PDA

View Full Version : GM: Speaking of outsourcing.



Sev
07-09-2012, 06:49 AM
7 out of ever 10 GM vehicles are produced outside of the USA.

And they were bailed out why??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
07-09-2012, 07:36 AM
This type of outsourcing is OK if it is being run by Obama.

eg8r

Sev
07-09-2012, 01:28 PM
Must be the case.

Soflasnapper
07-09-2012, 05:32 PM
Some better facts to consider, here. (http://www.levelfieldinstitute.org/fact_kit.html)

A nice PowerPoint style web presentation of many of the answers to your questions, if you are interested in what some of the answers may be.

Please do not click over there if you prefer to maintain your current belief.

Sev
07-09-2012, 06:28 PM
1 minute in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo

Soflasnapper
07-09-2012, 11:33 PM
GM is a global company that sells cars all across the world.

Naturally, it is cost effective to build closer to the markets they sell in.

But with 30+ % of their workforce here, they remain a very large employer, especially considering that one auto worker creates another 9 workers' jobs.

Perhaps you thought the factoid means 70% of the cars they sell HERE are made abroad? That is not what it means.

Sev
07-10-2012, 05:42 AM
Didnt think that at all.

Still does not alter the fact that they should not have been bailed out. It is not the governments place to do so.
They should have filed bankruptcy and restructured. With their sails outside the US so strong they would not have collapsed.

It was a big scam.

eg8r
07-10-2012, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GM is a global company that sells cars all across the world.

Naturally, it is cost effective to build closer to the markets they sell in.</div></div>Again, the more you talk the more contradictory you get. First you tell Sev he is wrong, now you say he is right.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But with 30+ % of their workforce here, they remain a very large employer, especially considering that one auto worker creates another 9 workers' jobs.
</div></div>Now all you have left is to say, yeah, well, yeah, but they employ a lot of people here. LOL, that has nothing to do with Sev's thread.

Seriously now, instead of trying to take over qtip's crown of village idiot, just drop the desire to quickly defend something you cannot defend. You could just as easily said, yes according the GM themselves 7 out of 10 cars are produced elsewhere. How hard would that have been. At that point you could attempt to change the subject, like you are trying to do now, or try and substantiate what the 7 out of 10 actually means.

eg8r

LWW
07-10-2012, 07:57 AM
Before this is over, I predict tat GM will become t US version of British Leyland ... a gubmint jobs program where warranty costs are passed on to the taxpayer, and excess production is used for tank target practice and then shoved overboard into the sea.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2012, 10:16 AM
In full gadfly mode still? Pesky, I admit, but ineffectual.

The domestic presence of the global auto company GM is significant enough to justify the subsidies they got, in my view.

That they had foreign operations and sales and net income from those sources did not mean they weren't at the brink of bankruptcy-- they were, by all accounts, considering it all.

To keep them afloat required substantial restructuring, and painful concessions from all the stakeholders. The difference is that had this just gone through the bankruptcy route without aid, there would have been nothing but pain, and pain x 10 that occurred, but with no upside.

eg8r
07-10-2012, 10:53 AM
LOL, so back to the first response when you thought sev was wrong you continued to talk and said he was right. Good job and again the more you talk the more you contradict yourself.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-10-2012, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">7 out of ever 10 GM vehicles are produced outside of the USA.

And they were bailed out why??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

Why? Because Repiglican policies crashed the economy, and we were losing 800,000 plus jobs a month.

Why? Because the banks weren't lending, after they stole our money, and there was no other way to save the American Automobile industry, except to lend them some money, which they are paying back, just as Banks are paying back the money we gave them.

Why? Because of tremendous job losses due to Bush's economic policies, remember them, lied us into a stupid war for his oil cronies and no bid contracts for his and Cheney's CEO friends, launched two wars, and cut taxes most advantaging the wealthy, increased the vast chasm between rich and poor, lost more jobs than any previous administration since the Great Depression, spent money like crazy, with the Republican blank check congress, like drunken sailors, borrowed more money than all previous administrations combined, hid from view the raging deficits while telling us that deficits didn't matter, worsened our relations around the world, played right into the hands of our Middle East enemies, launched a trillion dollar plus giveaway for Big Pharma, and din't pay for any of it, put us in debt to a communist country, that has been free to rob us on the global market, since, AND lied about the fact that we were in a recession for over a year!

AND HENCE, WE COULD NOT AFFORD TO LET THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY GO BANKRUPT, AND LOSE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MILLION PLUS AUTO RELATED JOBS WHENN BUSH LEFT US HEMMORAGING 800,000 PLUS JOBS A MONTH!

That's why.

G.

Sev
07-10-2012, 12:36 PM
No chance that running their business improperly had anything to do with it huh???

Soflasnapper
07-10-2012, 01:17 PM
Across the board, all auto makers saw volume of sales decrease by about 80%, including Toyota, Nissan, etc.

Something other than bad business practice was involved if they all suffered comparable sales losses.

Something, forget just now, about the general economy? I'm not sure, it was so long ago now. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sev
07-10-2012, 01:36 PM
I seem to recall Ford weathering the storm.

LWW
07-10-2012, 02:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Across the board, all auto makers saw volume of sales decrease by about 80%, including Toyota, Nissan, etc.</div></div>

Got a source for that claim?

Of course you don't.

Gayle in MD
07-10-2012, 03:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No chance that running their business improperly had anything to do with it huh??? </div></div>

That wasn't the question you asked. You were asking why they were bailed out.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And they were bailed out why??? </div></div>


G.

Sev
07-10-2012, 04:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No chance that running their business improperly had anything to do with it huh??? </div></div>

That wasn't the question you asked. You were asking why they were bailed out.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And they were bailed out why??? </div></div>


G. </div></div>

I would say that factor can not be removed from the equation.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2012, 05:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Across the board, all auto makers saw volume of sales decrease by about 80%, including Toyota, Nissan, etc.</div></div>

Got a source for that claim?

Of course you don't.
</div></div>

I couldn't find them. They may have been the worst month's numbers, or maybe I was thinking of these (below).

A lower rate of decline than I claimed, but that sales went down comparably across domestic and foreign made cars, here are the December 2008 comparisons to December 2007 sales (on the top line below the brands).

You will notice that GM and Ford's decline is only slightly worse than Nissan's, and not as bad as Toyota or Honda. GM's was slightly better than Ford's.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/01/assets/images/december-2008-big-6sales_r2_550px.jpg

I still believe one month had an 80% drop that I saw at the time in then-current reporting, but this, while different, shows how comparable the December 2008 drops were or weren't compared to the year prior December.