How about the Government take away a corporations right to exist after say 100 years, so other companies can have a chance to play. I don't like immortal, permanent corporations, banks, or companies. It's just not competitive or natural. Competition gets eaten by these large old corporations that want nothing but control, power and the same ole thing. SO say goodbye to Ford, GM, and any other huge company that's been around for over a hundred years and free up some room for new companies, with fresh ideas who need a little space and some re-assurance that they wont just get gobbled up. I'd like to submit this to the Honorable Senate finance committee leaders for consideration and for presentaion to the Senate floor for a vote. I'm sure no one will object.

Competition doesn't need help to exist, it simply needs to be allowed to exist.

If you haven't noticed, the power of those old corporations is vanishing because they aren't competitive. They'll die if they don't get their act together, and if they do, then there's no reason they should go out of business.

__________________

It would be interesting to know the facts about Toyota versus GM in terms of the differences in their business models? Why does one appear to work while the other continues to be gloom?

Is Toyota bringing 100% of the sub-components from off-shore doing only final assembly in the USA? How do the wages compare between the two companies? How many labor hours go into the average Toyota versus the average GM car?

I once read when Toyota was about even with GM in revenue, the article talked about GM having something like 10,000 car distribution centers around the US while Toyota was doing the same revenue with 2000 distribution centers. I suspect similar excess is rampant within GM and others while Toyota runs a tighter ship...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

Tucker comes to mind, I don't think that anyone wants to challange the big 3 because the big three will do anything to sink any company that challanges them.

Sometimes I believe that if you build it they will come. But this does not always work especially when people are currently comfortable in their situations...in this case mostly driving larger and less efficient cars.

There remains a psychological stigma against smaller cars by those who have always driven larger cars. In many cases a smaller car does not provide the utility which is needed for hauling stuff or people. Many times a smaller car, depending on driving conditions, is not the best answer. These are excuses but they are also reality.

Then there's the financial issue; most people DO NOT purchase cars by paying cash. They finance or lease. If both a small car and a typical car have the same loan payment of $325/month, how many are going to buy or lease the smaller car? And yes smaller cars get better mpg, but a car driving 12,000 miles per year which gets 20mpg at $3.50/gallon only costs $900 more for fuel than another car getting 35mpg. This is only a $75/month gain in fuel costs, and this cost can be mitigated by car-pooling or less driving without the need to go into debt buying another higher-mpg car.

I think it will take 50 years or more to expect a majority of people to convert to 50mpg cars. The burden is simply too big for people to take on in this economy. Therefore, I believe at least 80% of the emphasis in this area to reduce oil consumption should be done by modifying the US infrastructure to allow non-fossil fuel public transportation for all areas...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

I agree with this but then again if the Big 3 stink so bad, and IF there is a business model that will work in the USA to build cars, then I would think it could be done. But since no one gives it a go, I'd say it's a lost cause. If so, the $25 billion bailout loan that Congress is approving might as well be thrown into the garbage can...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/auto...ion=2008093009


What a $25B auto loan might buy

Money will be used to build more fuel-efficient cars, but there won't be changes in product plans.

By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com senior writer

Last Updated: September 30, 2008: 9:44 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush may be set to sign into law $25 billion in low-interest loans to help automakers and auto parts suppliers make fuel-efficient vehicles, but don't expect a rush of new hi-tech ultra-clean cars.

Lower-tech solutions - smaller cars with more fuel-efficient engines - will be a more immediate priority, industry analysts predict. And the money will likely be used for immediate manufacturing needs rather than for deep research.

According to the legislation, which is part of a massive spending bill that passed Congress last week, the funds must be used in the development or manufacturer of vehicles that are at least 25% more fuel efficient than an average vehicle of the same type already on the market.

Loans will have to be repaid within 25 years or within the life-span of the project, whichever comes first.

The money will mostly go to manufacturing rather than development, said David Cole who heads the Center for Automotive Research in Michigan. Creating new technology is the most cost-intensive part of the process, and "a lot of the basic research is in place by now," he said.

General Motors, for example, has already said it intends to produce the Chevrolet Volt, an electric car with lithium-ion batteries, in 2010. The research for that car is largely complete, but retooling a factory to actually produce it will be a major expense.

Even in the case of a production vehicle like the Volt, don't expect to see huge numbers coming out for some time, said Cole. Manufacturers will proceed cautiously at first so they can watch out for needed improvements that can be added to later versions.

"Nobody is going to invest in 2 million units of capacity right out of the chute," he said.

Industry consulting firm AutomotiveCompass expects that GM will produce only about 25,000 Volts in the first year of production with numbers ramping up to about 60,000 per year after that.

Low-tech solutions

A 25% bump in fuel economy won't necessarily require hi-tech solutions anyway, Cole said. For instance, GM's upcoming Chevrolet Cruze small car, due to hit the market in 2010, should get 25% better fuel economy than the Chevrolet Cobalt it replaces by using a six-speed transmission and a small, turbocharged engine, he said.

Ford is also getting ready to bring out a line of small turbocharged engines that will replace larger engines in some larger vehicles.

"The vast majority of funds is going to go into something with a faster turnaround," agreed Kim Korth, president of the automotive consulting firm IRN, Inc.

Advanced research will still benefit from the loan, though, said Korth, Some of the funds freed from immediate production needs, thanks the federal loan program, will likely go into research for future products.

The money will also spill over into projects that will improve the fuel economy of other vehicles in manufactures' line-ups, but perhaps not by a full 25%, she said.

Although the bill doesn't mention any specific companies, Detroit carmakers lobbied hard for the loan program and are clearly pleased with its passage.

"We are pleased that the Congress has appropriated full funding for The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program," GM spokesman Greg Martin said in a written statement. "Congress clearly recognizes the need to move forward at this critical time to make available this source of capital for automakers and suppliers."

Roots of the problem

Although the loan was initially proposed to help automakers deal with new Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules, high gas prices which have resulted in a sudden consumer shift away from large trucks and SUVs and toward smaller cars, have made the loans critical for American car manufacturers, said GM's Martin.

"It's unfortunate that that's happening while there's this turmoil in the credit markets," he said.

Borrowing money is extremely expensive now, especially for companies like Detroit automakers that have weak credit ratings, Martin noted.

Ford also applauded passage of the loan package. "This is an important first step to providing access to capital for important investments in the future at a time when the capital markets are distressed," the company said in a written statement.

It's less clear if other carmakers will benefit. The rules of the loan program favor the money being spent on older production facilities rather than new ones, something that would favor U.S.-based manufacturers.

Japan-based Toyota is indifferent to the loan program, said spokeswoman Martha Voss. It is uncertain whether Toyota would qualify for loans or would feel the need to apply for them if it did. "We're sort of on the sidelines watching," she said.

First Published: September 30, 2008: 8:55 AM ET


Some of the statements which I placed in 'bold' above sound to me like they are just following down the same old path; old facilities, same technology, build a few 'tiny' cars, no solid goals or dates, just some more money to bailout a losing business model.

Further, unless everyone receives a similar bailout to Wall Street, if most of these new models cost more than $10K-$15K, and they look and feel like pieces of cheap crap, who is going to buy them???

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

With our present turmoil in the "markets" there are many good buys. That applies to real-estate (not land but land with improvements) and the stock market. Presently GM is at $4.89 per share so with thousand bucks one could buy a thousand shares. GM has had/is having talks with Chrysler (and it's said Ford too) regarding a merger. A merger would yield up too much plant and equipment for the one surviving auto company and would lead to massive lay-offs, and a sale off of plants and equipment. GM presently has a P/E ratio of "N/A" due to recent losses.

Still they have produced a "plug in" (standard 120 volt household circuit) rechargeable electric car (3-models, the sport model capable of 100 mph) to be introduced in a year or so. (which model hasn't been decided on as yet) GM sold off about 60,00 units in August by selling to employees, one presumes to unload unsold inventory.

Any opinions from this learned forum about the future value of GM stock?

An aside: My thousand shares of GE went unsold at $59/share in 2001 waiting for an end to capital gains taxes, now at $21/share at a P/E of 10. GE is the Largest American Manufacturing Corporation. It is now said that even GE could fail in the next 60 days.

__________________
American Bottoms

A Type Unit Geology ~ a system of formerly glacial filled valleys in Southern Indiana which embraces the broader impulses of the whole region in which it is integrated.
~~~

[quote]A 'good buy' cannot be determined by a low price.

A 'good buy' can be determined by evaluating the opportunity against obvious and/or obscure risks.

$1000 investment at $4.89 per share equals about 200 shares...not 1000.


My opinion; if you take one 10 pound bag of (*)(*)(*)(*) and combine it with another 10 pound bag of (*)(*)(*)(*)...you now have a 20 pound bag of (*)(*)(*)(*)...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

Do the big automakers deserve a handout?

Published: Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 8:53 a.m.

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler met with Nancy Pelosi on Thursday to beg for a second $25-billion loan package from Congress, arguing that they're too big to fail and that Michigan voted for Barack Obama. GM, after getting turned down by the Bush administration, is already planning to ask the next Treasury secretary for $10 billion to buy Chrysler.

I'll let other people waste their time examining GM's debt load or Chrysler's union contracts; I decided to figure out whether the government should bail these companies out by testing their products. I'd wanted to run this same experiment on Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch but got bogged down when I couldn't figure out what either of them did. I am, however, certain that U.S. taxpayers should not save Bennigan's.

Shortly after getting to the Glendale Dodge dealership, I realized that evaluating cars was going to be more difficult than I'd anticipated, because the only thing I know about cars is that, after 19, women don't want to have sex in them. While waiting for a salesperson, I also realized that Phil Collins wrote many more songs than I remembered. Luckily, my method of car evaluation is exactly the same as most car buyers: Does it look cool and hook up to my iPod? So I got salesman John Martin to let me drive the brand new Challenger, which is a noisy, gas-munching, "Starsky and Hutch"-worthy, retro muscle car with giant wheels and side stripes. I slid into the driver's seat and felt my hair get shorter in the front and grow in the back. Martin knew how to make me fall in love with it. "When we sell these vehicles," he said, "we tell people how dangerous they are."

After I left small bits of rubber all over Brand Avenue, Martin introduced me to the new Ram 1500, which is a very large truck. I've never driven a truck, or even held a conversation about trucks, yet I instinctively knew to ask, "What's the payload on this one?" I was not sure if Martin would respond with a weight, a metric volume, a dollar amount, a comparison to horses or a high-five. He told me it carried 9,000 pounds, which sounded like a stupid amount because it meant I'd somehow have to lift 9,000 pounds on and off the truck. Still, the large payload made me feel manly. "Yeah, you feel like building something," Martin said. Not really, I told him. "A cabinet, maybe," he offered. I explained I meant "manly" more in the vein of not putting sugar in my chai.

Pretty impressed, I drove a block to Star Chrysler Jeep to try out the new Town & Country minivan. This vehicle has seven seats, three televisions, a DVD player, 13 cup holders, a flashlight and a weird plastic table for picnicking. The two TVs in the back are hooked up to Sirius satellite service so kids can watch the Disney Channel, Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon. If I ever have five children I don't want to talk to who drink 2.6 beverages at a time, I will totally buy this van.

I also took out the cushy, ultra-smooth, Bentley rip-off 300C, which costs $40,000, is completely tricked out and now has a small scrape on the bottom from going over a speed bump at 30 mph. Like all the cars I tried, it had an awesome stereo, a GPS system and a 30-gigabyte hard drive with a USB port, which seemed cool until I wondered what I'd download onto my car that wouldn't cause a deadly or at least deeply embarrassing accident.

Chrysler also guarantees the lifetime of your powertrain -- which you should never call the "gear train" even if that sounds like it makes more sense. While impressive sounding, a lifetime guarantee is an easy thing to offer when you're about to go out of business. If I were President Bush, I'd be giving out lifetime guarantees on mortgages, Iraqi democracy and the furniture in the Lincoln bedroom.

But no matter how much I liked these cars, I don't think the government should use taxpayer money to give life-support to dying, poorly managed, market ignorant, technologically outdated industries other than newspapers. As sad as it would be for American icons like Chrysler to die, and for thousands of people to lose their jobs, propping up failure prevents innovation.

I do, however, hope that even if American automakers implode, we keep a few of these giant, impractical vehicles around. Because after this recession is over and our conversion to small electric cars is complete, we'll start wanting to behave like Americans again. And no other country is going to make cars with a button like the one I saw on the Town & Country that flips the rear seats around for easy tailgating comfort. As profligate as that might seem right now, it's that pursuit of inane happiness that makes us so great. We will once again be a 2.6-beverage country.

Joel Stein is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times. E-mail him at jstein@latimescolumnists.com.

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...