So why is GM going down?

[Lumadar]

Originally Posted by MASKDMARVL

If you need to buy american buy a 69 numbers matching rotisarie restored Z28. Thats an investment. There are 2 big investments in everyones life, first is a home, second is a vehicle. Choose carefully. Dont spend 30,000 in an american market, and expect the world.

Press Release Detail - NEW FORD F-150 ADDS BEST RESIDUAL VALUE TO UNSURPASSED FUEL ECONOMY ... - Ford

Press Release Detail - FORD EXTENDS LEAD IN SAFETY RATING TALLY; 2009 FORD F-150 EARNS 'TO ... - Ford

NEW 2010 FORD FUSION, FUSION HYBRID OFFER LEADING FUEL EFFICIENCY, SMART NEW TECHNOLOGIES | Ford Motor Company Newsroom


Don't expect the world, but hey, it's a start.

[themightytimmah]

It's a perfect storm. GM has much higher legacy costs than Toyota, etc, plus their management has been far less forward thinking. Just look at Saturn for an example of how GM and the UAW are stuck in the 1960s.

[MASKDMARVL]

I grew up Gm 73 Chevelle, 74 Nova. It sucks to see their demise. On the other hand I own 2 Volvos 1 is a 740 GL with half a mil on the clock, the other is an 96 850R thats has never seen a service station other than to get gas.

[MSOsr]

[quote=AspenF150;1203188]I'm not one for talking about this kind of stuff as it's too contraversial but I'll chime in anyway. I lost my job thanks to Bush and his henchmen of idiot politicians so I'll blow off some steam.


President Bush fired you? You must have been a high ranking executive.

Actually, I think boards of directors, elected by shareholders, decide CEO salaries, not the POTUS.

Check elsewhere for the posts dealing with Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and ACORN's roles in the mortgage crisis. It wasn't President Bush.

You're blaming the wrong people for your loss.

Mike

[AspenF150]

I never worked for Bush, I was a Press Operator for Whirlpool.

Bush let the economy go down as well as CEO's, Management and all the other crooks who I think belong in jail.

He let people take there eye off the ball. Meaning, all the management idiots pretty much did whatever they want and pamper there own *** even at the companies expense. Bush didn't give a [insert phrase here] what happened so banks and corporations decided to come up with all these wild ideas just to get people in there pockets and now there taking it in the neck for it. Yea real smart Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac etc...

Personally I'd rather make a consistent flow of lesser money than make a huge amount of money and risk my job. The bush administration, CEO's, Management and just people in general who make stupid decisions like biting off on a mortage than they can chew. That's who I blame.

[themightytimmah]

Originally Posted by AspenF150

Personally I'd rather make a consistent flow of lesser money than make a huge amount of money and risk my job. The bush administration, CEO's, Management and just people in general who make stupid decisions like biting off on a mortage than they can chew. That's who I blame.

A big part of that had to do with the investment banks going public. When they were held as partnerships, they could make long-term decisions and it was their own money on the line. Once they went public, risk was separated from return and the onus was on pulling in the largest % returns and bonuses as possible, as well as maximizing the stock value during the next quarter... not the next decade like it should be.

AIG played a huge role in this too - their role in the derivatives market was akin to insuring everyone in coastal Florida for $200 a year and keeping $20 of that in reserve, because the computer models said a hurricane would never happen.

Bush is little more than a figurehead in the blind man's bluff that occurred over the last 5 years.

[wytstang]

When did it become the Presidents job to baby sit CEO's, corporations and banks?

[lawrencea]

Originally Posted by FlowRate

My dad keeps telling us about how his uncles worked for GM and got 2 months of vacation + $40/hour to sit and watch a machine. It's simply not sustainable business practice when you're also producing what is widely regarded as an inferior product.

How much does one need to make in todays world. $40.00 per hour is $1600.00 per week. That means that your morgage shouldnt be over $1600.00 per month including taxes. That is the old way to figure it , and thats the way I still figure it. That wont cover a house in the Chicago area. Forget the wife working. Wifes money is for the extras that life has to offer, saving for College, retirerment, that special vacation. If a man cant buy a decent house on 40 hours then he doesent have a good job. Everbody deserves and needs a good job. How many exects.at the big 3 can live on $1600.00 per week before taxes.

[FlowRate]

Originally Posted by lawrencea

How much does one need to make in todays world. $40.00 per hour is $1600.00 per week. That means that your morgage shouldnt be over $1600.00 per month including taxes. That is the old way to figure it , and thats the way I still figure it. That wont cover a house in the Chicago area. Forget the wife working. Wifes money is for the extras that life has to offer, saving for College, retirerment, that special vacation. If a man cant buy a decent house on 40 hours then he doesent have a good job. Everbody deserves and needs a good job. How many exects.at the big 3 can live on $1600.00 per week before taxes.

Managers at retail chains, people who do something more than watch a machine, make less than $40/hour. It's hard for them, definitely. But unless you're a hardcore socialist, I don't think "everyone deserves and needs a good job."

[Lumadar]

Originally Posted by AspenF150

I never worked for Bush, I was a Press Operator for Whirlpool.

Bush let the economy go down as well as CEO's, Management and all the other crooks who I think belong in jail.

He let people take there eye off the ball. Meaning, all the management idiots pretty much did whatever they want and pamper there own *** even at the companies expense. Bush didn't give a [insert phrase here] what happened so banks and corporations decided to come up with all these wild ideas just to get people in there pockets and now there taking it in the neck for it. Yea real smart Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac etc...

Personally I'd rather make a consistent flow of lesser money than make a huge amount of money and risk my job. The bush administration, CEO's, Management and just people in general who make stupid decisions like biting off on a mortgage than they can chew. That's who I blame.

Being as that I am one week from finishing a Us GOVT class at a university right now, (with a Professor that has been teaching for 25+ years, worked for 3 presidential administrations, the CIA, and also lectures at Oxford University) I think I can say with some level of confidence that it would be a bit of a stretch to try and pin the actions of companies in a capitalistic economy (in a constitutional Republic that clearly states the levels of involvement of government in business) on the President.

Furthermore, the current state of the economy has without a doubt more to do with the collapse of the housing market + banking industry DUE TO the housing market, and it is a little known fact that George Bush (and McCain, FWIW) both approached congress on several occasions to try and put a stop to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac doing what they were doing- guess who stopped them? Congress, led by a few congressman who took huge contributions from those organizations. (I'll give you a hint, the top guys in congress weren't involved with the bush administration in any way, by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is your president elect).

So, if you want to try and blame "the government" for it, at least realize that the President did in fact formally attempt to stop the organizations that played the biggest role in carrying out the politically motivated economic actions started by Clinton- not Bush.

Going any further then Bush tried into the way businesses were being run would not be legal, desirable (in the eyes of most, at least), or appropriate in the type of economy that we operate in.

That's my two cents worth...

[dave40co]

Originally Posted by Lumadar

Being as that I am one week from finishing a Us GOVT class at a university right now, (with a Professor that has been teaching for 25+ years, worked for 3 presidential administrations, the CIA, and also lectures at Oxford University) I think I can say with some level of confidence that it would be a bit of a stretch to try and pin the actions of companies in a capitalistic economy (in a constitutional Republic that clearly states the levels of involvement of government in business) on the President.

Furthermore, the current state of the economy has without a doubt more to do with the collapse of the housing market + banking industry DUE TO the housing market, and it is a little known fact that George Bush (and McCain, FWIW) both approached congress on several occasions to try and put a stop to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac doing what they were doing- guess who stopped them? Congress, led by a few congressman who took huge contributions from those organizations. (I'll give you a hint, the top guys in congress weren't involved with the bush administration in any way, by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is your president elect).

So, if you want to try and blame "the government" for it, at least realize that the President did in fact formally attempt to stop the organizations that played the biggest role in carrying out the politically motivated economic actions started by Clinton- not Bush.

Going any further then Bush tried into the way businesses were being run would not be legal, desirable (in the eyes of most, at least), or appropriate in the type of economy that we operate in.

That's my two cents worth...

FYI, It was Carter that started the Community Reinvestment Act. Google it and see who broadened its scope.

[Lumadar]

Originally Posted by dave40co

FYI, It was Carter that started the Community Reinvestment Act. Google it and see who broadened its scope.

Right, but what Carter did in 1977 was "updated" by Bill Clinton in 1995-7 (I think he began work on the changes in 1995?), which forced banking institutions to give loans to individuals that otherwise wouldn't have qualified for loans that large, or at all.

Hence the birth of sub prime as we know it.