Mattel (maker of Hot Wheels cars) is now worth more than GM

[Dodge Don]

Maybe GM should take styling cues from Hot Wheels to increase sales 

[WingCharger]

My dads buddies at work just bought Gm stock a few weeks ago!

[1969chargerrtse]

My dads buddies at work just bought Gm stock a few weeks ago!

This is a great time to buy their stock, it's super low, and when the 80mpg Saturn SUV comes out next year and then the 100 mpg electric plug in Volt the year after, the stocks should fly.  Oh yea.

[Dodge Don]

My dads buddies at work just bought Gm stock a few weeks ago!

This is a great time to buy their stock, it's super low, and when the 80mpg Saturn SUV comes out next year and then the 100 mpg electric plug in Volt the year after, the stocks should fly.  Oh yea.

I somewhat agree, not because I have any faith in the company or it's products but in that realistically I cannot see the US Government allowing GM to go belly up......and eventually they will get something right (by design or by accident) and the stock will rise again. So while 95% of the lemmings are selling (at a loss).....now is probably a good time to buy.

[Mike DC]

 
Don, I agree with you.

I don't think GM has been healty in decades.  But the US govt wouldn't just stand there and let them go under. 

 

[69charger2002]

they may never go under, but i wouldn't spend $.50 on GM stock. you guys can buy it all up and laugh at me in 25 years when it's $100 a share.. but i'll take a raincheck.. hell i'm die hard mopar and you couldn't get me to buy chrysler stock either.. looks like monopolized wal-mart is the long term choice of stock.. lol   
trav

[Mike DC]

There's a worldwide overcapacity in carmakers.  It's been estimated at as much as 25% overcapacity.  "The big three" should really be more like "the big one" at this point.  Maybe even "the big none" when you get right down to it. 



Chrysler's bailout in the early 1980s was probably a mistake IMO. 

I really think we would have been better off with just two (healthier) auto giants in Detroit after 1982.  Instead we've got three companies that all remain on the ragged edge of bankruptcy decade after decade.  And the raw total of decent UAW jobs (that would have been lost if the govt had let Mopar go under in '82) have still been gradually lost over the years anyway.

[Kevin68N71]

Just to be clear, the government didn't bail out Chrysler.

The government guaranteed PRIVATE loans that Chrysler paid back on time, in full.  To me, it was precisely an excellent use of government.

How exactly, was it NOT worth it?

How about NO direct connection parts for all these years.  How about no Viper, no Charger SRT, no Challenger.  Minivans that allowed AMERICAN car businesses to stay in business with a strong sales type of vehicle.  No RAM pickups, which are outstanding.

How many ancillary businesses did Chrysler keep in business, from the manufacturers of sound systems, plastics, electronics, to the support businesses of everything from stationary stores to lunch counters?  How about the Chrysler dealerships, sales organizations, support staffs, service people.

Yeah, it was really a bad idea.  Those people should have all been put out of work and gone, i don't know, maybe work in WalMart where they belong!

[Mike DC]

It's not a question of whether we want two brands' worth of jobs or three.  It's more a question of whether we want two healthier companies in Detriot or three less-healthy ones. 


Most of Mopar's business would have gone to GM & Ford.  (Maybe not so much today, but certainly a lot more of it would have stayed domestic in 1982.)  GM & Ford would both be healthier now and not so close to bankruptcy. 

The jobs are still gone.  Instead of losing X-amount of jobs (and business) from Mopar going under, we mostly just spread the loss out across all three makes in Detroit. 




But now what have we got for this, once the vintage Mopar buffs are put aside?  Mopar is still here but it's never been big enough to really play in the modern world on its own.  As soon as it gets into black ink and real success it gets taken over by Daimler or somebody because it's too small. 

So now we've just got THREE unhealthy companies that are ALL drifting towards a massive round of the "bankruptcy n' bailout" game like the airline industry did.  That govt money is coming from somewhere.    Meanwhile, the companies still aren't very healthy even after that's over. 

[Kevin68N71]

It's not a question of whether we want two brands' worth of jobs or three.  It's more a question of whether we want two healthier companies in Detriot or three less-healthy ones. 


Most of Mopar's business would have gone to GM & Ford.  (Maybe not so much today, but certainly a lot more of it would have stayed domestic in 1982.)  GM & Ford would both be healthier now and not so close to bankruptcy. 

The jobs are still gone.  Instead of losing X-amount of jobs (and business) from Mopar going under, we mostly just spread the loss out across all three makes in Detroit. 




But now what have we got for this, once the vintage Mopar buffs are put aside?  Mopar is still here but it's never been big enough to really play in the modern world on its own.  As soon as it gets into black ink and real success it gets taken over by Daimler or somebody because it's too small. 

So now we've just got THREE unhealthy companies that are ALL drifting towards a massive round of the "bankruptcy n' bailout" game like the airline industry did.  That govt money is coming from somewhere.    Meanwhile, the companies still aren't very healthy even after that's over. 

Well, you've made it perfectly clear that you don't want ANY American car company to survive. Your statement that "most of Mopar's business would have went to GM or Ford" is pure conjecture.  Just as easily could go to some other non-American car company.  You're assumption that Mopar going under would have helped GM and Ford is your speculation, and has no basis in real fact.

And you neatly avoided any of my real points.  How is this hurting YOU?  By having three American car companies, we have more choice, more people working not only at those companies, but at all the companies that support them.  So, the consumer wins, the job market wins. 

Many companies and industries have had terrifically challenging times.  I was reading an old Time online story about how large appliances were getting squeezed by cost pressures, competition, and other issues.  It was an article from 1956.

You'd be seemingly happy if ALL American car companies were gone, because the fact that they are not perfectly healthy somehow makes YOUR life tough.  I don't get it.

The difference between your camp and mine is crystal clear.  Aside from some vintage iron, you don't like American cars, and think they should all be consolidated, or preferably, gone.  My camp believes in choice, having alot of American cars to choose from, American jobs, and American corporations benefiting and growing from it.  That's helps a strong economy, regardless of challenges that the companies may have at this moment.

Oh, and I put my money where my mouth is.  I only buy American cars, have done so for that past 30 years, and have never had "quality" problems.

How's your, let me guess, Toyota doing?

[Mike DC]

You statement that "most of Mopar's business would have went to GM and Ford" is pure conjecture.

Okay, let's pretend that Mopar folded and then that business was 100% evenly scattered among every brand in the world (which would have been pretty unlikely in the early 1980s):  What happens?  GM & Ford are still somewhat healthier than before.  The business means they'll employ some more people and they don't have to cut quite so many people to stay competitive over the coming years. 

The loss of Mopar in the early 1980s would have been painful, I agree.  But it's not a fair comparison to imagine the current GM & Ford and then just erase the entire Mopar piece of the pie.  We don't have the hindsight of seeing how many other things about the American auto industry would have been improved if Mopar's bankruptcy had been allowed to play out.

How's you, let me guess, Toyota doing?

My V8 Dodge Dakota is doing fine. 

How is this hurting YOU?

It's hurting me because for the last 25 years all three American makes have had less diversity in products than they needed.  More brands than the market realistically calls for = too much of the highest-profit items that are redundant copies of each other and not enough collective money put into the other smaller-market stuff. It's why we get tons of trucks & SUVs & 4dr sedans from multiple makes that we can barely tell apart, but we can't get the money spent on a new factory musclecar until long after the demand was obvious. 

And it's going to hurt (everyone) when these companies start going through rounds of bankruptcy.  It's only a matter of time.  It's been avoided for a decade or more because Detriot accidentally stumbled into a cash-cow with the truck/SUV boom, not because they were healthy enough to avoid it otherwise.  Look at the airline industry.  As soon as one files, it starts the dominos and eventually the others will follow suit to stay competitive.



I like American cars just fine when they're built the way we'd like to build them and we're good at doing.  I don't like them when they're imitating foreign cars just to stay in black ink. 

I wish Detriot would survive but I have my doubts about a lot of it.  We're trying to hold up too many American brands artificially instead of getting a smaller number of brands that are healthier.  The fact is that Asian brands took a HUGE chunk from the American market share in the last 35 years, and we've hardly lost any American brands (or even very many product lines within each brand for that matter) to balance it out.  The entire Asian market share here demands a little more loss in Detroit than just merging Plymouth & Oldsmobile into their corporate siblings.     

[Kevin68N71]

Okay, let's pretend that Mopar folded and then that business was 100% evenly scattered among every brand in the world (which would have been pretty unlikely in the early 1980s):  What happens?  GM & Ford are still somewhat healthier than before.

Again, there is no way to know that GM or Ford would be any healthier than before. One could speculate just as easily that folding one American car company would make many buyers worried about buying other American cars also.

It's hurting me because for the last 25 years all three American makes have had less diversity in products than they needed.  More brands than the market realistically calls for = too much of the highest-profit items that are redundant copies of each other and not enough collective money put into the other smaller-market stuff. It's why we get tons of trucks & SUVs & 4dr sedans from multiple makes that we can barely tell apart, but we can't get the money spent on a new factory musclecar until long after the demand was obvious.

You're complaining about lack of diversity, but you have posted before that it might be preferable to have 2, 1 or no US automakers.  How does that help diversity?

Second, we got tons of trucks and SUVs because that is what the public is (was) buying, and car companies, being corporations with stockholders, build and sell what sells.  If you want to blame someone, blame the consumer who wanted to look cool in an SUV rather than a car or station wagon.  Now, they're paying the price.  You can also blame our wonderful government, who put CAFE standards on cars, killing the big cars, so people that needed ROOM, not a SUV, bought a SUV.

Don't blame carmakers for being shy on bringing out musclecars.  All we have to look at is the new GTO to see what happened there.  Fortunately, the Challenger (and the Viper) for that matter, were brought out because of serious customer demand.

And it's going to hurt (everyone) when these companies start going through rounds of bankruptcy.  It's only a matter of time.  It's been avoided for a decade or more because Detriot accidentally stumbled into a cash-cow with the truck/SUV boom, not because they were healthy enough to avoid it otherwise.  Look at the airline industry.  As soon as one files, it starts the dominos and eventually the others will follow suit to stay competitive.

I wish Detriot would survive but I have my doubts about a lot of it.  We're trying to hold up too many American brands artificially instead of getting a smaller number of brands that are healthier.  The fact is that Asian brands took a HUGE chunk from the American market share in the last 35 years, and we've hardly lost any American brands (or even very many product lines within each brand for that matter) to balance it out.  The entire Asian market share here demands a little more loss in Detroit than just merging Plymouth & Oldsmobile into their corporate siblings.

If you don't think that Asian car manufacturers have been held up by their governments artificially in the past, I think you would be wrong. 

The biggest problem we have with domestic cars is the perception, STILL, that Japanese cars are better.  This is a myth that maybe was true in the late 70s and 80s.  American cars today are top quality, but the public has its perception, fueled in part by the auto journals who have ALWAYS been pro-euro and Japanese cars.  The bias is so extreme, to not notice it is like not catching that Newsweek or the NY Times are liberal.

If you don't believe me, ask your neighbor and friends if Honda or Buick builds better cars, then google quality reports to find the interesting answer.

It's all about perception, and that hurts the US car industry more than anything, and it's why it makes it a hot button issue for me.

[Mike DC]

If one auto company goes away, every single other auto company on the globe benefits from it to some degree.  Nevermind the ones in its home market. 



I agree about the perception issue. 

But unfortunately Detriot is fighting something much bigger than automobiles here.  Modern kids are raised from birth to turn to Japan for highest-tech products and to believe American stuff is made like crap.  Japanese Sonys & Nintendos in their hands, and Homer Simpson on their TV. 

Detroit will change that perception with time.  Spend a decade or two making cars that last longer than the other makes, and perceptions will shift.  But they should have started decades earlier. 



As for product diversity, I stand by my point.  Too many brands mean each one has to concentrate harder on the highest-profit item just to stay afloat.  Pretty soon there are 15 different truck models you can barely tell apart, and nobody has built a station wagon or a 2dr rwd muscle sedan that's any good in a generation. 

There is plenty of COLLECTIVE demand for a muscle sedan or a station wagon, but there isnt any one single company that wants to devote the resources away from their mainline stuff because they're not big enough.  Anything outside the main market is lower profit and more risk.  None of the companies want to try the wagon/musclecar because even the small project that it would be is still too large a chunk of their total product output to be a good risk.   

It's complicated but it's true.  It's not just some original theory that I dreamed up last week.  Everybody knows that fewer brands than the free market ideally wants will hurt the diversity, but it's also true when you start getting too many brands all competing for the same buyers.