is not moving and the company recognizes this and entices the consumer by fake rebates and 0% loans. Smoke and mirrors to make the company appear stronger and just like Calveless said, just because they are moving units , one must look at the corporate balance sheet and there profit and loss statements to see the true picture.

 

[nydj66]

General Motors is number 1 again, 3 years after being bankrupt.

GM Is No. 1 In The World Again In Auto Sales - Forbes

Democrats saw the value of saving a foundation of the American economy. Right wing ideologists, on the other hand, would have let GM fail. These ideologists include Mitt Romney, who has repeatedly said we should have let GM fail:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...2UU3yL9WLcK1P0oSw&sig2=tk9ZcHYR6sNqI8gi-c5VQg

How could you find a better example of the differences between parties? With Democrats, we saved an American Foundation by recognizing the appropriate use of government and the value of our institutions and workers. As a result, we again have the biggest auto maker in the world which will help fuel the economic recovery.

With Republicans, we would have had no auto industry and 3 million or more additional unemployed, which would have turned the Bush Recession to a great depression.

Extreme right wing ideology (which is a big part of the republican mainstream) has gone beyond all common sense.

GM should have been allowed to fail. Their managment has been short-sighted for decades. They stiffle progress and lobby congress heavily to ensure no changes are implemented. Ford didn't need a bailout.

Plus, congress came down hard on Toyota for the sticky accelerator issue (which Chevy and Ford Explorers have also been known for) sending a clear message that they should back off. We didn't want a foreign automaker to lead sales in the US and Toyota was right on the edge of doing so. They wisely pulled back even though they still clearly make superior cars.

 

[binö]

never thought of CW as a ditto head bobbing his head to rush limbaugh...this seems to be headholio's only response to criticism of his liberal ideology, if you don't agree with him he stutters some nonsense about fox news or a talk radio host.
glad to see even apolitical bros are calling him out on his BS, take that talk to the huffington post bro we aren't buying it here

 

[stevesmi]

Google mathematics...
The stock price after the Obama forced bankruptcy that disenfranchised the bondholders and violated the rule of law to support his union cronies, isn't near a price that would ever allow the taxpayers to recover their cost while the treasury is going out of their way to dump the stock..

if you owned GM stocks before the bankruptcy you got left with NOTHING. that is how it works for shareholders, they are last at the trough.

when it re-emerged from bankruptcy it was re-listed as a totally new equity.. you didn't magically get free GM stock if you were a prior shareholder.

so lets review

if you owned GM 10 years ago and held it your investment is now worth less than toilet paper.

if you bought it ahead of the IPO you are making a fortune. that includes the government. just cause the stock IPO'd on its first day at 33 and now its 24 doesn't mean you are down 9 points in your investment.

the only arguement you can make which has been made by the media is that the public should of had equal rights to get shares pre-IPO, that means the government, wall street, bankers, etc would of had to share a piece of the pie if people were willing to invest. that never happened simply because the government got such a steal on the investment. had the public gotten involved then they would of had to pay more

 

[stevesmi]

Shares went out at $33 in the IPO last year. They closed Tuesday at $25.04, and were down $2.73, or 11%, to close at $22.31. That was bad news for taxpayers: The U.S. Treasury still holds about 26% of the company, a stake it has said it intends to sell as soon as possible and prudent. But it would need to be able the remaining stake for about $53 a share for taxpayers to break even on the nearly $50 billion GM bailout.

so you really think that the government got shares at whatever the IPO opened at the first day of trading? you don't know what you are talking about my friend. it doesn't work like that.

example: google opened up at 100 back in 2004, but it doesn't mean that all the officers, insiders, bankers, etc magically get shares at that exact price. they probably paid a 1/10th of that. the person who paid $100 a share is the guy who bought when the stock opened, and the person who sold to them was a banker. I get shares in IPO's all the time myself, and its a risk I am taking.. sometimes the IPO's do not open for years or get delayed, sometimes the IPO opens down 50% from what i paid.

example: I paid $45 a share for 400 shares of LNKD, it opened up in the 80's last May.. and if you look at the stock it has never traded $45 so steve how could you of gotten it at that price? well that is because I bought it months before it IPO'd, thats what the government did with GM.

not to mention the stock options they get to exercise of GM stock.

not to mention the preffered stock and dividends of GM stock.

it doesn't work the way you think it works.

and yes GM is profitable. they made almost $5 a share last year. they've got 1.5B shares outstanding, so you do the math, that is a lot of profit.

 

[ceo]

They should have let it fail. Or at least not stepped in with the bailout. Maybe...just maybe, some innovative mind not crippled by fear, would have come along and bailed GM out the right way, with not gov't (taxpayer) loans, but gov't guaranteed loans. Then that new CEO would have rebuilt the company from the ground up and laid some people off if necessary (can you even do that anymore with the way unions have raped the industry?), and actually produced a vehicle (or lines of vehicles) that would have been best sellers in the industry for well over 20 years. Then they would have been able to truly pay off their non-gov't provided, but gov't guaranteed loans earlier than the terms of the loans.

Wait...didn't that already happen? About 30 years ago? Right around the beginning of a major recession, when gov't had already bailed out airlines and railroads?

It's a rare thing to have happen apparently.

Either GM would have failed and folded up for good, or it would have been bought out and taken over by another entity. Oh, that did happen actually! They failed and got bought out. Stock holders got fucked and some insiders made millions (or more) including the gov't.

I think the first option I described though, was actually filled with win...and real pride. Funny how history repeats itself. I think the current generation of big company CEOs care more about lining their own pockets than the success of their company, so much so that they will let the company crumble while they pillage it for everything they can.

ah fuckit...

 

[the_alcatraz]

This means nothing, after a huge bailout and the whole buy one get one free deals that were going on...Americans like to come out with articles like this to make them feel better our their economy because the auto industry has a big effect on the industry but what CW said is right, 50 billion dollar bailout...

 

[stevesmi]

They should have let it fail. Or at least not stepped in with the bailout. Maybe...just maybe, some innovative mind not crippled by fear, would have come along and bailed GM out the right way, with not gov't (taxpayer) loans, but gov't guaranteed loans. Then that new CEO would have rebuilt the company from the ground up and laid some people off if necessary (can you even do that anymore with the way unions have raped the industry?), and actually produced a vehicle (or lines of vehicles) that would have been best sellers in the industry for well over 20 years. Then they would have been able to truly pay off their non-gov't provided, but gov't guaranteed loans earlier than the terms of the loans.

Wait...didn't that already happen? About 30 years ago? Right around the beginning of a major recession, when gov't had already bailed out airlines and railroads?

the airline industry will always need a bailout, its impossible to keep fares affordable for people and have airlines profit. there are a few profitable airlines but most of them lose money. just the way it is. we need travel though to keep the economy going. i always find myself buying tickets from the airline that is $10 less and then when I'm on my trip i am dropping hundreds on food and lodging. there is just something about being miserable on an airplane that i want to pay as less as possible for it.

It's a rare thing to have happen apparently.

Either GM would have failed and folded up for good, or it would have been bought out and taken over by another entity. Oh, that did happen actually! They failed and got bought out. Stock holders got fucked and some insiders made millions (or more) including the gov't.

yes that is exactly what happened. stock holders always get fucked anyway when they own common stock, they are always last and usually they get pennies for their shares. thats why its not smart to invest in common stock long term cause every company is capable of going under and every industry is capable of having a severe downturn.

I think the first option I described though, was actually filled with win...and real pride. Funny how history repeats itself. I think the current generation of big company CEOs care more about lining their own pockets than the success of their company, so much so that they will let the company crumble while they pillage it for everything they can.

ah fuckit...

bolded, and i agree with most of what you said

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

General Motors is number 1 again, 3 years after being bankrupt.

GM Is No. 1 In The World Again In Auto Sales - Forbes

Democrats saw the value of saving a foundation of the American economy. Right wing ideologists, on the other hand, would have let GM fail. These ideologists include Mitt Romney, who has repeatedly said we should have let GM fail:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...2UU3yL9WLcK1P0oSw&sig2=tk9ZcHYR6sNqI8gi-c5VQg

How could you find a better example of the differences between parties? With Democrats, we saved an American Foundation by recognizing the appropriate use of government and the value of our institutions and workers. As a result, we again have the biggest auto maker in the world which will help fuel the economic recovery.

With Republicans, we would have had no auto industry and 3 million or more additional unemployed, which would have turned the Bush Recession to a great depression.

Extreme right wing ideology (which is a big part of the republican mainstream) has gone beyond all common sense.

It's the liberal ideology that got them into that mess in the first place.

Ford has a conservative history. I wonder why they were the only one that was able to stand on its own.