ellives

I agree Friedman is an idiot. His simplistic reference to Jobs is a good example. Agreed Apple under Jobs' watch has developed some great products. The point Friedman misses (as he usually will miss several when he's spouting off) is the fact that Apple doesn't actually *make* ANYthing. All their products are built by subcontracted manufacturers. It's easy to innovate when you don't have to worry about parts suppliers, and plant maintenance and whining employees and environmental problems and taxes, and weather conditions.... Should I go on? I would love to have him tell us what brand of car he drives.

Direct link here -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- November 14, 2008 Chances Dwindle on Bailout Plan for Automakers By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN WASHINGTON — The prospects of a government rescue for the foundering American automakers dwindled Thursday as Democratic Congressional leaders conceded that they would face potentially insurmountable Republican opposition during a lame-duck session next week. At the same time, hope among many Democrats on Capitol Hill for an aggressive economic stimulus measure all but evaporated. Democratic leaders have been calling for a package that would include help for the auto companies as well as new spending on public works projects, an extension of jobless benefits, increased food stamps and aid to states for rising Medicaid expenses. But while Democrats said the stimulus measure would wait until President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January, some industry experts fear that one of the Big Three automakers will collapse before then, with potentially devastating consequences. Despite hardening opposition at the White House and among Republicans on Capitol Hill, the Democrats said they would press ahead with efforts to provide $25 billion in emergency aid for the automakers. But they said the bill would need to be approved first in the Senate, which some Democrats said was highly unlikely. Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the banking committee, said he did not believe there would be enough Republican support to get the 60 votes needed to move a bill forward. “Right now, I don’t think there are the votes,” he said, adding that he personally favored aid for the automakers. As the outlook for an auto industry bailout dimmed, President Bush traveled to Wall Street, where he gave a robust defense of capitalism and seemed to warn world leaders — and the incoming Obama administration — not to draw the wrong lessons from the global economic crisis by over-regulating markets and hindering free trade. The White House, in resisting calls for aiding the automakers, has also warned repeatedly against throwing taxpayer money at companies that may not be salvageable. Acknowledging the Bush administration’s opposition, Mr. Dodd said Democrats had to keep in mind that the Treasury Department already has some authority to help the finance arms of the auto companies but has been reluctant to use it. “I want to be careful about bringing up a proposition that might fail in light of the fact the authority exists, and under an Obama administration there seems to be a greater willingness to deal with the issue,” Mr. Dodd said. “So there are some political considerations to be made.” Passing any legislation to aid the auto companies would require 60 votes in the Senate. Democrats now control 51 of those votes, but Mr. Obama has said he will resign his Senate seat on Sunday, and Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. is not expected to attend the lame duck session, meaning Democrats would need the support of at least 11 Republicans. With Mr. Bush still wielding his veto authority, the fate of any legislation without White House support would be uncertain. The auto companies, however, remained hopeful and said they would send top executives to Congressional hearings next week to make their case. “We hope all parties recognize there’s a pressing need to preserve the domestic auto industry and the jobs and nation’s competitiveness that’s tied to the industry,” said Greg Martin, a spokesman for General Motors. “We’re ready and willing to work with all members of Congress to get this assistance.” The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have urged the Bush administration to help the automakers and said they were prepared to try to push through legislation if the White House refused to act. Mr. Reid, on Thursday, said that he would open a lame-duck session in the Senate on Monday, hoping to move forward with legislation that would extend unemployment benefits and to attach an amendment providing aid for the auto companies. Aides to Ms. Pelosi said the House would be brought back into session as of 1 p.m. Wednesday and would remain on standby, awaiting action by the Senate. Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is working on a measure that would direct $25 billion to the carmakers from the $700 billion financial bailout fund. Aides said Mr. Frank was collaborating with his Democratic colleagues in the Senate. President Bush, however, has not signaled any willingness to tap the bailout fund, which the Treasury has said is money better spent on financial institutions. And some powerful Republican lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to government aid for the automakers. Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the banking committee, said he would not support legislation to aid the auto companies and seemed prepared to let one or all of them collapse. “The financial straits that the Big Three find themselves in is not the product of our current economic downturn, but instead is the legacy of the uncompetitive structure of its manufacturing and labor force,” Mr. Shelby said in a statement. “The financial situation facing the Big Three is not a national problem but their problem.” On Thursday, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, also came out strongly against the idea. “Spending billions of additional federal tax dollars with no promises to reform the root causes crippling automakers’ competitiveness around the world is neither fair to taxpayers nor sound fiscal policy,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement. Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, in an appearance on Fox News, said: “You wonder where bailout-mania will end.” Mr. Hensarling said American automakers should bear responsibility for their failed operations. “They are producing high-cost products that consumers don’t want to buy. And so now we have Washington on the verge of giving them a bailout simply because we have all heard of them and they have high-priced lobbyists.” The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has expressed support for expediting $25 billion in loans for the auto companies that Congress approved in September. But he has not indicated any willingness to provide additional money or to use money from the financial bailout fund for the car makers. “Earlier this year, Congress acted in a bipartisan way to help the auto industry and protect jobs,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Mr. McConnell. “The Congress passed and the president signed legislation authorizing $25 billion in low-interest loans to help American automakers retool their facilities to make the fuel-efficient cars of the future. It may be that there are changes that need to be made in order to expedite these low-interest loans.” Mr. Stewart added: “Other ideas have been floated, and all will receive a review as we approach the Senate’s return next week.” Ms. Pelosi so far has rejected the idea of easing restrictions on those loans, which require carmakers to develop technologies that will improve fuel efficiency. But Mr. McConnell’s suggestion, also encouraged by the White House, may be the only potential compromise and one Republicans could support because it does not require a new appropriation of federal funds. Some Republicans also suggested that there was less support among rank-and-file Democrats for an auto bailout than party leaders were letting on. One Republican, Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, whose state relies heavily on the auto industry, voiced strong support on Thursday for using bailout money to help the failing car companies. Mr. Voinovich was working with Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, Democrats of Michigan, to drum up support for such a plan. Mr. Levin met Thursday afternoon with Mr. Reid in the majority leader’s office to map out their strategy. Complicating the effort to aid the carmakers is the ownership structure of Chrysler, a limited partnership controlled by Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity firm. The firm said it would give up any profits from a future sale of the company in exchange for financial assistance from the government, hoping to limit political opposition in Washington to aid for a privately held company, according to Bloomberg News. The shaky support for an auto industry bailout in general had left Ms. Pelosi uncertain about whether calling the House back into session would be worth the trouble. Jim Manley, a senior adviser to Mr. Reid, said there was no chance of approving help for the auto companies without broad support from across the aisle. “We cannot do it without the support of Senate Republicans, who I hope will join us to pass a bill that saves the jobs and protects the livelihoods of millions of hard-working Americans,” Mr. Manley said. Carl Hulse contributed reporting from Washington, and Bill Vlasic from Detroit.

You can argue the merits of Rick and his buddies but I'll go to my grave knowing the UAW killed GM. If not for their ridiculous work rules and union contracts then for the inability to unionize the transplants. I really don't see an attractive solution to the issue at this point so let the chips fall where they may.

Toyota may be the next target but I don't see they have much to attack financially. There's no legacy costs hanging around their necks dragging them down.

What the heck is going on? They're heading for bankrupcy.... quick...

It's always interesting watching these posts blame the problems (at any given time) on specific political parties when we haven't had a filibuster-proof congress in quite a while. The reality is the credit problem can actually be traced back to the high price of energy. Most/Many people were making their mortgage payments until gas got to be 4 and 5 bucks a gallon. Once you're spending higher and higher percentages of your income on energy (including heating costs up in New England) you have to start decided what you're NOT going to pay. Once this starts to happen with so many people on the edge, the "bubble" bursts and everyone starts to bail on their mortgages. Clearly there are regulations that need to be established/fixed. I recognized we were in for a real estate meltdown over a year ago I started to see ads for "no doc" and zero percent down mortgages. The last time I saw this was just before the S&L crisis. Apparently we either learned nothing from that debacle or just forgot.

I'm noticing more and more of the current generation CTS on the road these days. I'd like to see a CTS-V so I can ask the driver what their impression is.

I'm actually surprised McCain knows how many vehicles he has, given he didn't know how many houses he has.

Seems like they ought to rethink this approach (along with our "on again - off again" friends at Motor Trend) after watching those dirtbags at Toyota get "Truck of the Year" for a product that seems not quite up-to-par and a recall magnet too. Would seem to make sense to consider all products in a segment every year and give the award to the best product in the segment, whether it's new for the model year or not.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/13/autos/car_of_the_year/index.htm?postversion=2008011310 Truck of the Year January 13 2008: 10:05 AM EST NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors' Chevrolet Malibu mid-size sedan, radically redesigned for the 2008 model year, won the North American Car of the Year Award Sunday at the first media preview day for the Detroit Auto Show. The Mazda CX-9, a sporty crossover SUV, was named Truck of the Year. The Malibu and CX-9 were selected by a jury of 47 automotive journalists from the United States and Canada representing a range of media outlets including Fortune magazine, Edmunds.com, Road & Track and the Chicago Tribune. To be eligible, vehicles must be "all new" or "substantially redesigned" from the previous model year. The journalists selected the Malibu and CX-9 from a field of 13 cars and 15 trucks. With the redesigned Chevrolet Malibu, GM (GM, Fortune 500) hopes to finally take on the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord which have long been the top-selling cars in America. The mid-size sedan has been well-reviewed by the media, including CNNMoney.com. The Malibu's interior has a twin-cockpit design that mimics classic Chevrolet Corvettes. Its exterior shape, with smooth sides, wide rear window pillars and side turn signals, is intended to resemble European luxury sedans. This marks the second year in a row that a GM vehicle won Car of the Year. Last year, the Saturn Aura, a sedan that shares most of its engineering with the Malibu, won Car of the Year. GM also won Truck of the Year last year with the Chevrolet Silverado and stood a good chance of winning again this year since two of three finalists were GM products. But Mazda took the award with the CX-9 winning against the Buick Enclave SUV and Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid SUV. Ford Motor Co. (F, Fortune 500) owns a controlling interest in Mazda. The Mazda CX-9, a so-called crossover SUV, has already been named SUV of the year by Motor Trend magazine. The curvaceous CX-9 gets kudos for its ride and handling characteristics, which are especially good for an SUV with three rows of seats. Shortly after its introduction, Mazda upgraded the CX-9's engine to a new V6 engine capable of producing 273 horsepower, 10 more than the engine with which it was originally introduced.

I haven't kept track so I'll have to take your word for it. I have always suspected you of being pro-union which would be one explanation. I honestly don't know what's involved in addressing panel gaps. To me it's more about quality processes and metrics like SPC techniques than it is a product development issue. Maybe others will chime in and explain how these gaps are achieved. I agree but my point is, those misbehaving employees who aren't union members can easily be fired and the problem is solved. Everyone reports to someone. Even the president of the company reports to the board of directors or the stockholders or the customers. Somebody is paying the bills. I may not be a good example but I'm generally told to "complete goals" and the details of how I do this are left up to me (as long as I do it within company and ethical rules.) Even when I'm told to do something I don't agree with, I'll point out why I don't agree but of course if I'm not convincing, I'm still doing what I'm told like everyone else. The problem comes down to the area where there's no clear cut "right and wrong" and we're discussing a difference of opinion. If I'm the boss and *my* job is on the line and there's no clearcut any, the employee is doing things *my* way - not theres. I had an employee recently who constantly told me doing certain things certain ways was "insane." I put up with it for a while but he eventually went away because we had to work as a team and he wasn't. Plain and simple. (We're not a union shop.) Business is a cooperative effort between multiple disciplines from various walks of life. I have always felt unions foster inefficient behavior because the members do not have a stake in the financial results of the organization paying their salaries. Teachers unions are a good example and the NEA has dragged its feet while changes have been proposed such as testing and metrics. We all have known bad teachers. It infuriates me to know these dirtbags are protected by the union when even the union membership knows they're bad. My sister-in-law went from being a teacher (unionized of course) to a princpal (evil management) and it's been amazing what a change of perspective has taken place. She was describing her efforts to "get rid" of one of those bad teachers and how the "union rep" came to this bad teacher's defense. Another bad taste in everyone's mouth. The "job bank" made so famous by the UAW is another example of the pure waste associated with unions. The list goes on. I *do* agree there is a place for unions. Otherwise management, particularly senior management, will take advantage of every opportunity to keep costs low and feather their nests. This will be at the cost of every other employee however. Something to keep in mind.

Shame on them. Of course, I *do* wonder exactly what recourse management has when this kind of thing is taking place? Can they fire union members?

I find it humorous, you of all posters here would make this comment and have a signature "solidarity forever" (apparently in support of unions.) Unions foster the kind of behavior you're criticizing. They espouse the "just do as you're told" mentality where independent thinking is frowned upon. I have heard so many times conversations amongst union guys pointing out obvious flaws or problems while indicating the intent "not to do anything about it until asked." I'm sure no one ever said, until recently, "Hey, how's about trying to make it NOT look like crap" so no one ever did anything about it until now. This, all the while snickering quietly about the problems, and watching the Company slowly slide down the tubes. Who cares? I'll be out by the time the $h! hits the fan, right?

The problem (whether anyone here likes it or not) is the fact that winning the "award" sells more vehicles. This could be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it. On the one hand, they'll sell (give away?) a few more Tundras than they would have otherwise, but on the other hand they'll have THAT many more disappointed buyers when they realize what a POS they've spent good money on.

I've said before and I'll say again: The most glaring advantage the Corolla has is gas mileage. Nothing else competes with 37 highway (other than the Prius.) The Aveo gets what? 34? This is a huge gap that needs to be closed by every other manufacturer.

The DFP has been relatively unfriendly in the past as well. Nevertheless it's great to see some positive momentum in a number of areas for GM. Let's get the Volt out the door!

I saw a 'Bu today - the nicely equipped ones. I could tell because of the chrome trim and nice wheels. Nice looking car.

Just get rid of the contracts completely and then maybe GM will have a chance at survival.

Amazing!

I saw them at the New England International Auto Show and I have to say it's a sweet product. The upscale version with the glass sun roof and heated seats is *so* much of an improvement over the slab-sided prior generation it's a shame to even call it the same name. GM is definitely on a roll and I'm hoping the giant has finally been awakened.

Ditto. It's time people stood up to these idiots and told them to crawl back into the holes they crawled out from. It's about personal accountability people! This *really* feels a lot like the news story I heard this week about some morons getting department stores to tell their "Santas" to stop saying "Ho Ho Ho!" and start saying "Ha Ha Ha!" ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME?

I hit the show yesterday - new venue right in the heart of the South End of Boston (Southie for those in the area.) This new facility was a great improvement over the old one. Much more room. I have to say, sitting in the CTS there really gets the adrenaline going. I was struck by the size seeming much smaller than I expected given the chatter I've seen in the press about it being a 5-series size car - I didn't find this to be the case. In fact I actually liked the size of the STS-V they had on display (this is one sweet car by for $80k I'd have to think hard about it.) Really depends on the primary purpose of the car. Certainly as a personal driving machine the CTS size is perfect. Clearly Cadillac is getting smarter about how they use this show to compete. Their placement was directly next to Lexus. They still need an LS competitor. Hopefully this is in the works. I think they're still going to struggle with the "old man's car" reputation. When I was looking under the hood of the STS-V an older guy walked up and asked me "is this the one that won the awards" and before I could answer he looked at the price tag of the V and said "for 80K I'll keep the Mercedes." I quickly pointed out where the CTS was and the general pricing and he headed off to check them out. To me he was a paradox. The typical uninformed lemming buyer who *could* be considered the market that's kept Cadillac in business over the last decade but also the type they really don't want as future buyers because every time people see a Cadillac and see an elderly driver, it confirms the reputation as "old man's car." I have a friend who drives an A6 who commented how he didn't like the pop-up NAV and how the STS design of permanent screen placement was better. He pointed out how the pop-up would block part of the windshield view. Any thoughts from those who have driven the CTS on their experience with the NAV? I haven't driven one so don't know who effective the system is. I agree it's nice to have the display there all the time but it's all in the implementation. My friend is quick to come to conclusions and tough to chance his mind once he has. I also heard comments from someon looking at the front of the CTS and how close to the ground the front fascia is. I know my STS has scraped parking lot curbstones many times. I suspect the CTS would be the same. I suppose it's a price one has to pay to play in this category of of automobile and all others in the same category would be the same. Really seems like Cadillac has done a great job with the CTS. The Malibu was great too for what I could see. Very competitive with the Accord.

Does hopping help somehow?

Congratulations Cadillac. It's been a long 15 years.... Bet it feels good to be back in the seat again. Go GM!

I thought this was a pretty good explanation: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21697375/