  Gplimpton Member Username: Gplimpton Post Number: 263 Registered: 05-2007 |
After GM drops two from their fleet, Ford says they may sell all: http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/2 1/news/companies/bc.ford.corpo ratejets.ap/index.htm | ||
Bigb23 Member Username: Bigb23 Post Number: 2932 Registered: 11-2007 |
AIG, Lehman Bros., and Merrill-Lynch now have billions of new discretionary funds to blow on toys like this. | ||
Bigb23 Member Username: Bigb23 Post Number: 2934 Registered: 11-2007 |
I'm tired of the holier than thou attitude of congress towards the Big 3 right now. Yeah that was a tremendously bad move by execs who mainly think about whats in it for them. But Congressmen who live in glass houses ......... Congressional Travel Investigation - ORIGINAL AIRDATE: 10/13/2008 quote: (cough - BS) http://www.wral.com/golo/blogp ost/3735788/ | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 527 Registered: 04-2008 |
Amen, Bigb23. I think the CEOs should have given a better response when asked if they flew in commercially (as opposed to corporately). Maybe they were taken off-guard by such a irrelevant question. But they should have explained why virtually every Fortune 500 company flies their execs on corporate and that they have, in fact, been downsizing their fleets. | ||
Jerrytimes Member Username: Jerrytimes Post Number: 154 Registered: 04-2007 |
I do see why people are irritated with it, but it's not what's important. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5728 Registered: 06-2004 |
Here's the real issue: "It's not my job" quote: (Message edited by lilpup on November 22, 2008) | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 530 Registered: 04-2008 |
Maybe we need to create a Department of Industry and a Federal Business Board. | ||
Bigb23 Member Username: Bigb23 Post Number: 2936 Registered: 11-2007 |
We already have a Secretary of Commerce which has been pretty low key for at least the last eight years. (Easy money). From Wiki - quote: And John Engler for the National Association of Manufacturers: quote: http://www.corporatecampaign.o rg/englertot.pdf | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 535 Registered: 04-2008 |
If the Dept. of Commerce is in charge of promoting domestic industry, they have failed, IMHO. The NAM is a private organization, completely independent of the Federal Government. | ||
Bigb23 Member Username: Bigb23 Post Number: 2941 Registered: 11-2007 |
Yes, NAM is private, but legions of lobbyists influence Federal policy far, far, more than our simple, former middle class constituent minds can comprehend. OR SO THEY THINK | ||
Nemoman Member Username: Nemoman Post Number: 12 Registered: 03-2008 |
Here is the problem. I have a very successful law practice; however, I do not fly first class on business trips. My clients would not tolerate it; nor would my partners. Business execs get away with it because the shareholders are impotent to hold them or the company accountable. Why is the CEO of Ford worth 28 million in compensation for running a failing company? Did these guys ever read and understand Halberstam's book "The Reckoning." They apparently never learned anything from the seventies when Japan was eating their lunch. A bailout is not going to create a market for the cars they cannot sell. They will still have to lay off thousands of workers. The nice thing about bankruptcy is that maybe the worthless execs will get layed off and both union and management will have to take substantial haircuts at no expense to taxpayers. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5740 Registered: 06-2004 |
"Why is the CEO of Ford worth 28 million in compensation for running a failing company?" His base salary is $2 million a year. Most of that $28 million was one time payment for what he gave up leaving Boeing for Ford. Harping on that figure is a red herring. Two of these three CEOs arrived in the last three years, the other has been here somewhat longer, but none of them can be held responsible for the 1970s. That GM cannot sell cars is an absolute fallacy. GM massively outsells the Japanese in the US. The core problem here is that the credit market is totally screwed up, shorting the automakers of cash. Had the banks been allowed to fail as all of the weak ones should have, the credit market would have cleared itself and the automakers would be functioning as they had been before the financial sector crash. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 540 Registered: 04-2008 |
By a Department of Industry and Federal Business Board, I was suggesting that the manufacturing industries need to have a governmental body(ies) that are as committed to their survival as the Department of Treasury and Federal Reserve Board are to the survival of banks and financial firms. I doubt that the scrutiny and ridicule that the Big3 are facing now would take place in other major industrialized nations. They seem to have better grasp of how industries, banks, and government should work together. I think in the US, we have lingering suspicion of such cooperations due to the trusts/monopolies/etc. of our distant past. The laws preventing such associations made sense at the time, given the protected markets of the US. But our country is now an open battlefield for foreign manufacturers who have much more supportive financial and government assistance back home. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 541 Registered: 04-2008 |
Here's what I'm trying to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M inistry_of_International_Trade _and_Industry | ||
Nemoman Member Username: Nemoman Post Number: 13 Registered: 03-2008 |
Ford did report its CEO's base pay in April as 2 million, but also gave him a 4 million bonus. He received 11 million in stock options last year, and has received over 50 million since coming to Ford. I do not know what his stock options are worth this year, but I did read his total compensation package was valued at 28 million. I do not care how many cars GM can sell: they are not selling enough and are losing lots of money. Tight credit is not helping; however, it affects all automakers - foreign and domestic. The big three desperately need to cut expenses. Leadership must set the example. Limiting all business travel to commercial coach is a no brainer. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5742 Registered: 06-2004 |
except when it's a multi-national company with plants located from Brazil to Russia and everywhere in between | ||
Gplimpton Member Username: Gplimpton Post Number: 264 Registered: 05-2007 |
And no airlines fly to Brazil or Russia. Or anywhere else. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5743 Registered: 06-2004 |
at times in some areas you'd think that commercial transportation in certain areas really isn't dependable plus there is a valid security argument to be made, too, in some places | ||
Nemoman Member Username: Nemoman Post Number: 14 Registered: 03-2008 |
So you charter where you have to - you still save money. I can tell you from running a small business that the biggest obstacle to cutting costs is the development of rationalizations for them. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5744 Registered: 06-2004 |
"So you charter where you have to - you still save money" perhaps, perhaps not - much like leasing a car or buying - I'm sure that's some of the cost analysis that's gone on | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 544 Registered: 04-2008 |
Nemoman, I fully support the reduction of executive wages and the reduction of executive perks, such as corporate travel. But these unnecessary expenses are a negligible contribution to the financial difficulties these companies face. The reason they are unable to get a loan from the banks is because of the "credit crisis", which they did not create - the government created it. Did the government of Japan, Korea, or Germany create the conditions for the sub-prime mortgage fiasco that our financial institutions got themselves entangled in? This is an American problem. The government got us into it, the government should get us out of it. | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 453 Registered: 11-2007 |
quote: Well, I guess it depends how you define "massively" and "cars" and "the Japanese". Toyota currently sells slightly more cars in the US than GM. GM currently sells slightly more cars and trucks combined (they used to sell a lot more, but truck sales have fallen through the earth's crust, so Toyota has almost caught up). But there is no way GM sells more of either one than "the Japanese". Toyota and Honda alone outsell GM, and have for a while. Throw in Nissan and Subaru Mitsubishi and Suzuki and it isn't close. That doesn't mean GM can't sell cars--it just can't sell enough cars to support its cost structure--Toyota has 3 brands to sell roughly as many cars as GM manages with 8, not to mention legacy costs. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5745 Registered: 06-2004 |
"GM currently sells slightly more cars and trucks combined (they used to sell a lot more, but truck sales have fallen through the earth's crust, so Toyota has almost caught up)." quote: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=2008811170379 | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6447 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yes, if you combined cars, light commercial vehicles, heavy commercial vehicles, and heavy buses, Toyota has a slight lead. If you're talking about just conventional cars and commercial light trucks GM still has a lead. Either way, upon the credit crisis GM's only crisis was that it was going to fall from number one to number two, not that it was imminently going out of business. Yes, GM had many problems, but none that spelled imminent doom for the corporation until they weren't able to borrow from conventional sources (i.e. the credit crisis). There are so many lies and myths flying around out there about the domestics auto industry, and while I have not been pleased with their performance during much of the decade, the 2007 labour contract was a big deal in a good way. | ||
Otter Member Username: Otter Post Number: 402 Registered: 12-2007 |
Pup, It is true that GM can too sell cars, but I don't see anybody actually claiming that - I only hear it as a retort to arguments that aren't made. GM does (just) outsell Toyota in the US, but does not come close to outselling all Japanese nameplates. But saying that the core problem of the current crsis is the credit crisis takes much too short of a view. The credit crisis is affecting everybody, but not to equal degrees. The Big 3 have been going down a path of decline for decades, something that can be seen in, among other things, the continual decline of market share over the last 35 years. Even if the Big 3 were to tomorrow resume operating as they were before the crash, they would still not be in good shape. Ford had the best medium-term outlook but was losing lots of money, Chrysler was shopping itself around for absorption or rescue, and GM was losing lots of money. Otter That GM cannot sell cars is an absolute fallacy. GM massively outsells the Japanese in the US. The core problem here is that the credit market is totally screwed up, shorting the automakers of cash. Had the banks been allowed to fail as all of the weak ones should have, the credit market would have cleared itself and the automakers would be functioning as they had been before the financial sector crash. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5747 Registered: 06-2004 |
Otter, you need to look back over the last few years to know what strides the companies have made before you try to continue any arguments. And Ford turned a profit the quarter before all this crap started with Wall Street. | ||
Otter Member Username: Otter Post Number: 407 Registered: 12-2007 |
Pup, I'm quite aware of the improvements that the American-badged cars have made over the past few years, but that is beside the point, which, put another way, is that 'making strides' is not enough, and that the big 3's troubles have a long, long tail. There is no sign that the long-term trend in market share in particular is changing. Nor have the big 3 shown much positive proof over say, the last 5 years, that they are really good at successfully running a profitable business as opposed to building great cars, which is necessary but not sufficient. It's a bit late to finally be building mostly great cars. It's only been, what, decades? 'the strides they've made' is no argument at all for success. It is exactly the same argument that some people have been making in support of the Bi3 for, again, decades. This time, we're really turning the corner. And so on. And for decades, the long-term trend in strength has been in one direction. I stand coreected on Ford's Q3 or Q2 profits but one quarter is not a snapshot of the last several years, over which they have lost a lot of money. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 548 Registered: 04-2008 |
The loss of market share is the result of the increase in the number of automakers, brands, and models competing in the market and, more recently, the entry of those competitors into the SUV/Truck market. (Message edited by Retroit on November 24, 2008) | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 2814 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: I don't know, isn't/wasn't citigroup the largest bank and company in the world. I am not so sure it such a cut and dry decision as what would have the largest impact. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 549 Registered: 04-2008 |
Forget about Citi, the government needs to save my city!  | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5748 Registered: 06-2004 |
Maybe the US should concentrate on saving the US instead of the world. | ||
Civilprotectionunit4346 Member Username: Civilprotectionunit4346 Post Number: 771 Registered: 06-2007 |
We need http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =RLLVFIxqrMU Team America... They'll save the day...... |
