Gm

[Wyatt earp]

The irony is off the scale. They'd rather have car companies spend a boatload (literally) of money on shipping -- plus pay Chinese import tariffs-- than let them make profits that grow the whole company, including here -- just for the sake of an internet message board political principle, stated out of its context.

Have you mother fucking liberals checked out Detroit lately? As if you EVER knew a goddamn thing!

Yea, it's a real hellhole.

Experience Detroit -- Riverfront Tour

guess mr clean is like a horse with blinders on.
Detroit Tops 2013 List Of America's Most Miserable Cities - Forbes

 

[Pogo]

Have you mother fucking liberals checked out Detroit lately? As if you EVER knew a goddamn thing!

Yea, it's a real hellhole.

Experience Detroit -- Riverfront Tour

guess mr clean is like a horse with blinders on.
Detroit Tops 2013 List Of America's Most Miserable Cities - Forbes

I believe the original question was 'how many have actually been to Detroit'. A slight difference from linking articles about it.

As I said I was there last week, including driving to the wrong neighborhood due to an errant GPS entry and thus seeing more than I intended. My impression was it's just not that different from any number of other cities (and I see a lot of cities). Certainly not the hellhole that the rhetoric that sells papers would lead us to believe. If it was, I doubt the traffic would have been as heavy as it was.

I've seen WAY scarier and more despondent places in New Jersey.
That's all entirely subjective of course. But at least it's real experience.

 

[BillyV]

So now the wingnuts hate the free market.

Tissue?

Dood. Cronyism is not The Free Market.

Get a grip.

So, the gov't should step in and tell them what to do?

You need to get a grip, princess. Or loosen your grip on that crack pipe.

Well, since the US Treasury owns over 500 million shares (36.4%) and is the largest shareholder by a significant margin, yes, I think the US government does have the right to "step in and tell them what to do", just like any other major shareholder.

And before we assume that "They'd rather have car companies spend a boatload (literally) of money on shipping" if the cars were made in the US, the true problem is that they are required to "pay Chinese import tariffs" of up to 22% of the vehicle price.

The United States assesses a tax of only 2.5 percent on imported cars, sport utility vehicles and minivans, while China imposes so many taxes on imported models that a Jeep Grand Cherokee that begins at $28,120 at dealerships in the United States costs $85,000 or more in China.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/business/global/china-response-mild-to-us-trade-complaint-on-cars.html?_r=0

So no, sorry, not a "shipping cost" problem (have you noticed Apple complaining about shipping costs from China to the US? Of course not). We need to reorganize our response to unfair trade practices or we're finished. Better to have a trade war now than wait until we have so little manufacturing left that we are unable to deal with the damage

 

[Pogo]

Dood. Cronyism is not The Free Market.

Get a grip.

So, the gov't should step in and tell them what to do?

You need to get a grip, princess. Or loosen your grip on that crack pipe.

Well, since the US Treasury owns over 500 million shares (36.4%) and is the largest shareholder by a significant margin, yes, I think the US government does have the right to "step in and tell them what to do", just like any other major shareholder.

And before we assume that "They'd rather have car companies spend a boatload (literally) of money on shipping" if the cars were made in the US, the true problem is that they are required to "pay Chinese import tariffs" of up to 22% of the vehicle price.

The United States assesses a tax of only 2.5 percent on imported cars, sport utility vehicles and minivans, while China imposes so many taxes on imported models that a Jeep Grand Cherokee that begins at $28,120 at dealerships in the United States costs $85,000 or more in China.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/business/global/china-response-mild-to-us-trade-complaint-on-cars.html?_r=0

So no, sorry, not a "shipping cost" problem (have you noticed Apple complaining about shipping costs from China to the US? Of course not). We need to reorganize our response to unfair trade practices or we're finished. Better to have a trade war now than wait until we have so little manufacturing left that we are unable to deal with the damage

It's both of those factors that make it impractical as a business model. See the Forbes article. That's why all of the car companies have been in China since way before 2008.

As far as shipping cost, I believe there's just a sliiiiiiiiiight difference in the weight and dimensions between an iPad and an Escalade. Just a guess though, I admit I didn't look up the respective curb weights.

 

[boedicca]

Well, since the US Treasury owns over 500 million shares (36.4%) and is the largest shareholder by a significant margin, yes, I think the US government does have the right to "step in and tell them what to do", just like any other major shareholder.

That's not how corporate governance works. Unless they have control of the board of directors, the government shares are just shares. Shareholders can vote out board members, or they can sell their shares if they don't like how the company is managed. They do not get to vote on operating decisions.

 

[BillyV]

Well, since the US Treasury owns over 500 million shares (36.4%) and is the largest shareholder by a significant margin, yes, I think the US government does have the right to "step in and tell them what to do", just like any other major shareholder.

That's not how corporate governance works. Unless they have control of the board of directors, the government shares are just shares. Shareholders can vote out board members, or they can sell their shares if they don't like how the company is managed. They do not get to vote on operating decisions.

Can vote out or vote in directors. From GM's corporate governance document:

Directors are elected at the annual meeting of stockholders for a one-year term, to serve until the next annual meeting. Between annual stockholder meetings, the Board may elect directors to serve until the next annual meeting.

Stockholders hold a vote for the directors; major stockholders have significantly greater control over who sits on the board, and also who leaves the board. So you wouldn't be electing directors who were compliant to your strategic goals for the company? Is that really what you are saying?

To ensure a fresh start for the company, the government chose a new chairman and several new directors for its board, which in turn picked two of its members to serve as successive chiefs of the company.

The government also set parameters for G.M.’s strategic direction — fewer brands and models, a leaner organization, and a sweeping overhaul of its plodding corporate culture.

And now the government is playing an integral role in the stock sale by deciding how many of its 304 million shares it will sell off and at what price.

“The government has not abdicated control, they have exercised it through the board of directors,” said M. P. Narayanan, a finance professor at the University of Michigan. “If you own 60 percent of the company, you set the direction and let your board carry it out.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/business/03federal.html

 

[Pogo]

FactCheck on "GM going to China"

>> Several readers have asked us about the claims stated in a viral video that criticizes General Motors’ expanding operations in China. The video has received more than half a million views on YouTube since it was posted May 4. The narrator, a man who gives his name as Vince Wade, asks: “Did we bail out GM so that it could become a Chinese company?”

It’s a fair question. The short answer is, “No.”

... The video is also misleading as to the cost of taxpayer support. It cites a figure of $80 billion, which actually covers the government’s peak disbursements for both GM and Chrysler, as the narrator mentions in passing. But the net cost of the entire bailout is currently estimated to end up being $19 billion (by the Congressional Budget Office) to $22 billion (by the U.S. Treasury).

Most of that $80 billion has been recovered through interest payments, loan repayments and sale of government-owned stock. And of course, some portion of that is attributable to bailing out Chrysler.

Taxpayers still own about 33 percent of GM stock, according to CBO (other calculations put the total closer to 32 percent). Either way, the final cost of the bailout depends largely on whether the price of GM stock rises or falls between now and when the government decides to sell its shares.

So the better GM does, the less U.S. taxpayers will be hurt. And a key part of GM&#8217;s global business strategy is selling and manufacturing cars in China. As then-GM CEO Rick Wagoner said in 2008: &#8220;The automaker that gets China right will be the future leader of the industry.&#8221; <<

Such are the perils of running off with a half-baked political point based on a YouTube video.

To be fair, this was not what the OP here based the thread on.
It gave no basis at all.

 

[BillyV]

So, the gov't should step in and tell them what to do?

You need to get a grip, princess. Or loosen your grip on that crack pipe.

Well, since the US Treasury owns over 500 million shares (36.4%) and is the largest shareholder by a significant margin, yes, I think the US government does have the right to "step in and tell them what to do", just like any other major shareholder.

And before we assume that "They'd rather have car companies spend a boatload (literally) of money on shipping" if the cars were made in the US, the true problem is that they are required to "pay Chinese import tariffs" of up to 22% of the vehicle price.

The United States assesses a tax of only 2.5 percent on imported cars, sport utility vehicles and minivans, while China imposes so many taxes on imported models that a Jeep Grand Cherokee that begins at $28,120 at dealerships in the United States costs $85,000 or more in China.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/business/global/china-response-mild-to-us-trade-complaint-on-cars.html?_r=0

So no, sorry, not a "shipping cost" problem (have you noticed Apple complaining about shipping costs from China to the US? Of course not). We need to reorganize our response to unfair trade practices or we're finished. Better to have a trade war now than wait until we have so little manufacturing left that we are unable to deal with the damage

It's both of those factors that make it impractical as a business model. See the Forbes article. That's why all of the car companies have been in China since way before 2008.

As far as shipping cost, I believe there's just a sliiiiiiiiiight difference in the weight and dimensions between an iPad and an Escalade. Just a guess though, I admit I didn't look up the respective curb weights.

I'm not sure which Forbes article you're referring to. And yes, there is a difference in the weight and dimensions; however, there is also a big difference in the selling price. The cost to ship a car to Asia would be about $800-$1,000 per vehicle, but that Cadillac will sell for $100,000 or more in China; a 1-2% cost. Dramatically less than the import tariffs.

You know, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota ship millions and millions of vehicles to the US and other Western countries every year; they all seem to be profitable. No, the major impetus for locating factories in the local market are to avoid punitive tariffs and to exert influence on the local government; more stable that way. I'm not against GM building cars in China, although I believe the potential for technology transfer is great and could bring lasting damage to the US as a result of the Chinese insistence of joint venture arrangements for manufacturing companies (gee, you think those are related?). And since we provided GM with the capital it needed to survive, it should be uppermost in their minds to provide value to US interests.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Sure they can, Cadillacs made in AMerica by AMERICANS.. That's why I buy Toyota, they're made in America.

That's just what the Chinese are doing

Buying Cadillacs built in China

Yup after all their is like a billion of them doubt if they are shipping the cars here.

Not cars (yet), but they DID ship engines here!

 

[Jarlaxle]

The irony is off the scale. They'd rather have car companies spend a boatload (literally) of money on shipping -- plus pay Chinese import tariffs-- than let them make profits that grow the whole company, including here -- just for the sake of an internet message board political principle, stated out of its context.

Have you mother fucking liberals checked out Detroit lately? As if you EVER knew a goddamn thing!

Yea, it's a real hellhole.

Experience Detroit -- Riverfront Tour

Been there a few times lately...and yeah, Detroit is pretty much a sewer. Just rent it out by the acre for target practice.

 

[Pogo]

Well, since the US Treasury owns over 500 million shares (36.4%) and is the largest shareholder by a significant margin, yes, I think the US government does have the right to "step in and tell them what to do", just like any other major shareholder.

And before we assume that "They'd rather have car companies spend a boatload (literally) of money on shipping" if the cars were made in the US, the true problem is that they are required to "pay Chinese import tariffs" of up to 22% of the vehicle price.



So no, sorry, not a "shipping cost" problem (have you noticed Apple complaining about shipping costs from China to the US? Of course not). We need to reorganize our response to unfair trade practices or we're finished. Better to have a trade war now than wait until we have so little manufacturing left that we are unable to deal with the damage

It's both of those factors that make it impractical as a business model. See the Forbes article. That's why all of the car companies have been in China since way before 2008.

As far as shipping cost, I believe there's just a sliiiiiiiiiight difference in the weight and dimensions between an iPad and an Escalade. Just a guess though, I admit I didn't look up the respective curb weights.

I'm not sure which Forbes article you're referring to. And yes, there is a difference in the weight and dimensions; however, there is also a big difference in the selling price. The cost to ship a car to Asia would be about $800-$1,000 per vehicle, but that Cadillac will sell for $100,000 or more in China; a 1-2% cost. Dramatically less than the import tariffs.

You know, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota ship millions and millions of vehicles to the US and other Western countries every year; they all seem to be profitable. No, the major impetus for locating factories in the local market are to avoid punitive tariffs and to exert influence on the local government; more stable that way. I'm not against GM building cars in China, although I believe the potential for technology transfer is great and could bring lasting damage to the US as a result of the Chinese insistence of joint venture arrangements for manufacturing companies (gee, you think those are related?). And since we provided GM with the capital it needed to survive, it should be uppermost in their minds to provide value to US interests.

The Forbes article is the one I linked back in post 19. Used for an overview here, I had that story handy from last year's Romney SNAFU where he tried to make the same point about Chrysler. Unfortunately for both Romney and the OP here, all the car companies were building and/or partnering in China long before the 2008 collapse and the bailouts. As my last post notes, they sell more vehicles there than they do here. And that has a lot to do with the profitability of any of these companies, so right there is the connection to "value to US interests".

So this "car building in China" idea is nothing new, as the OP and her fellow wackadoodles would imply. Matter of fact Jeep started building in China back in 1984, when it was still AMC -- the company headed by Romney's dad George. Which really makes the Romney mendacity discount rate soar.

Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai (and other foreign-based manufacturers) ALL have factories in the US for the US market. It's the same thing. Imports do exist, but I have serious doubts about your "millions and millions" number. Nor do I see a link. But again, this idea that a Chevy is always made in Detroit, a Toyota is always shipped from Japan, a Volkswagen by definition comes from Germany, is just not the way the business works. Hasn't worked that way for decades.

 

[boedicca]

Well, since the US Treasury owns over 500 million shares (36.4%) and is the largest shareholder by a significant margin, yes, I think the US government does have the right to "step in and tell them what to do", just like any other major shareholder.

That's not how corporate governance works. Unless they have control of the board of directors, the government shares are just shares. Shareholders can vote out board members, or they can sell their shares if they don't like how the company is managed. They do not get to vote on operating decisions.

Can vote out or vote in directors. From GM's corporate governance document:

Directors are elected at the annual meeting of stockholders for a one-year term, to serve until the next annual meeting. Between annual stockholder meetings, the Board may elect directors to serve until the next annual meeting.

Stockholders hold a vote for the directors; major stockholders have significantly greater control over who sits on the board, and also who leaves the board. So you wouldn't be electing directors who were compliant to your strategic goals for the company? Is that really what you are saying?

To ensure a fresh start for the company, the government chose a new chairman and several new directors for its board, which in turn picked two of its members to serve as successive chiefs of the company.

The government also set parameters for G.M.’s strategic direction — fewer brands and models, a leaner organization, and a sweeping overhaul of its plodding corporate culture.

And now the government is playing an integral role in the stock sale by deciding how many of its 304 million shares it will sell off and at what price.

“The government has not abdicated control, they have exercised it through the board of directors,” said M. P. Narayanan, a finance professor at the University of Michigan. “If you own 60 percent of the company, you set the direction and let your board carry it out.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/business/03federal.html

Please learn to read. I said that shareholders vote for directors, so quoting back sources that confirm exactly what I said doesn't refute my post. The government owns a minority stake in the company - so what you are suggesting is that they should trump the will of all the other shareholders. It's hardly surprising that you think that, so I'll give you 10 Points For Consistency in being a thugocracy hack.

 

[BillyV]

It's both of those factors that make it impractical as a business model. See the Forbes article. That's why all of the car companies have been in China since way before 2008.

As far as shipping cost, I believe there's just a sliiiiiiiiiight difference in the weight and dimensions between an iPad and an Escalade. Just a guess though, I admit I didn't look up the respective curb weights.

I'm not sure which Forbes article you're referring to. And yes, there is a difference in the weight and dimensions; however, there is also a big difference in the selling price. The cost to ship a car to Asia would be about $800-$1,000 per vehicle, but that Cadillac will sell for $100,000 or more in China; a 1-2% cost. Dramatically less than the import tariffs.

You know, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota ship millions and millions of vehicles to the US and other Western countries every year; they all seem to be profitable. No, the major impetus for locating factories in the local market are to avoid punitive tariffs and to exert influence on the local government; more stable that way. I'm not against GM building cars in China, although I believe the potential for technology transfer is great and could bring lasting damage to the US as a result of the Chinese insistence of joint venture arrangements for manufacturing companies (gee, you think those are related?). And since we provided GM with the capital it needed to survive, it should be uppermost in their minds to provide value to US interests.

The Forbes article is the one I linked back in post 19. Used for an overview here, I had that story handy from last year's Romney SNAFU where he tried to make the same point about Chrysler. Unfortunately for both Romney and the OP here, all the car companies were building and/or partnering in China long before the 2008 collapse and the bailouts. As my last post notes, they sell more vehicles there than they do here. And that has a lot to do with the profitability of any of these companies, so right there is the connection to "value to US interests".

So this "car building in China" idea is nothing new, as the OP and her fellow wackadoodles would imply. Matter of fact Jeep started building in China back in 1984, when it was still AMC -- the company headed by Romney's dad George. Which really makes the Romney mendacity discount rate soar.

Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai (and other foreign-based manufacturers) ALL have factories in the US for the US market. It's the same thing. Imports do exist, but I have serious doubts about your "millions and millions" number. Nor do I see a link. But again, this idea that a Chevy is always made in Detroit, a Toyota is always shipped from Japan, a Volkswagen by definition comes from Germany, is just not the way the business works. Hasn't worked that way for decades.

I never said there weren't plants before now nor that manufacturing in China wasn't profitable (any more than I said that Japanese and Korean plants building vehicles in the US weren't profitable). I simply said that the main financial reason for building plants in China was not to save the relatively minor cost of shipping, but to avoid punitive tariffs. As for the Japanese export market, according to JAMA (Japanese Auto Manufacturers Association), the Japanese exported 4.8 million vehicles in 2012; 1.9 million to North America but all to places that required them to ship by ocean freight. It seems to be working for them; their biggest problem is the strength of the yen.

December 2012 and the First Half of Calendar Year 2012 Automobile & Motorcycle Statistics and Summary

 

[percysunshine]

All that money the unions paid to get Obama elected, and this is the thanks they get.

 

[BillyV]

That's not how corporate governance works. Unless they have control of the board of directors, the government shares are just shares. Shareholders can vote out board members, or they can sell their shares if they don't like how the company is managed. They do not get to vote on operating decisions.

Can vote out or vote in directors. From GM's corporate governance document:



Stockholders hold a vote for the directors; major stockholders have significantly greater control over who sits on the board, and also who leaves the board. So you wouldn't be electing directors who were compliant to your strategic goals for the company? Is that really what you are saying?

To ensure a fresh start for the company, the government chose a new chairman and several new directors for its board, which in turn picked two of its members to serve as successive chiefs of the company.

The government also set parameters for G.M.’s strategic direction — fewer brands and models, a leaner organization, and a sweeping overhaul of its plodding corporate culture.

And now the government is playing an integral role in the stock sale by deciding how many of its 304 million shares it will sell off and at what price.

“The government has not abdicated control, they have exercised it through the board of directors,” said M. P. Narayanan, a finance professor at the University of Michigan. “If you own 60 percent of the company, you set the direction and let your board carry it out.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/business/03federal.html

Please learn to read. I said that shareholders vote for directors, so quoting back sources that confirm exactly what I said doesn't refute my post. The government owns a minority stake in the company - so what you are suggesting is that they should trump the will of all the other shareholders. It's hardly surprising that you think that, so I'll give you 10 Points For Consistency in being a thugocracy hack.

Your post implies that they have no control over the direction of the company; that is simply incorrect. Stockholders in public companies with almost 40% ownership of shares have significant if not de facto control over the company unless their policies are opposed by almost all of the other shareholders; a rare occurrence. They only need another 10% of the owners to be in agreement with them, and I suspect they could convince their union buddies to go along with most that they might be interested in. They are hardly impotent as you suggest, that all they can do is "sell their shares." Give me a break.

By the way, the sources quoted indicated the short duration of a director's tenure, which would prevent them from being insulated from the shareholders' reaction even in the short to medium term, and a quote that indicated that they had, indeed, exercised control over the board, in direct refutation of your position.

Maybe you can explain what a "thugocracy hack" is; I might be flattered. I am hardly on the side of the government; simply reporting that they have significant influence in the strategic decisions made by the board and, therefore, the company.

 

[Dot Com]

This company has significant overseas sales Willow. Where'd you go?!!!

 

[Harry Dresden]

So, the gov't should step in and tell them what to do?

You need to get a grip, princess. Or loosen your grip on that crack pipe.

You're the one who is high on Unicorn Crap.

I just want GM to pay back taxpayers. Also, the exemption from tax laws which allowed them to keep NOLs (not allowed in bankruptcy) to avoid paying income taxes should be taken away. GM got a big government cronyist deal. I don't care what they do with their business as long as I am not paying for it.

I'd never buy one of their crappy cars, so they are completely irrelevant to me except for the taxpayer bailouts.

While blanket statements are a particular favourite of mine, my own GM car is twenty years old, has 412,000 miles and still runs like a champ. Just sayin'.

yep.....i have been driving GM since 88 and have never had a problem and only one recall for something fairly minor....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Didn't know the Chinese had a thing for Cadirracs.

i saw a news piece about a year ago about cars in China....this thing claimed the young Chinese want BIG cars and Trucks....and the Chinese they talked to were not to concerned about Pollution....they just want BIG powerful Vehicles like the Americans.....

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well, since the US Treasury owns over 500 million shares (36.4%) and is the largest shareholder by a significant margin, yes, I think the US government does have the right to "step in and tell them what to do", just like any other major shareholder.

And before we assume that "They'd rather have car companies spend a boatload (literally) of money on shipping" if the cars were made in the US, the true problem is that they are required to "pay Chinese import tariffs" of up to 22% of the vehicle price.



So no, sorry, not a "shipping cost" problem (have you noticed Apple complaining about shipping costs from China to the US? Of course not). We need to reorganize our response to unfair trade practices or we're finished. Better to have a trade war now than wait until we have so little manufacturing left that we are unable to deal with the damage

It's both of those factors that make it impractical as a business model. See the Forbes article. That's why all of the car companies have been in China since way before 2008.

As far as shipping cost, I believe there's just a sliiiiiiiiiight difference in the weight and dimensions between an iPad and an Escalade. Just a guess though, I admit I didn't look up the respective curb weights.

I'm not sure which Forbes article you're referring to. And yes, there is a difference in the weight and dimensions; however, there is also a big difference in the selling price. The cost to ship a car to Asia would be about $800-$1,000 per vehicle, but that Cadillac will sell for $100,000 or more in China; a 1-2% cost. Dramatically less than the import tariffs.

You know, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota ship millions and millions of vehicles to the US and other Western countries every year; they all seem to be profitable. No, the major impetus for locating factories in the local market are to avoid punitive tariffs and to exert influence on the local government; more stable that way. I'm not against GM building cars in China, although I believe the potential for technology transfer is great and could bring lasting damage to the US as a result of the Chinese insistence of joint venture arrangements for manufacturing companies (gee, you think those are related?). And since we provided GM with the capital it needed to survive, it should be uppermost in their minds to provide value to US interests.

thanks pal for a great post!

 

[Wyatt earp]

You're the one who is high on Unicorn Crap.

I just want GM to pay back taxpayers. Also, the exemption from tax laws which allowed them to keep NOLs (not allowed in bankruptcy) to avoid paying income taxes should be taken away. GM got a big government cronyist deal. I don't care what they do with their business as long as I am not paying for it.

I'd never buy one of their crappy cars, so they are completely irrelevant to me except for the taxpayer bailouts.

While blanket statements are a particular favourite of mine, my own GM car is twenty years old, has 412,000 miles and still runs like a champ. Just sayin'.

yep.....i have been driving GM since 88 and have never had a problem and only one recall for something fairly minor....

you should have bought a colbolt. nice looking car but a big piece of shit. looking at mine right now, from my chevy blazer.... the electronics in that car sucks big time.