GM reports $2.5B 3Q loss, could run out of cash in 2009

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... ceratinley all the addtional facilities and employees would not be in the US.

Is that such a bad thing?

As someone who anticipates having to buy more cars over the rest of my lifetime, I want to see prices go down and/or quality go up. Eliminating poorly performing manufacturers is how you do that.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

... ceratinley all the addtional facilities and employees would not be in the US.

Is that such a bad thing?

As someone who anticipates having to buy more cars over the rest of my lifetime, I want to see prices go down and/or quality go up. Eliminating poorly performing manufacturers is how you do that.

How is your messiah going to fix the economy with no auto industry?? He has stated many times during the campaign that he wants to help the US auto industry. I agree with Obama on that.

[IAMX 3,055]

gm is needed here and is all manufacturing jobs

Absolutely.

Let 'em fall.

If they can't make a better product than Toyota or Honda, they deserve to fail.

Taxpayers should not be bailing out yet another bunch of rich assho|es who want a fat pension check. Nor should they be bailing out workers from third world countries.

And what is your outlook for the US with no auto industry?

The same as other countries who were on the sh!t end of the free trade stick.

You gamble, and sometimes you lose. Here's what it's like to start losing.

Let 'em fail, then re-implement protectionism as a lesson learned.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How is your messiah ...

Oh, STFU.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

gm is needed here and is all manufacturing jobs

Absolutely.

Let 'em fall.

If they can't make a better product than Toyota or Honda, they deserve to fail.

Taxpayers should not be bailing out yet another bunch of rich assho|es who want a fat pension check. Nor should they be bailing out workers from third world countries.

And what is your outlook for the US with no auto industry?

The same as other countries who were on the sh!t end of the free trade stick.

You gamble, and sometimes you lose. Here's what it's like to start losing.

Let 'em fail, then re-implement protectionism as a lesson learned.

That easy, huh? No effect at all on the great economic conditions?

How is your messiah ...

Oh, STFU.

What's the problem? I agree with him. You followed blindly, did you miss the auto industry part?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

gm is needed here and is all manufacturing jobs

well realistically now, if gm no longer existed some other manufacturer would have to fill in the supply shortfall, which means they'd employ manufacturing employees instead. It just might not be in the US and it obviously wouldn't be set up to produce the same number of units GM is currently set up for.

Well, some of the other mfrs (Toyota, Honda, ...) already have US plants which can be expanded (maybe not on-fly but...) and others (VW) have plans to start US production.

[IAMX 3,055]

gm is needed here and is all manufacturing jobs

Absolutely.

Let 'em fall.

If they can't make a better product than Toyota or Honda, they deserve to fail.

Taxpayers should not be bailing out yet another bunch of rich assho|es who want a fat pension check. Nor should they be bailing out workers from third world countries.

And what is your outlook for the US with no auto industry?

The same as other countries who were on the sh!t end of the free trade stick.

You gamble, and sometimes you lose. Here's what it's like to start losing.

Let 'em fail, then re-implement protectionism as a lesson learned.

That easy, huh? No effect at all on the great economic conditions?

Well, it's us who proclaimed proudly that there are winners and losers in the free market. The losers are starting to better their strategy. They are foreign investors, or foreign companies coming into the U.S. now. They are countries who are building a surplus against our debt.

It was well established that long term tax cuts for the rich would cause tax burdens to shift to the middle class and poor. With lower wages, and a local dollar that can't buy ####### (i.e. an economy in recession), due to a lower value for labor and higher cost of goods, never mind a devalued world-traded dollar, I would have loved to see how much deeper this would go via McCain's furthering tax cuts for the rich. Evidently his fanboys might not have thought this through. You can only win so much when you gamble.

Edited November 7, 2008 by SRVT

[spookyturtle 9,466]

gm is needed here and is all manufacturing jobs

well realistically now, if gm no longer existed some other manufacturer would have to fill in the supply shortfall, which means they'd employ manufacturing employees instead. It just might not be in the US and it obviously wouldn't be set up to produce the same number of units GM is currently set up for.

Well, some of the other mfrs (Toyota, Honda, ...) already have US plants which can be expanded (maybe not on-fly but...) and others (VW) have plans to start US production.

And maybe some of the production will go to Japan and Korea et al. Not to mention job losses at supppliers her in the US. If GM goes, how about Ford and Chrylser? Both are teetering on the brink. Lets adds another 500,000 to the unemployed ranks.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

gm is needed here and is all manufacturing jobs

Absolutely.

Let 'em fall.

If they can't make a better product than Toyota or Honda, they deserve to fail.

Taxpayers should not be bailing out yet another bunch of rich assho|es who want a fat pension check. Nor should they be bailing out workers from third world countries.

And what is your outlook for the US with no auto industry?

The same as other countries who were on the sh!t end of the free trade stick.

You gamble, and sometimes you lose. Here's what it's like to start losing.

Let 'em fail, then re-implement protectionism as a lesson learned.

That easy, huh? No effect at all on the great economic conditions?

Well, it's us who proclaimed proudly that there are winners and losers in the free market. The losers are starting to better their strategy. They are foreign investors, or foreign companies coming into the U.S. now. They are countries who are building a surplus against our debt.

It was well established that long term tax cuts for the rich would cause tax burdens to shift to the middle class and poor. With lower wages, and a local dollar that can't buy ####### (i.e. an economy in recession), due to a lower value for labor and higher cost of goods, never mind a devalued world-traded dollar, I would have loved to see how much deeper this would go via McCain's furthering tax cuts for the rich. Evidently his fanboys might not have thought this through. You can only win so much when you gamble.

How did your presidential candidate do on Tuesday? If he had won, what would he do about the auto industry. And I'm sure, oif course, that if you worked for GM you'd still be saying ** em, right?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

gm is needed here and is all manufacturing jobs

well realistically now, if gm no longer existed some other manufacturer would have to fill in the supply shortfall, which means they'd employ manufacturing employees instead. It just might not be in the US and it obviously wouldn't be set up to produce the same number of units GM is currently set up for.

Well, some of the other mfrs (Toyota, Honda, ...) already have US plants which can be expanded (maybe not on-fly but...) and others (VW) have plans to start US production.

And maybe some of the production will go to Japan and Korea et al. Not to mention job losses at supppliers her in the US. If GM goes, how about Ford and Chrylser? Both are teetering on the brink. Lets adds another 500,000 to the unemployed ranks.

Chrysler's been having merger talks with GM for several months now--and they're actually hoping to get bailout to finance the merger.

(a little wry humour: will the resulting company be called "Dodge The GM"?)

[spookyturtle 9,466]

gm is needed here and is all manufacturing jobs

well realistically now, if gm no longer existed some other manufacturer would have to fill in the supply shortfall, which means they'd employ manufacturing employees instead. It just might not be in the US and it obviously wouldn't be set up to produce the same number of units GM is currently set up for.

Well, some of the other mfrs (Toyota, Honda, ...) already have US plants which can be expanded (maybe not on-fly but...) and others (VW) have plans to start US production.

And maybe some of the production will go to Japan and Korea et al. Not to mention job losses at supppliers her in the US. If GM goes, how about Ford and Chrylser? Both are teetering on the brink. Lets adds another 500,000 to the unemployed ranks.

Chrysler's been having merger talks with GM for several months now--and they're actually hoping to get bailout to finance the merger.

(a little wry humour: will the resulting company be called "Dodge The GM"?)

Talks have been suspended.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27593678/

[Ban Hammer 13,682]

every vehicle at the house is gm made. 2 were made in canada - canada made cars rock!

[IAMX 3,055]

gm is needed here and is all manufacturing jobs

well realistically now, if gm no longer existed some other manufacturer would have to fill in the supply shortfall, which means they'd employ manufacturing employees instead. It just might not be in the US and it obviously wouldn't be set up to produce the same number of units GM is currently set up for.

Well, some of the other mfrs (Toyota, Honda, ...) already have US plants which can be expanded (maybe not on-fly but...) and others (VW) have plans to start US production.

And maybe some of the production will go to Japan and Korea et al. Not to mention job losses at supppliers her in the US. If GM goes, how about Ford and Chrylser? Both are teetering on the brink. Lets adds another 500,000 to the unemployed ranks.

Absolutely, if that's what it takes to correct this problem. How many jobs need to be lost for people to learn a lesson here? 500,000, 1 million, 5 million, 10 million, 50 million?

What does it take to get people to listen? You can only be warned so much about the costs of free trade. You may be a winner for a while, but you will ultimately end up a loser, and losers tend to hit bottom pretty hard. At one point the benefit of Wal-Mart prices for shoddy products, and skyrocketing corporate profits, and disparity between rich and poor, will bite most in the ###. Welcome to reality.

How did your presidential candidate do on Tuesday? If he had won, what would he do about the auto industry. And I'm sure, oif course, that if you worked for GM you'd still be saying ** em, right?

I'd have seen that working for GM is working for a catastrophe. I'd have decided to work for a company like Toyota or Honda that actually thinks about the future rather than making deals with the oil industry. #### GM.

Is it to say Nader would have done better? There isn't anyone who can turn this ship that's taking on water around in 4 years. It would take FAR more effort to keep it from sinking than to just let it sink. I have little faith Americans will wake up to this realization any time soon so let it happen.

[mawilson 2,133]

And what is your outlook for the US with no auto industry?

It's called capitalism. Survival of the fittest.

If GM executives cannot run their company responsibly, they shouldn't be bailed out by the government.

[IAMX 3,055]

And what is your outlook for the US with no auto industry?

It's called capitalism. Survival of the fittest.

If GM executives cannot run their company responsibly, they shouldn't be bailed out by the government.

Some of us seem to be for protectionism, but only for certain companies.

Pretty confusing given all of the Obama = socialist scare.