Indeed. The government will not let GM crumble. But the government--that is, you and me--will be forced to pick up the slack when GM decides it "has to" bail on its pension plans. Which is rather ironic when you consider the fact that our pension plan, Social Security, will be done away with eventually, too. With people like Wagoner pulling down multi-millions up at the top, is that bacon I smell, or just the undeniable odor of a big fat pyramid scheme on fire, with us locked down there below the water line in steerage class? Iceberg, dead ahead!

 

Regardless of the argument of whether or not GM builds good cars, I personally believe that it is time to liquidate their assets and dissolve their liabilities/debts. They litterally are on the verge of financial collapse, and it is only a matter of time. . .

Yes, many jobs would be lost. But you know, they made the same argument about robotic manufacturing equipment. And yes, MANY jobs were lost due to mechanization of assembly lines. But Clinton advocated the type of mentality that helped produce the large gains in productivity we saw in the 90's. . . and that's spending the money saved on efficiency gains to retrain displaced workers into industries where they can have higher productivity.

Despite the mechanization of assembly lines and factories, millions of Americans did not become unemployed. . .

 

It's all right there in the numbers:

Toyota is building nearly 1/2 as many cars with a production workforce that is 25% the size of GM's, making over 200% more $ per car, and about to topple GM from the #1 spot...in America. Very significant. It's called manufacturing progress, something the domestic automakers have denied since the 70s. They deserve to fail.

But what sucks is that the people responsible for the mismanagement of this once all-powerful company will continue to skate away rich and happy, while tens of thousands of people face job loss, exposure to poverty, family crisis, etc, all as a result of the fat cats' arrogance and disregard for anyone but themselves. It is sickening. It is also commonplace regardless of industry. Business as usual.

Regarding liquidation, at the very least, GM should dump the brands that languish and drag it down. Seems to me those would be the Buicks, Saturns, Saabs and Hummers--and despite the counter-intuitiveness of it all, perhaps even the GM branded trucks! Seriously, does the world need a GM version of a Chevy truck? Who thinks of buying anything branded "GM," ever? It is now and will always be confusing and a waste of resources. Stick to Chevy & Cadillac. Make them good. Watch things turn around.

GM's troubles can really be boiled down to a recent trip we took to the SF Auto Show. I really wanted to think about buying a Chevy truck as a second car, so we sat in one at the Show. It was like sitting in a truck from 1988. I could_not_wait to get out of it...hideous!

There's the answer.

 

Realistically its the bloating pension plan. GM will have to screw ALL those retirees if it expects to turn a profit. Or do what other American companies have been doing, let the gov't bail them out.

It's like in NYC, these MTA workers...why do they only have to work til 55 to get a pension and then they bloat the OT they get in the last few years to get a bigger pension. Whereas I will have to work into my 60's before I retire.

 

I think you meant GMC, but you're right. Their current brands are:

GMC: commercial/heavy-duty/purpose built trucks
Chevrolet: the bulk money maker to the mainstream
Buick: I believe this used to be the lower end/cheaper vehicles
Pontiac: Performance
Oldsmobile: for older people
Caddilac: Luxury
Saab: European/German competitor
Saturn: for hippies and liberalites who still want an american car
Hummer: off-road/niche
Opel: european production/market
Holden: australian "/"/performance
Suzuki: Asian "/"
Daewoo: Asian "/"

I know I'm missing something. . .

 

There is SO MUCH overlap, it's not even funny.

 

I rest my case!

p.s. Oldsmobile is dead; they finally killed it off a year or two ago. Now if they could only follow suit with everything on your list except for Chevrolet and Cadillac, they might actually be able to save something of substance.

Doesn't anyone in Sweden want Saab back? Doesn't anyone in Australia want exclusive Holden rights?

More annoying things from the auto show: The "Pontiac GTO," er I mean "Holden Commodore." Pontiac is such a joke that an Austrailian car is what is holding the brand together. The Solstice is too little, way too late. The Miata is 15 years old, people! GM is just now figuring out the should make a knock-off? OMG it is painful.

But do they really own Suzuki, too? If so, definitely keep Suzuki. That is a brand/company that is actually doing something interesting with affordable cars these days.

 

Isn't the Solstice based off the Opel Speedster?

And yes, they do own Suzuki, and it is one of their better assets. They provide manufacturing facilities for their asian market. It's funny that Oldsomobile has such a long history behind it and is well known as a GM branch, yet few people are aware that Suzuki belongs to GM. . . and probably will for a LONG time.

 

Isuzu and previously part of fuji heavy industry aka subaru