General Motors' sour deal
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/09/23 01:52:58
|
|
|||||
|
44 votes
|
|
49% | ||
|
29 votes
|
|
32% | ||
|
17 votes
|
|
19% | ||
General Motors made a Faustian bargain. Result: the government has a stake and won't let go. So does the UAW.
And that's when GM started doing things like this!
The Chevy Volt!
Are GM's salesmen proud when they try to peddle this car? When they know that it can't even get all the way through the Lincoln Tunnel without falling back on its gasoline "kicker"?
They most certainly are not! The Chevy Volt is the biggest loss leader in the industry since the Edsel. These days, they can barely give them away. (Sorry, but not a single police department is interested.)
This is what GM has come to mean.
And that's when GM started doing things like this!
The Chevy Volt!
Are GM's salesmen proud when they try to peddle this car? When they know that it can't even get all the way through the Lincoln Tunnel without falling back on its gasoline "kicker"?
They most certainly are not! The Chevy Volt is the biggest loss leader in the industry since the Edsel. These days, they can barely give them away. (Sorry, but not a single police department is interested.)
This is what GM has come to mean.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/22...
Top Opinion
-
Yes. GM got a sour deal.
+16General Motors should truly call itself Faust, Incorporated. They should have gone into bankruptcy court. A court-appointed receiver would have done better by that company than the infamous Car Czar.
IMO, GM thought they would get the same kinds of loans car makers had in the past, of which I can only remember Chrysler under Lee Iacoca ever re-paying.
A large part of why GM can't get rid of the Volt is politics, but it's also the EV-1. GM had a working electric car (with happy customers) back in the 90's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are many theories about why GM dropped the EV-1 and went to such extreme measures to eradicate the car from the face of the earth. After all, the EV-1 had about the same performance as a Nissan Leaf, but 13 years sooner. Was it a money loser? Maybe, but not as bad as the Volt. I find it incredible that GM's SECOND electric car loses more money than the first. Have they learned NOTHING from the EV-1? Sure seems that way.
If the taxpayers were happy about paying for the first bailout, they should be deliriously happy about paying for the second. GM's biggest problem is their Opel subsidiary in Europe. Sure, the Volt is a boondoggle on government life support. But Opel is going to bleed the company dry. Some future President will either write off Obama's "investment" as a total loss, or throw good money after bad to subsidize European losses. This is why the government should have let GM die. It would have been cheap...
A large part of why GM can't get rid of the Volt is politics, but it's also the EV-1. GM had a working electric car (with happy customers) back in the 90's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are many theories about why GM dropped the EV-1 and went to such extreme measures to eradicate the car from the face of the earth. After all, the EV-1 had about the same performance as a Nissan Leaf, but 13 years sooner. Was it a money loser? Maybe, but not as bad as the Volt. I find it incredible that GM's SECOND electric car loses more money than the first. Have they learned NOTHING from the EV-1? Sure seems that way.
If the taxpayers were happy about paying for the first bailout, they should be deliriously happy about paying for the second. GM's biggest problem is their Opel subsidiary in Europe. Sure, the Volt is a boondoggle on government life support. But Opel is going to bleed the company dry. Some future President will either write off Obama's "investment" as a total loss, or throw good money after bad to subsidize European losses. This is why the government should have let GM die. It would have been cheaper to acknowledge the inevitable and use a much smaller amount of money to retrain the workers and expedite the liquidation of GM assets.
GM got a loan, and it's paid a lot of it back with interest. It will pay the remainder back too, with interest.
The Volt was never meant to be a police car. It was put on the market early by the car czar, and it's not selling because the cost is too high. It's concept is good and it was around before the loan to the company.
Lights? It's an electric power plant.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politic.... Stick to stitching.
"When the battery is depleted, a 1-liter, three-cylinder turbocharged engine spins at a constant speed, or revolutions per minute (rpm), to create electricity **and replenish the battery**."
I don't own a Volt, but I would think as a technician that the on board generator would charge the battery, AS IT SAYS. This is also a foolish red herring as I was refuting your claim that LIGHTS would have an effect, they don't, the on board engine is a POWER PLANT.
why not say Thomas Jefferson is old news.... and anyone who believes in his philosophy shoud "GO AWAY"!!!!
The UAW got a good deal, and the original stock holders as well as we tax payers got screwed.
Tell me, who was the financial wizard that decided that the Treasury needed to buy GM stock and share the risk of the company's failure (or success) to a much greater degree rather than simply making a loan?
Chrysler, Reagan and Iacocca worked it out in the '80s as a loan. The CEO of Chrysler retained control of his company and the government got paid back.
In this scenario, GM can't simply pay back a loan and move forward. The company's success overall is a necessity, as is the health of the stock market, over which GM has no control. If GM is doing swimmingly well, but the stock is undervalued due to other external issues that have nothing to do with the company, (currency, interest rates, the remainder of the auto industry health, etc.), they still can't get out from under this debt. It's a ridiculous scenario.
With all that said, the ...
The UAW got a good deal, and the original stock holders as well as we tax payers got screwed.
Tell me, who was the financial wizard that decided that the Treasury needed to buy GM stock and share the risk of the company's failure (or success) to a much greater degree rather than simply making a loan?
Chrysler, Reagan and Iacocca worked it out in the '80s as a loan. The CEO of Chrysler retained control of his company and the government got paid back.
In this scenario, GM can't simply pay back a loan and move forward. The company's success overall is a necessity, as is the health of the stock market, over which GM has no control. If GM is doing swimmingly well, but the stock is undervalued due to other external issues that have nothing to do with the company, (currency, interest rates, the remainder of the auto industry health, etc.), they still can't get out from under this debt. It's a ridiculous scenario.
With all that said, the Volt and the forced 'green option' that wasn't ready for the market, nor was the market ready for it was an exercise in idiocy. Thanks to a 30 something Car Czar that didn't have a lick of experience in what he was assigned to do.
This is failed leadership at it's finest.
Yet another golden nugget for the Romney campaign. Hello!! Romney folks?! You listening to this??