The "American Leyland" News Thread

The "Sub-par quality" box should be on both the UAW and Management columns. :p
 
http://jalopnik.com/5273907/general-motors-reinvention-the-commercial
Commentary: it's filled with cutesy patriotic messages and stock footage of inspiring crap, like runners, football players, growing plants, and the parts of Detroit that aren't abandoned and filled with dead bodies (and the Ren Cen).

When did 8 different brands ever make sense? The '50s? Fuck it, I just want a Solstice GXP Coupe.
 
Last edited:
BlaRo said:
...and the parts of Detroit that aren't abandoned and filled with dead bodies (and the Ren Cen).
Click to expand...

Which are one and the same, from what I saw the last time I went to Detroit.

They just need to burn that place down and start over. Detroit is more dangerous than Baghdad.
 
Spectre said:
The government's past track record indicates that that is exactly what will happen. Politicians will decree what the company will do or make, regardless of what will make money. Again, I refer you to Amtrak and the USPS.
Click to expand...

Amtrak, the USPS, and GM are open mic night compared to the opening act of the EESA's $432B commitment thus far.

The main act will be the healthcare reform slated to start ramping up this month. Just wait until the Washington tries to "fix" the $2.2T we spend annually on healthcare.
:cry:
 
codymac said:
Amtrak, the USPS, and GM are open mic night compared to the opening act of the EESA's $432B commitment thus far.

The main act will be the healthcare reform slated to start ramping up this month. Just wait until the Washington tries to "fix" the $2.2T we spend annually on healthcare.
:cry:
Click to expand...

Imagine healthcare run like the post office. Or the California DMV.

That's the same sort of thing they want to happen with GM.
 
Has anyone talked about the government's role in how GM operates now? From everything I've read, GM is not being turned into a permanent government fixture, like Amtrak and USPS are, or even as much as British Leyland was.

Officials from the Obama administration and the United Auto Workers union both have said they hope to sell their stakes in GM as soon as possible, but it is likely that shares of the new GM will not be publicly traded for at least a year or two.
Click to expand...
http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/01/news/companies/gm_bankruptcy/index.htm

Another article that I cannot find at the moment mentioned Obama saying GM should be released from government ownership within 5 years.

The CFO of GM was just on Lou Dobbs. He stated that with GM's current plans, and assuming a modest recovery of the US economy, GM could return to being a profitable company next year, though have nowhere near the same sales volume it once had.

It seems that the government's ownership will merely be a prop up while GM restructures and recovers and will not be as much like British Leyland as many seems to believe.
 
Last edited:
British Leyland was not suppose to be a permanent fixture either.
 
argatoga said:
British Leyland was not suppose to be a permanent fixture either.
Click to expand...

Nor was Amtrak.

Amtrak's origins are traceable to the sustained decline of private passenger rail services in the United States from about 1920 to 1970. In 1971, in response to the decline, Congress and President Nixon created Amtrak. The Nixon administration secretly agreed with some railroads that Amtrak would be shut down after two years.
Click to expand...

Here we are 38 years later.... Amtrak is still here, still owned by the government and still as badly run as ever.

I have said it before; I will say it again.

Spectre said:
Q: How do you tell if a politician is lying?
A: His lips are moving.

Always assume a politician is lying until they prove otherwise, on a statement by statement basis. No matter what party, no matter what subject.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ohhh nooooooo Obama boogie man is gonna get you all in your sleep! Better keep your GM's hidden in the back yard, or the Obama boogie man is going to come de-tune your engines, add electric motors, and steal your piggy bank to pay for it!

Obama, quoted by Associated Press today:

"What I have no interest in doing is running GM."

"The federal government will refrain from exercising its rights as a shareholder in all but the most fundamental corporate decisions."

"No plant decisions, no job decisions, no dealer decisions, no color of car decisions," he added. "Those are all going to be left to management."
Click to expand...

Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_automakers_obama_analysis

Annnnnnnd EXHALE.
 
BlaRo said:
http://jalopnik.com/5273907/general-motors-reinvention-the-commercial
Commentary: it's filled with cutesy patriotic messages and stock footage of inspiring crap, like runners, football players, growing plants, and the parts of Detroit that aren't abandoned and filled with dead bodies (and the Ren Cen).

When did 8 different brands ever make sense? The '50s? Fuck it, I just want a Solstice GXP Coupe.
Click to expand...

That commercial made a part of me die. Wait, scratch last, it made a part of me commit suicide.
 
ja404 said:
Ohhh nooooooo Obama boogie man is gonna get you all in your sleep! Better keep your GM's hidden in the back yard, or the Obama boogie man is going to come de-tune your engines, add electric motors, and steal your piggy bank to pay for it!

Obama, quoted by Associated Press today:



Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_automakers_obama_analysis

Annnnnnnd EXHALE.
Click to expand...

He already stole my piggy bank to pay for it. :p

And you really need to take a look at the prior news clippings on this forum. Basically, while Obama has said he's had no interest in running a car company, his actions have said that he really does.

To counter that, read this article from Reuters:

Obama may find it tough not to meddle in GM affairs
Mon Jun 1, 2009 5:43pm EDT

By Caren Bohan and Ben Klayman - Analysis

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO (Reuters) - President Barack Obama may find it tough keeping a pledge not to meddle in the management of General Motors Corp (GM.N) once the government takes majority ownership of the giant automaker.

The White House has put a priority on encouraging environmentally friendly technology. It could be tempted to weigh in on issues such as the mix of vehicles.

And lawmakers -- some of whom already have spoken out against a GM proposal to shift some production overseas -- may insist on a voice on everything from the location of plant closures to the pay scales of top executives.

"We're already seeing them force out the CEO, restructure the board and talking about the right kind of cars for them to build," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was a top policy aide to former Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain.

He was referring to the decision to pressure Rick Wagoner to step down as GM's chairman and chief executive.

"I don't know where that ends and I don't know how you easily end it," said Holtz-Eakin, now a private consultant.

The 100-year-old automaker, once the world's largest, filed for bankruptcy protection to begin what the Obama administration hopes will be a fast-track restructuring.

The slimmed-down company that will emerge is expected to be 60 percent-owned by the U.S. government, which is giving GM a $30 billion cash infusion. The Canadian government and Ontario will take a 12 percent stake.

"We are acting as reluctant shareholders, because that is the only way to help GM succeed," Obama said. "What I have no interest in doing is running GM."

SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE

The Obama administration also said it had created safeguards to prevent interference, including prohibiting government officials from sitting on the firm's board or working for firms in which the automaker invests.

U.S. officials, who briefed reporters on the details of the GM restructuring on Sunday night, likened the government's ownership role to that of Fidelity Investments, a mutual fund giant that often holds large amounts of shares in other companies but does not seek to manage them.

Officials held a separate conference call with lawmakers to make it clear they wanted to draw lines and not allow political interference on issues like shutting plants.

The administration wants to balance two main aims, said Gene Sperling, counselor to U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

It wants to make sure there is a strong board in place "and a strategy for viability" but "that must be combined with an equally strong commitment to stay out of even controversial day-by-day business decisions," Sperling said.

Republicans wasted no time in attacking Obama's plan. The Republican National Committee launched a Web video dubbed "Government Motors."

Analysts said the hope of divesting quickly may not be realistic.

"If he's going to be out in five years, I'll be playing point guard for the Detroit Pistons that season and I'm 5-foot-6 and I'll be 66 years old," joked Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business.

Government officials first need to stabilize GM, said Tim Ghriskey, chief investment officer with Solaris Asset Management in New York.

"That's going to take a while and it might not be successful either," he said. "We're certainly talking years here. It could be as many as, say, five years before the government's able to begin to unwind their stake."

IT WILL BE MESSY

Louis Lataif, a former Ford Motor Co (F.N) executive who is now dean of the school of management at Boston University, doubted government officials can resist the urge to meddle. The government also is likely to still be GM's major stakeholder in 2011 when the next round of contract talks with the United Auto Workers union -- which campaigned for Obama ahead of last year's election -- are due to take place.

"It's inevitable it will be messy," Lataif said. "We just don't know exactly how.

"I think that's just hopelessly naive that Washington is going to run Detroit," he added. "There's no evidence that Washington can run a private business."

But others think U.S. officials will move as fast as they can to divest in a year or two once the auto market and economy improve, or risk sticking the taxpayer with large losses.

"In five years, if there's anything left in the U.S. government's hands, I would be shocked and they'll want to just write it off at that point," said Diane Swonk, chief economist with Mesirow Financial in Chicago. "That means GM has failed. That's all there is to it."

One of the aims of the government's action is to buy time for the company and its various constituents to accept the shrinking of the once-formidable automaker, said former U.S. labor secretary Robert Reich.

"It would be too much of a blow to the nation and the consumer psyche to have the icon General Motors basically disappear," said Reich, now a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

(Additional reporting by John Crawley and Jeremy Pelofsky in Washington; Editing by Howard Goller)
Click to expand...

Anyone want to bet that the "new" GM board will look more like a "diversity" advertisement?

Here's the web ad referenced in the above article:

[youtube]TofiMLv6xrg[/youtube]

And then there's this, from Obama's chosen spokesman:

[youtube]aU4VQkB7xOU[/youtube]

As Obama's party demanded over and over about Iraq: Where's the exit strategy? Where's the timeline? Oh, that's right, they have a bunch of platitudes and feel-good sound bites, but no real exit strategy or timeline. Seems they don't want to be held to the same standards they held the prior administration to.... It's almost like I've read this before in a history book... wait, I have! It was about Amtrak!

Amtrak, part II, coming right up.
 
Last edited:
There's one main difference between GM and Amtrak.

For one Amtrak was created by the goverment. So it was already doomed to failure on a colossal level.


GM has been taken over now by the goverment, the previous owners already doomed it to failure with their past 30 years or so of bad decisions...

Two different companies, both reached the same goal of being a colossal failure. At least the Gov. has a excuse for when GM continues to be nothing but utter crap.
 
Not so fast.

Amtrak was an attempt by the government to bail out the dying railroad industry.
GM is an attempt by the government to bail out the dying automotive industry.

Amtrak was formed by bailing out existing rail companies; the government didn't create Amtrak from scratch.

Not so much of a difference there.
 
All of this is one hell of a Ford advertisement.
 
Spectre said:
Which are one and the same, from what I saw the last time I went to Detroit.

They just need to burn that place down and start over. Detroit is more dangerous than Baghdad.
Click to expand...

Detroit is only dangerous in the bad parts, like any city really. I've been to Detroit a bunch of times (only live ~30 min away) and I never felt any more unsafe than I would in Chicago or some other large city.
 
Spectre said:
There's safe parts of Detroit? :blink:
Click to expand...

It does depend on your definition of safe. I've been in Detroit during both day and night and I never really felt unsafe. But if you wander around in the shitty areas by yourself then you're asking for trouble. The problem is that the shitty parts outweigh the decent parts BY FAR. And all the roads are terrible.

Regardless, there are some good parts of Detroit.

http://www.historicindianvillage.org/homeandgardentour.html

That area has a bunch of old houses that have been restored. Except for some interesting looking houses, you probably couldn't tell the difference between those neighborhoods and any other upscale neighborhood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top