Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy –– Again

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 19, 2012, 2:46 p.m. EST by vitvitvit (5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/

...President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again. The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market...

53 Comments

53 Comments


Read the Rules

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Leave it to ZD to get to the heart of the matter & the truth

[-] 2 points by vitvitvit (5) 2 years ago

Quibbling over minor technical points myass.

Consumers aren't buying, hence GM's Channel Stuffing.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/07/general-motors-channel-stuffing-and-the-return-of-2008/

The Commander in Chief chose to pick winners and losers and the taxpayer is paying the price. He's economically illiterate. The gubment shouldn't be running car companies or any company. It should be protecting the border, administering justice and very few other things. Everything Washington touches turns to schit.

GFY, you Vermont turd.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

For what it is worth, my wife and I were in the market for a new crossover last year and we test drove the Chevy Traverse and it was a piece of shit. Cheap interior, weak power, and nothing came standard. The Cadillac SRX was a little nicer but still nothing special. And the price was kind of expensive when you consider all the negatives. We ended up getting the Acura MDX which was comparably priced by the time you made the options equal but the quality was not even close, nor the reliability. Not by a long shot.

The American companies have a long, long, way to go before they are really competing with the Japanese on cars, especially higher end ones which is where the big profits are. They have come a long way already though so who knows.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Well cars don't last forever. After a number of years you need to get a new one, whether you keep it for 5, 7, 10 or whatever. In those years you actually own it though, American cars need to have a lot more service done to it. This is not an opinion but a statistical fact.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Well those are the things that cause one car to be more reliable than another. And as you said, the one that fails sooner would have a lower resale value. Resale value is a huge factor, for us at least, when buying a car because a higher resale value lowers the overall cost of owning the car.

I guess I don't really see your point. Obviously it is a bunch of little things that cause an American car to be less reliable, and therefore have a lower resale value, than a Japanese car. That is just one of them.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vitvitvit (5) 2 years ago

Two million dollars being printed by the federal reserve further debasing our currency every single hour just for that bailout. The only thing entering our economy is future inflation thanks to bad economic policy.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vitvitvit (5) 2 years ago

Let's continue your education right now.

http://www.usdebtclock.org

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vitvitvit (5) 2 years ago

GM is not currently profitable. They're cooking the books for political reasons.

The government is printing money at a rate much greater than 2M an hour. That's just the amount for GM's goon unions.

More printed money entering the economy makes the existing dollars worth less. The value of money is determined by its scarcity.

More printing = less scarcity. Do you get that simple concept?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vitvitvit (5) 2 years ago

BFD, it's all slight of hand. It's all out of thin air.

Continue with your education. Watch the 7 minute video:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse/chapter-8-fed-money-creation

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

If everything "Washington touches turns to schit," why do you you want it "protecting the border" (though from what I have no idea), administering justice (You certainly can't trust the government to administer justice, if it's as incompetent as you claim.), and "very few other things."

You've given the perfect argument for anarchism. Welcome to the club.

[-] 0 points by vitvitvit (5) 2 years ago

Because it's spelled out in the U.S. Constitution what the government is supposed to do. If it wasn't concentrating on doing everything EXCEPT what it was supposed to, we wouldn't be in the shape we are in today.

Give it a read sometime: http://www.usconstitution.net

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I've read the Constitution. It's an interesting but dated document, which needs to be scrapped or revised to reflect the conditions of the Industrial Age and the wholesale purchase of politicians in all three branches of the government by the privileged few. We could start by eliminating the lifetime tenure of Supreme Court justices and, instead, assign them limited terms and election by the people in national elections.

Now, let's get to some meat in that dated document, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which to a certain extent delimits the powers of the federal government. Since neither you (obvious by your abject adoration of the Constitution) nor I are Constitutional experts, we must leave the interpretation of that document to the Supreme Court, which has been delegated the Constitutional power to interpret the Constitution and apply it to specific cases. The sentence we're most interested in is that the Congress holds the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

This particular sentence has been widely interpreted by the Supreme Court, along with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, to delegate powers to the federal government, not spelled out in other parts of the Constitution. The salient point is that Congress can "... make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Basically, over the years the Court has ruled that Commerce encompasses almost all economic affairs, and even some, which to us laymen seem non-economic like many New Deal laws, federal criminal statutes like kidnapping, and even the recent affirmation of the ACA all fall under the "Necessary and Proper Clause."

Maybe you should explain to the Supreme Court your limited interpretation of the Constitution. I'm sure they'd be interested.

[-] 1 points by vitvitvit (5) 2 years ago

No, it's not dated.

Yes! Let's get to some meat...

The Supreme Court has had decisions like the Dred Scott case (1856), Korematsu v. U.S. (1944), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Wickard v. Filburn (1942), etc. Terrible decisions. Are you familiar with these decisions?

Up until now, the government could only dissuade you from doing something by taxing you or making it criminal. NOW, after the ACA ruling, it can force you to do something through fine or taxation. This was never the case before. This will be interesting when another congress decides something is good for you and puts law in effect to compel you. There will be no remedy; precedent has been set.

"Necessary and proper" is the worst way to argue a case. It's the final avenue when no other remedy works. That shows the weakness of the case.

I put very little faith in SCOTUS. We're turning into a police state. I wonder how satisfied you'll be with it when the party you're less affiliated with has majority power in all three branches of government. Careful what you wish for - you may just get it.

If you think SCOTUS is great, you may be in for a real surprise under the coming regulation of commerce scenarios.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I never even implied Supreme Court decisons are always right or good. I said that Constitutionally, the justices are the ones entrusted to decide if a certain issue brought before them is Constitutional.

I don't believe anyone cares what your opinion of the Supreme Court is. You make many wrong conclusions. I'm an anarchist, so affiliated with no party and definitely do not support hierarchical government of any sort, which is exactly why I say the Constitution is not only dated; its superfluous and, in fact, directly conrtaposed to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I not only have no faith in the Supreme Court, I have none in our government, or the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Technically the guy should blame Romney too... you know... since he thinks he deserves credit for the GM bailout. LOL

but you can't fully disregard billions in lost value because the guy doesn't like Obama. That part is still true... and more should be done to make sure it doesn't become a failed investment or scammed like the common practice of crony capitalism.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yes I meant the author should blame Romney too. It was a wise crack at the time Romney said he deserves "a lot of credit" for the GM bailout.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

you haven't seen Romney's number 3 gaffe?

it's hilarious - he was ridiculed for weeks about it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_bKSA6S6kM

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The article is on the op/ed page. Aren't we all just as biased?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

you are indeed biased

"the repelican party is done"

one cannot say they are not biased and then say something obviously biased. You can say it.... but it's funny.

Although I agree with you on 80% or so of your posts. So it's a good bias sometimes lol

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

what kind?

I bought an awesome hat the other day.

It has the Romney and Obama logos and says "Rmoney buys the election"

Although I decided not to wear it after I bought it because from a distance it looks like I'm just wearing a Romney hat.... gross mutter

you can have them custom made - http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=506889702670735&set=a.353496874676686.101178.353492424677131&type=1&theater

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28246) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

One slight adjustment?

Gimme "ALL" yer money.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 2 years ago

GM is fine. Europe sales are down because they implemented conservative austerity/cuts instead of progressive stimulus like we did (Although repubs watered it down so our recovery has been weak).

Just wishful thinking on your part.

Elect progressives! Vote out anti union republicans!

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Yep, this didn't work out so well, wonder why ? You don't like Obama, do you ? This is another example of the impact Free Trade has had on this country, competing against other countries, their tariff's and the ability to manufacture cheaper. That's the product of both political parties over time while it stays that way. We have exported over 20 million jobs out of this country, shut down as many or more dependent on those jobs, truck drivers for instance, and outsourced untold numbers in the last couple of decades so you can expect even more of failing companies here or shipped abroad. Obama is not really the powers that be in DC, it's the career politicians and there following of both parties and their practices like Free Trade that's been screwing up the economy in this country. Try not to blind by political us vs them, both parties are the problems.

[-] 1 points by vitvitvit (5) 2 years ago

Ford took no bailout. It's doing much better than GM or Chrysler.

It's a global economy. Get used to it. Next, robotics will attack the lowest producers (Asia) labor cost. No one is safe from progression. Best you stop whining and learn to compete.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

all the rich companies claim they need more money from the government

just like the bank bailouts

[-] 1 points by vitvitvit (5) 2 years ago

Yes, rich or poor, it's called crony-capitalism. You should be opposed to it.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I heard people don't discuss salary because equities destroys the concept of treating each other as equals

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

The name Forbes says it all.Mr flat tax champion of the one percent.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

Has it occurred to anyone that GM doesn’t make the quality cars as the competitors? I personally think that’s most of the problem. Although I concede Dodge probably makes worse vehicles, but generally offers lower prices and better financing.

[-] 0 points by GovTheives (-30) 2 years ago

GM still owes the taxpayers 25 billion from the first bailout. Should have just let the scumbags fall

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

You can't buy a Chevy anymore... Obama closed most of their service centers.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Haha... the agreement that as brokered required the closing of dealerships and service centers. I had been using the same dealership and the same mechanics for over twenty years - they all landed on the unemployment line (why would anyone close a dealership in a relatively prosperous area?) and now I have no one within twenty miles to service these stupid Chevys. I'm done with them and so are a lot of people.

I think there's more to this than meets the eye - wall street financiers and the intentional eventual crash of an American auto-maker.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I supported the bail out despite its known ineffectualism. A week before they closed my dealership, I took my car in for a really bizarre overheating problem. Bizarre because it only overheated if I was in the state of Florida, on black pavement, stopped at a traffic light with the AC on. Plenty of coolant, everything seemed to be going round and round as it should, all the usual whizzin and whurring, and as long as I left the AC off it was fine. So naturally I'm thinking, Uht -Oh.

They said I needed a heater core; it had a minor leak, it was probably low on coolant (translation, we can't pressurize to test for leaks). I said NO, that's not THE problem but OK. I got home, the car was still losing water, so back to the shop. This time they replaced an intake manifold gasket; I said OK, now we're getting closer. Well, the car no longer loses water - it was a very minor leak - but it still overheats when I'm in FL, on black pavement, at a stop light on WoeBeGo Ave. It does not overheat with the AC on in NY; It's a freak, and whatever...

I also had some electrical repairs done, too, and they did a shoddy job replacing the door panel. Why? Because after twenty years, with families and mortgages, they were within days of unemployment - the deal as brokered closed their prosperous dealership.

And I no longer have anyone to repair my Chevy. The local dealership had been convenient, Chevy experienced, familiar with the idiosyncrasies and I liked them. So much for Obama, their was a price to pay for that Federally brokered loan of Wall Street profit.

Chevy can KMA! And so can Obama.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Yea but as you know, they are destined for failure. This requirement of a closing of dealerships was, to say the least, a very poor business decision, a political asterisk with a long fuse, beware the Greeks... No more Chevys.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

It isn't just Obama. Obama practices the same fiscal policy that Romney does. He differs in entitlements and things like that but the core philosophy is the same. I illustrate how the system is fixed by financial policy that is out of the hands of anyone who could be held accountable.

I cover the reason here http://blog.richardkentgates.com/2012/08/it-depends-on-what-class-youre-in.html

And I discuss how to fix this in the replies over here http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-conversation-still-has-yet-to-start/

Things are broken at the most basic levels. We need to fix the foundation of economic policy if we are to improve the economy. The economy isn't just how Wall Street is doing or how much the government is spending. The media has been leaving out the parts of the economy that actually impact the day to day economy. The real economy. This includes things like inflation/deflation and all the things that impact them. Such as transportation costs, fuel costs, average age of transport vehicles, average delivery times. There is so much of the real economy that isn't covered under any media because we have all been trained so well to focus on the economic health of the 1%. Change this and you change the country.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Yea, I agree. In this real economy that impacts so many lives, a vote for Right is no better than a vote for Left, or vice versa.