Saving General Motors

[GM-Joe]

Saturn Corsa is earmarked for Mexico around 2011; they can't now because of safety and frontal crash regulations.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by markusername

Maybe I'm mistaken but are not Honda and Toyota making Billions in PROFITS in the EXACT same market that GM is? Do gas stations charge Civic owners only $1 per gallon? Do Camry owners home values go up instead of down because they own a Camry?

Your right it's not GM's managements fault for losing money for years, losing market share for years, stock price being at a 33 year low....etc... Its the fault of the weather, the media, the tide, etc...

If your government pays for healthcare, you don't have legacy union costs, and your factories are built with significant tax breaks from state government, then you have more money to plow into R and D which allows your product to be more competitive. GM has been building cars at a cost disadvantage for a long, long time......it's a wonder the crisis has been averted this long. I don't think the problem is that hard to understand......it's the solutions that are complicated.

[Geotpf]

Originally Posted by PRO_USA1776

I don't really see the problem with the US government helping out GM and Ford. It is what Asian countries and european ones do for their manufacturers. What is good for the Goose should be good for the Gander! Besides that GM Ford and Chrysler helped us win WWII. Time for the American government to step up. It seems to me that the US governments job is to help US companies when necessary! If the rest of the world doesn't like it, then up theirs!

The argument against a government take over of GM (or all of the Detroit 3) is only two words long:

British Leyland

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by osv_alero

For once, maybe he is on to something. GM, Ford and Chrysler do not have the cash or government assistance that the Japanese makes do. They need government help our we might just loose them.

What about a petition started right here on GMInsidenews that pushes for government help of Americas most vital industry. The help should be in technology advancement and import tariffs.

And I'll start a more compassionate petition that will make more substantive change for the auto industry: balancing the budget and showing fiscal restraint so that when GM profits from its endeavors it gets to keep more of those profits; balancing the budget so that the dollar is more appropriately valued and in turn reduces the price of oil; ridding this country of useless, wasteful, misguided, excessive legislation that burdens business by discouraging investment; tort reform so that companies require appropriately-sized legal departments to conduct business legally and rationally; the encouragement through competitive grants to make science appealing to students in secondary school and post-secondary school so that American industry finally(!) has access to well-trained, qualified candidates for positions throughout their company so that they (and college universities) don't have to waste time and money retraining their workers/students in the basics. That is a much, much more appealing beginning to helping industry in this country than anything proposed thus far!

Originally Posted by ericmvest

I agree with your post 100%. To even the playing field the Federal Government should help the Big Three. A large tax deduction for series hybrids would be a big help to get the Volt off the ground. It seems that our Federal, state, and local governments have helped the Japanese car manufacturers more than our domestic manufacturers in recent years. The Japanese Government is very protective of their automotive industry and our Federal Government is dismissive of our automotive industry and helpful to the Japanese. It is a very odd and self-destructive state of affairs.

A quite uninspired approach to helping industry.

Originally Posted by windvale

And the answer is...because up until last month GM couldn't have given a tinker's damn less about small cars. The Aveo is a POS insult to the car buying public, and it has even further eroded any credibility GM ever had in the US small car business...

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

If your government pays for healthcare, you don't have legacy union costs, and your factories are built with significant tax breaks from state government, then you have more money to plow into R and D which allows your product to be more competitive. GM has been building cars at a cost disadvantage for a long, long time......it's a wonder the crisis has been averted this long. I don't think the problem is that hard to understand......it's the solutions that are complicated.

And who pays for that healthcare? Who pays for those tax breaks? I love that people think there's a magic tax revenue tree that pays for all these programs. What pays for them are the elimination of Bush's tax cuts, it's raising the capital gains tax (that will discourage investment in industry), it's raising taxes on families that earn(!) more tha $250,000 per annum. In essence, it means increasing the tax burden on those most capable of supporting inductry. So, how does making GM pay more in taxes help them? How does having consumers pay more in taxes help them support American industry? Make no mistake about it: when you work, it's your money, not the Federal government's. When they take $100 out of your(!) paycheck and give you $5 back in a tax break, it's not a good thing, especially when they should have only taken out $50 to begin with!

Originally Posted by PRO_USA1776

I don't really see the problem with the US government helping out GM and Ford. It is what Asian countries and european ones do for their manufacturers. What is good for the Goose should be good for the Gander! Besides that GM Ford and Chrysler helped us win WWII. Time for the American government to step up. It seems to me that the US governments job is to help US companies when necessary! If the rest of the world doesn't like it, then up theirs!

It's the government's job to provide a free, fair society. That, in large measure, is why we have so many successful companies that are the envy of the world. It's why our post-secondary institutions attract students from around the world. It's why people come to this country by the millions. Having a free, fair society absolutely involves the risk of failure. And welfare, fostering a sense of dependency on a system is no way to succeed. To insinuate that Toyota and Honda are successful simply because Japan supports their industries is pure twaddle. There are Japanese companies in other industries that, try as they might, cannot hold a candle to American enterprises. And that results from American enterprises' ingenuity, not as a result of America helping out those industries.

If you believe in GM, then put your money where your mouth is. Buy their stock. They will in turn invest in their industry, and you will reap the reward when they profit from their endeavors. But don't tell every tax payer to pay more in taxes to help an industry that unfortunately has mismanaged itself for decades because it's the compassionate, patriotic thing to do. That's pure bull****, plain and simple. Giving an alcoholic more alcohol is not compassion. Giving a homeless drug addict money "to buy some food" is not compassion. And giving American industry cash in the form of tax breaks is not compassion for the American auto industry.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by tgagneguam

And I'll start a more compassionate petition that will make more substantive change for the auto industry: balancing the budget and showing fiscal restraint so that when GM profits from its endeavors it gets to keep more of those profits; balancing the budget so that the dollar is more appropriately valued and in turn reduces the price of oil; ridding this country of useless, wasteful, misguided, excessive legislation that burdens business by discouraging investment; tort reform so that companies require appropriately-sized legal departments to conduct business legally and rationally; the encouragement through competitive grants to make science appealing to students in secondary school and post-secondary school so that American industry finally(!) has access to well-trained, qualified candidates for positions throughout their company so that they (and college universities) don't have to waste time and money retraining their workers/students in the basics. That is a much, much more appealing beginning to helping industry in this country than anything proposed thus far!




A quite uninspired approach to helping industry.



Thank you.



And who pays for that healthcare? Who pays for those tax breaks? I love that people think there's a magic tax revenue tree that pays for all these programs. What pays for them are the elimination of Bush's tax cuts, it's raising the capital gains tax (that will discourage investment in industry), it's raising taxes on families that earn(!) more tha $250,000 per annum. In essence, it means increasing the tax burden on those most capable of supporting inductry. So, how does making GM pay more in taxes help them? How does having consumers pay more in taxes help them support American industry? Make no mistake about it: when you work, it's your money, not the Federal government's. When they take $100 out of your(!) paycheck and give you $5 back in a tax break, it's not a good thing, especially when they should have only taken out $50 to begin with!



It's the government's job to provide a free, fair society. That, in large measure, is why we have so many successful companies that are the envy of the world. It's why our post-secondary institutions attract students from around the world. It's why people come to this country by the millions. Having a free, fair society absolutely involves the risk of failure. And welfare, fostering a sense of dependency on a system is no way to succeed. To insinuate that Toyota and Honda are successful simply because Japan supports their industries is pure twaddle. There are Japanese companies in other industries that, try as they might, cannot hold a candle to American enterprises. And that results from American enterprises' ingenuity, not as a result of America helping out those industries.

If you believe in GM, then put your money where your mouth is. Buy their stock. They will in turn invest in their industry, and you will reap the reward when they profit from their endeavors. But don't tell every tax payer to pay more in taxes to help an industry that unfortunately has mismanaged itself for decades because it's the compassionate, patriotic thing to do. That's pure bull****, plain and simple. Giving an alcoholic more alcohol is not compassion. Giving a homeless drug addict money "to buy some food" is not compassion. And giving American industry cash in the form of tax breaks is not compassion for the American auto industry.

Of course we pay the taxes for healthcare - I'm not a doofus. What I'm saying is that burden is not born directly by the company itself. But let's not pretend that the costs of healthcare are not a burden on GM.

[milton112c]

Time to replace upper management! CEO CFO COO and every other 3 word abbr. there is. There is no excuse for the biggest car company in the world to be seconds away from drowning. The government needs to help them out big time cause if GM crashes, the American economy is going to be in a depression.

[kenman923]

If Saturn is to be saved, then they need to do away with their no haggle policy.

[Butz]

Ford has a better plan, and a bold one too.

In the latest Consumer Reports magazine test of small cars, the Chevrolet Aveo (the small car GM sources from Korea) was the lightest one tested, with the smallest engine, and yet it had the poorest fuel economy. GM needs to come up with a different plan for a small car.

This isn't working!! GM get you're act together!

The first thing GM should do is restructure into just 2 divisions, not the 4 that Wagoner is suggesting. You have really got to cut to the bone in today's economy without sacrificing the blood and guts.

DIVISION 1: GM
CADILLAC: uncompromising RWD luxury cars; all Cadillacs should be hybrids.
CHEVROLET: mainstream FWD cars and RWD trucks
- SATURN should be relegated to a Chevy sub-brand offering only plug-in hybrids such as the new Chevy Volt.

DIVISION 2: GM SPECIAL PRODUCTS
BUICK: FWD & AWD luxury cars
- SAAB should be restructured as a sub-brand of Buick and offer turbocharged versions of the 9-3 and 9-5 in coupes, convertibles, sedans, hatchbacks and wagons.
PONTIAC: Opel should supply Pontiac (not Saturn) with timely product rather than Holden. Vauxhall, Holden and Daewoo could also benefit from Opel's drawing boards.
GMC should drop its current line-up entirely and be restructured as a sales channel only for Hummer and Opel Movano.
- HUMMER should manufacture SUVs (H2, H3, H4 & HX) and pick-up trucks (T2 & T3) in both 2WD and 4WD on the GMT900 and GMT700 platforms replacing the redundant GMC offerings. Hummers should all be hybrids. This way BPG can offer something entirely different from Chevrolet.

In this business plan you have virtually no product overlap and two strong sales channels. Better brand management is the name of the game.

this is brilliant and different than all what I've seen suggested here, if GM had less sales channels there would of been less need for overlap, and of course they need to bring the best of the world. though I'm not sure about the Movano, I think that one belongs to Renault-Nissan and probably they can't bring it to North America.

[1931Chevy]

I think that Mr Flint has said a lot of trutiness in his article

[SierraGS]

Originally Posted by CobaltSScrazy

I have to love the "Saving General Motors" thread with the Toyota/Scion advertisement above my quick reply, how ironic...

I like the idea of keeping the brands that they have and going with sales channels ...somewhat.

Chevrolet

Cadillac

GMC-Buick-Pontiac

Saturn-Saab

Hummer

period, thats the way it should be otherwise keep saturn separate and SAAB can just do what they're currently doing...paring up with subaru dealerships and kias and hyundais.

CobaltSS

We have a winner.

Finally a logical post based upon REVENUE GROWTH.

Agree with most of it but would make Hummer a "floating" brand - any dealer or "channel" that wanted to sell Hummer products could for a trial period and if successful would get a franchise - same would apply to SAAB/Saturn.

As Jerrry put it
"Unlike some commentators, I do not think GM's problem is that it has too many divisions. It is shifting Buick, Pontiac and GMC to common dealerships, which means some divisions are becoming more like individual models rather than full-fledged brands. It causes less public relations damage and legal liabilities to leave Buick with a few models, rather than endure the type of bad publicity it endured a few years ago when it phased out Oldsmobile."


GM has to get far, far, far away from this brand cutting strategy that does not work and only suceeds in either driving customers away from GM or prevents them from considering one - who wants to put over $20,000 into a product that may not be around next year?

An spare me if they cut back they can regrow GM - get a job on a Farm.



And then points out
"I think that GM made a big mistake and did a great disservice to itself and to its dealers when it recently announced that it was looking for ways to unload Hummer. Yes, the biggest Hummers are gas pigs, but Hummer is a strong brand to put up against Jeep. It was a mistake, too, to cancel production of the Hummer H4, a smaller vehicle to compete against the iconic Jeep Wrangler. Just because consumers are flocking to vehicles that are more efficient does not mean that they do not want exciting, macho, sport utility vehicles."

If you want less market share (and sales) cut brands and dealers (as history proves is true) - if you want to survive; develop a survival strategy.

First thing GM has to do is in no uncertain terms state "GM will not cut any brand, but will reduce the number of models each brand offers and build from there". GM MUST get consumers thinking it will be around tommorrow - not which brand won't.

Would you buy a high price product from a company that all you hear from them is cut, cut, cut? Are you next? Do they really care about you? Do they make a quality product or one "good enough".

No.

You buy high price products from companies that present themselves as strong and thriving and one that focuses on you the customer.

Think about the slogan "Moving Forward".

People want to be a part of an exciting future and a company that states it, even if customers know nothing about this company or the industry at large, THIS is the company they are drawn to.

It speaks of strength and vison, any wonder it draws customers?

GM needs a vision and one that includes all GM brands as it desparately needs every customer it has to build on and be advocates for GM not sources of criticism, something the media thrives on and loves to present at any moment - any wonder people don't trust GM or it's products?

Besides cutting brands reminds me of the old practice of blood letting, sounded like a good idea at the time - get enough of the bad stuff out and you will be fine (or not).

GM can continue the doom and gloom of cutting (blood letting) to oblivion or present a vision and rally its customers behind it.

[milton112c]

Originally Posted by SierraGS

We have a winner.

Finally a logical post based upon REVENUE GROWTH.

Agree with most of it but would make Hummer a "floating" brand - any dealer or "channel" that wanted to sell Hummer products could for a trial period and if successful would get a franchise - same would apply to SAAB/Saturn.

As Jerrry put it
"Unlike some commentators, I do not think GM's problem is that it has too many divisions. It is shifting Buick, Pontiac and GMC to common dealerships, which means some divisions are becoming more like individual models rather than full-fledged brands. It causes less public relations damage and legal liabilities to leave Buick with a few models, rather than endure the type of bad publicity it endured a few years ago when it phased out Oldsmobile."


GM has to get far, far, far away from this brand cutting strategy that does not work and only suceeds in either driving customers away from GM or prevents them from considering one - who wants to put over $20,000 into a product that may not be around next year?

An spare me if they cut back they can regrow GM - get a job on a Farm.



And then points out
"I think that GM made a big mistake and did a great disservice to itself and to its dealers when it recently announced that it was looking for ways to unload Hummer. Yes, the biggest Hummers are gas pigs, but Hummer is a strong brand to put up against Jeep. It was a mistake, too, to cancel production of the Hummer H4, a smaller vehicle to compete against the iconic Jeep Wrangler. Just because consumers are flocking to vehicles that are more efficient does not mean that they do not want exciting, macho, sport utility vehicles."

If you want less market share (and sales) cut brands and dealers (as history proves is true) - if you want to survive; develop a survival strategy.

First thing GM has to do is in no uncertain terms state "GM will not cut any brand, but will reduce the number of models each brand offers and build from there". GM MUST get consumers thinking it will be around tommorrow - not which brand won't.

Would you buy a high price product from a company that all you hear from them is cut, cut, cut? Are you next? Do they really care about you? Do they make a quality product or one "good enough".

No.

You buy high price products from companies that present themselves as strong and thriving and one that focuses on you the customer.

Think about the slogan "Moving Forward".

People want to be a part of an exciting future and a company that states it, even if customers know nothing about this company or the industry at large, THIS is the company they are drawn to.

It speaks of strength and vison, any wonder it draws customers?

GM needs a vision and one that includes all GM brands as it desparately needs every customer it has to build on and be advocates for GM not sources of criticism, something the media thrives on and loves to present at any moment - any wonder people don't trust GM or it's products?

Besides cutting brands reminds me of the old practice of blood letting, sounded like a good idea at the time - get enough of the bad stuff out and you will be fine (or not).

GM can continue the doom and gloom of cutting (blood letting) to oblivion or present a vision and rally its customers behind it.

YES! Well said!

[SierraGS]

Originally Posted by milton112c

YES! Well said!

Thankyou.

[1931Chevy]

I agree with some of the post heres. IMO GM needs to focus first on the main brand and thats Chevy, some will say im wrong but why instead of giving the Astra to Saturn they didnt gave it to Chevy as the cobalt replacement

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by guitarlix

THANK GOODNESS for CAFE. It it weren't for CAFE, the domestics would probably be dead and floating in the water by now.

YEP.

Finally somebody who understands one of the three positive aspects concerning CAFE - and can accurately describe the most important effect or current value such as it is.

Lets go a step further, arbitrarily and undesirably leaving everything else the same, just imagine a truck/suv CAFE number that had gradually and intelligently phased in an additional 3mpg over the previous 20 years - 'supported' just a little during the critical period of '88 thru 93.

Now couple that with a 'minor' revision package concerning flexfuel credits - fully compensated for and then some in other ways to increase incentive for flexfuel provision and related other - so that ethanol infrastructure and use had been favored.

And just one more.

Take a snap shot in '88 of what actually was produced.

Use the number 6, America's number (sad to think it isn't 7) and divide and redefine 'the 'light' 'vehicle' class between 0 - 18,000lbs (Max GVWR) into 6 vehicle weight classes - then apply the 3 mpg to all - with different scheduling and 'support' for each over the 20 year period.

That's just an incomplete baby version.

The greatest display of ignorance concerning CAFE is the lack of acknowledgment concerning the critical role it played in obtaining the lowest fuel prices in real terms this nation has ever seen - in the late '90s.

[texassierradude]

Originally Posted by osv_alero

For once, maybe he is on to something. GM, Ford and Chrysler do not have the cash or government assistance that the Japanese makes do. They need government help our we might just loose them.

What about a petition started right here on GMInsidenews that pushes for government help of Americas most vital industry. The help should be in technology advancement and import tariffs.

I'm all for a petition, however remember with all the Asian companies building plants in the South, the politicians from those states live in the back pockets of said companies. Send a copy to Obama and Mccain too.