View Full Version : Wanna Save GM?


WAHUSKER
11-14-2008, 07:50 AM
We've all heard the news, Detroit is in trouble. And the gov is thinking about giving the Big 3 $25B to keep them in business. Whether you agree or disagree with that idea, I think EVERY person on this board will agree that GM going out of business is a BAD thing!

So I was thinking....danger Will Robinson....what if there was a grass roots movement to save GM? What could we do if everyone on LS1tech got together & bought GM stock? At $3 a share, we could buy a shit-load of stock if we pooled our $.

There would have to be rules like at least $50 or $100, leave it there for a year, etc. But it seems like this could happen if the mods started spreading the word. If it works, the Ford & Mopar forums could do the same thing. And we would all be doing something to preserve our hobby and help our country & the economy. :usa:

And we even have our very own investment guy that could manage the fund. Whatcha think Boyce? I'm down for the 1st $500....:nod:

TwoFast4Lv
11-14-2008, 08:50 AM
It could not hurt. Times are tough I could put up a few hundred on my end and more later.

davidbakergli
11-14-2008, 08:55 AM
I heard on the radio that they decided not to give the money to GM, Ford, etc.. and all that Ford would declair bankruptcy early next year if they didnt get the money. BOO for that.

TwoFast4Lv
11-14-2008, 08:57 AM
Well not to try and get to deep in it but they are not sure they would survive Bankruptcy protection. One of the Perk's of going BR is special loans for new working capital...but there are no lones to be had right now so no new money

Ackattack1
11-14-2008, 10:16 AM
I bought some GM shares about 2 months ago at the "low" price of $10.39/share. My investment is doing real well. I'm planning on keeping it long term, so I'm not worried about it right now and I was thinking of buying some more, but I might need that money for a paint job.

WAHUSKER
11-14-2008, 12:14 PM
I think we ALL need our $ for something else right now (strike funds, food, gas, etc) but can there be anything more important to our country than the Big 3 staying in business? I don't think so considering ALL the companies that would be affected! All the LS1tech sponsors, all the dealers, all the repair shops, all the parts stores, etc etc etc. Think of the millions of jobs that would be lost.....

And unlike paying higher taxes for a bailout, this would be an investment for US!

ssdriver27
11-14-2008, 12:41 PM
good thinking. the hard part would be to get everybody to follow through. hopefully the gas prices continue to fall and help us all recover. cause when gas prices rise everything rises, cause of delivery, shipping, service industry, products, everything is affected. people need to keep spending money or we are in for some serious trouble. I am certain its going to get worse before it gets better and that is in part the fault of people not spending out of fear rather then for real reason (if that makes sence). I hear all to often "oh Im cutting back because of the economy" but unless your job situation changed or you are directly affected by the housing issue there is no real reason to stop spending.

~Guy

DrEvyl
11-14-2008, 01:09 PM
We've all heard the news, Detroit is in trouble. And the gov is thinking about giving the Big 3 $25B to keep them in business. Whether you agree or disagree with that idea, I think EVERY person on this board will agree that GM going out of business is a BAD thing!

I agree it would be a bad thing, but I guess it's interesting to see people who were bagging on the president for being "socialist" wanting another corporate handout from the government.... $700 Billion here, another god knows how many billion there, but it's not socialist to do that for some reason. I guess it's when you're giving it to poor people instead of rich people that it becomes socalist. Hmmm.

In my lifetime alone I can think of several instances where they had to be bailed out - how many times are we going to bail out something that clearly doesn't work? They're still trying to work on a business model from the 1960's, and I'd say if they're going to be bailed out, they really need to be forced to come up with a different game plan, and if they can't fix it they need to fail. They can't just keep trying to hold on until everyone wants to buy 15 mpg SUVs again.

I have been comtemplating buying some stock today because it's a relatively low risk and can't really be much of a loss if they tank. But man, they really need to change the way they do business if we're going to be bailing them out ever 5-10 years.

TwoFast4Lv
11-14-2008, 01:22 PM
Zeke you are clearly thinking of Chrysler who has been up and down and over for many decades. Some of GM's biggest issues are recovering from the horrible managment of the 90s. Take the F-body. no it was no very profitable BUT it brought people in the door who later bought some thing else. How many families go in to even look at a Corvette?

Over all GM has the most efficent drive trains out there(of the big three) and some of the best future vehicles coming...if they ever get here..

GM did start making the right changes just to late in the game I agree.

Mr.MartyStone
11-14-2008, 01:29 PM
You have to remember that big businesses failing don't cripple the economy. They will cause temporary heartache, but smaller companies come in and overtake driving their shares up. There is never a need for a bailout, it's not part of a capitalistic economy. What needs to happen is let gm fail and work itself out. The same thing that should have happened with AIG, AMEX, and every other shady institution.

GT-347
11-14-2008, 04:13 PM
We've all heard the news, Detroit is in trouble. And the gov is thinking about giving the Big 3 $25B to keep them in business. Whether you agree or disagree with that idea, I think EVERY person on this board will agree that GM going out of business is a BAD thing!

So I was thinking....danger Will Robinson....what if there was a grass roots movement to save GM? What could we do if everyone on LS1tech got together & bought GM stock? At $3 a share, we could buy a shit-load of stock if we pooled our $.



Mark, what GM, Ford & Chrysler needs is for people to buy their cars, not stock. IMO people buying imports need their dang ear flicked!!! Talk about tranfering wealth out of this nation, even if the import is built in the USA, the profit goes overseas.:mad:

smokinponcho73
11-14-2008, 04:14 PM
I think I would be down for throwing down like $100 on stocks. Seriously what is there to loose, I've spent more on booze for a weekend before and sure that was fun but didn't do anything for the economy except help the liquor store owner.

5SiX1
11-14-2008, 05:09 PM
Lets bailout the brokers dealing in bad paper but not the motor companies who have a huge historical symbolism for our country. I will be investing in all three, what good is owning an Fbody if there are no new Mopars or Fords to beat up on :(

Ryan'sSS
11-14-2008, 07:46 PM
Mark, what GM, Ford & Chrysler needs is for people to buy their cars, not stock. IMO people buying imports need their dang ear flicked!!! Talk about tranfering wealth out of this nation, even if the import is built in the USA, the profit goes overseas.:mad:

Keep americans employed and send money out of the country or keep the money in country and keep foreigners employed. Sounds like a lose lose to me.
IMO, the big three made their bed when they started shipping jobs overseas as fast as they could. Now they are feeling the results of their actions and it's hard to have any sympathy for them.

TwoFast4Lv
11-15-2008, 01:50 AM
Keep americans employed and send money out of the country or keep the money in country and keep foreigners employed. Sounds like a lose lose to me.
IMO, the big three made their bed when they started shipping jobs overseas as fast as they could. Now they are feeling the results of their actions and it's hard to have any sympathy for them.

You know part of that is the rules we have to build by and the wages they have to pay ;) I am not saying unions are bad but they have taken there toll on the big three

My1st Truck
11-15-2008, 01:56 AM
Keep americans employed and send money out of the country or keep the money in country and keep foreigners employed. Sounds like a lose lose to me.
IMO, the big three made their bed when they started shipping jobs overseas as fast as they could. Now they are feeling the results of their actions and it's hard to have any sympathy for them.

Ryan you are correct to an extent, Remeber GM employees almost as many folks in the states then all the IMPORT guys COMBINEDED

The Manalishi
11-15-2008, 02:19 AM
One of the two is going to be gone. GM or the unions. It won't be long until other companies do the same thing. You can only dictate how much you are paid, what benefits, and how many hours you work for so long and then the guy providing your job figures out that he can't afford you but he can still get employees if he gets rid of you.

Ryan'sSS
11-15-2008, 02:44 AM
You know part of that is the rules we have to build by and the wages they have to pay ;) I am not saying unions are bad but they have taken there toll on the big three

Yes they are a big reason why jobs are being moved out. The overal cost to do business in the US is out of control.

z28berryhill
11-15-2008, 02:55 AM
i already bought 100 dollars worth of stocks...if i lose 100 dollars o well if gm does well all of a sudden i got big bucks

quikrnmost
11-15-2008, 03:49 AM
Unions and Pension plans are only part of why the big 3 are buried. What a novel idea, require X amount of pay regardless how well someone works. You should get payed what you're worth. Pay should be negotiated. But failure to operate efficiently is a big part of the problem. It's been a self-fullfilling prophecy. They beat each other up for the domestic market hurting profits and yet made little effort to produce efficient cars as the imports continued to boom. Sales continually got worse for all 3, which in turn made them all lower prices to compete with each other, which made resell values ridiculous which is a HUGE reason people buy imports which made the problem worse.

My opinion on what is going to happen is there is going to be a merge with atleast two of the big three and you'll end up with the more profitable lines and the more appealing cars/trucks to compete with the imports. This may be part of a bailout plan or might happen before it's necessary. I like the idea of an "american motors" personally. I wish they would put me in charge to turn it around.

This is what should/would happen with a successful merge/restructure....

1) Remember this is a "US" as in Americans against them concept. It's not about ford vs. chevy vs. dodge anymore.

2) Quit beating each other up for the same sales in each market(ex. mustang vs. camaro). Keep the profitable lines and most popular cars. If chevy has a better gas truck (which we know they do then keep it) Ford probably has a better diesel, keep that and scrap the chevy diesel. There are probably a few that will compete head to head that you could keep like the mustang and camaro, but the other rwd V8 cars like the pontiac G8, pontiac GTO, CTS-V etc. Guys like us don't really care if we have 5 options for a muscle car, give us 2 that have lots of power and we'll make a choice.

3) Cut the available vehicles and options WAY down. 2 cars maybe in each class with fewer options to keep it simple. GM has pontiac, buick, chevy, cadillac etc.... All these cars somewhat compete for the same market (domestic) within the same company. Low - med - high (ex. geo, chevy, cadillac or whatever names you want to make it) Honda/Toyota don't make their own vehicles compete against each other... they all target different markets. Toyota being the lower end, Lexus being the higher etc. They have us outsmarted.

4) A merger would pool resources for R&D. It would be nice if money wasn't spent twice on figuring out the same things. If you took what GM & Ford engineers and executives know, they could easily build more efficient cars, with less overhead, making more $.

5) Take pride out of the equation and shoot for long-term success. Who cares if the "pontiac" name survives or the "gto" etc. Who cares if GM takes over ford or vice versa. At this point it's like the blind leading the blind anyway. It's like car manufacturer 1A and 1B, similar products, same bad situation. Time to team up and bail each other out.

6) Why was the geo metro swept under the carpet? Other than quality, that's one car efficiency wise that competed with the imports.

99LSS1
11-15-2008, 06:04 PM
One of the two is going to be gone. GM or the unions. It won't be long until other companies do the same thing. You can only dictate how much you are paid, what benefits, and how many hours you work for so long and then the guy providing your job figures out that he can't afford you but he can still get employees if he gets rid of you.

First of all, Unions do not Dictate what a Company pays for labor or Benefits!! Everything is Negotiated between the Company and the Union!!! If the Company is not happy with the current pay and Benifit package, Then, when a contract expires they need to negotiate a better Contract. By no means am I saying that UAW are underpaid, But they are paid on the basis of a contract that was negotiated between the Company and the Union. This being said, If your employer came to you and asked you to take a 20% pay cut and concessions on your benifit package how would you react?? Lets make sure that the Company shares some of the blame, Not just the Rank and File.

Ryan'sSS
11-15-2008, 07:40 PM
First of all, Unions do not Dictate what a Company pays for labor or Benefits!! Everything is Negotiated between the Company and the Union!!! If the Company is not happy with the current pay and Benifit package, Then, when a contract expires they need to negotiate a better Contract. By no means am I saying that UAW are underpaid, But they are paid on the basis of a contract that was negotiated between the Company and the Union. This being said, If your employer came to you and asked you to take a 20% pay cut and concessions on your benifit package how would you react?? Lets make sure that the Company shares some of the blame, Not just the Rank and File.


Funny you mention that. My brother is a truck driver represented by the Teamsters and he just had to take a 27% pay cut and reduced medical insurance. His company said take it or leave it. He lives in Michigan and had no choice but to take it.

As for the UAW, the workers want what any other person would want for their own job. The best pay and bennefits possible. Unfortanetly most unions are resembling politics more than ever. A select few are making money hand over fist while pulling the wool over the eyes of the actual workers.

wws699
11-15-2008, 08:27 PM
One of the two is going to be gone. GM or the unions. It won't be long until other companies do the same thing. You can only dictate how much you are paid, what benefits, and how many hours you work for so long and then the guy providing your job figures out that he can't afford you but he can still get employees if he gets rid of you.



Unions arn't going away, and if it wern't for the unions the business that we work for would be paying us as little as possible while filling their pockets full.

So lets break this down, the UNION is the people, the people are the middle class, so you mean to tell me that its the middle classes fault that the big 3 are failing, GIVE ME A FRIGGIN BREAK!:eyes:
And like someone else already said the union doesn't dictate the wages or pensions. Its a contract that is voted on between the union and the employer.. And I guarantee you that the Big 3's top guys are cutting a Fat hog.

The Manalishi
11-16-2008, 12:04 AM
First of all, Unions do not Dictate what a Company pays for labor or Benefits!! Everything is Negotiated between the Company and the Union!!! If the Company is not happy with the current pay and Benifit package, Then, when a contract expires they need to negotiate a better Contract. By no means am I saying that UAW are underpaid, But they are paid on the basis of a contract that was negotiated between the Company and the Union. This being said, If your employer came to you and asked you to take a 20% pay cut and concessions on your benifit package how would you react?? Lets make sure that the Company shares some of the blame, Not just the Rank and File.

Unions arn't going away, and if it wern't for the unions the business that we work for would be paying us as little as possible while filling their pockets full.

So lets break this down, the UNION is the people, the people are the middle class, so you mean to tell me that its the middle classes fault that the big 3 are failing, GIVE ME A FRIGGIN BREAK!:eyes:
And like someone else already said the union doesn't dictate the wages or pensions. Its a contract that is voted on between the union and the employer.. And I guarantee you that the Big 3's top guys are cutting a Fat hog.

I guess I hit a nerve. Unions were formed for a good reason they have since spiraled out of control. We'll see where unions take us I guess.

NWDragRacer
11-16-2008, 12:35 AM
Unions arn't going away, and if it wern't for the unions the business that we work for would be paying us as little as possible while filling their pockets full.

So lets break this down, the UNION is the people, the people are the middle class, so you mean to tell me that its the middle classes fault that the big 3 are failing, GIVE ME A FRIGGIN BREAK!:eyes:
And like someone else already said the union doesn't dictate the wages or pensions. Its a contract that is voted on between the union and the employer.. And I guarantee you that the Big 3's top guys are cutting a Fat hog.

:soapbox:

I don't work for a union - I never have. My company IS paying me as little as possible... to keep me from working for someone else! If I think I can make things better for myself or my family, I will.

The point is that I am paid because I make the company profitable. When that is no longer the case or I feel that profit is not being shared with me, I will be gone.

When people join together in unions (hense the term - union), they cede their individual rights to the group. Those who contribute the most cannot be rewarded and those who contribute the least cannot be let go. What you end up with is, at best, a mediocre workforce more concerned with its own self-interest than the profitability of the business.

If union contracts were structured to pay for performance and they incented their members to be more productive, then we wouldn't be having this conversation - would we?

!:soapbox:

99LSS1
11-16-2008, 10:04 AM
I guess I hit a nerve. Unions were formed for a good reason they have since spiraled out of control. We'll see where unions take us I guess.

I would certainly NOT disagree with this statement. I just wanted to make the point that Unions are not ALL the problem. It is just amazing to me that the Unions and workers get so much of the blame when a Company has financial problems. It certainly couldn't be that all the upper management make salaries in the 6 figures and yearly take bonuses in the 7 figures as well as when they fuck up a company and get fired, they still get their golden parachutes of millions of dollars!!! The good times as well as the bad times need to be shared equally.

99LSS1
11-16-2008, 10:16 AM
:soapbox:

I don't work for a union - I never have. My company IS paying me as little as possible... to keep me from working for someone else! If I think I can make things better for myself or my family, I will.

The point is that I am paid because I make the company profitable. When that is no longer the case or I feel that profit is not being shared with me, I will be gone.

When people join together in unions (hense the term - union), they cede their individual rights to the group. Those who contribute the most cannot be rewarded and those who contribute the least cannot be let go. What you end up with is, at best, a mediocre workforce more concerned with its own self-interest than the profitability of the business.

If union contracts were structured to pay for performance and they incented their members to be more productive, then we wouldn't be having this conversation - would we?

!:soapbox:

You make some good points Don.:nod: The better members definately get the short end of the stick in this situation.:bang: It does seem that you are saying the same thing in both your comments. SELF INTEREST seems to be the common theme.:judge: I think we all want our respective companies to do well.... This would seem to insure job security, Which for me would be considered self interest.:corn:

WAHUSKER
11-16-2008, 11:22 AM
I don't like unions, never have, never will! Like Don said, they don't reward performance. They used to be necessary in this country....not sure what purpose they serve aymore. And they do share in this problem.

But, they are not the root cause. Managment (or better MIS-managment) is the number 1 problem. The top guys are only worried about filling their pockets. At ANY cost! They don't care what happens to a company 10 years from now, they will be gone. While most of the workers will still be there.

CEOs lay people off, out source, whatever it takes to turn a short-term profit so they get their mega million $ bonus & then slither off to another company.

The other problem now is the oil companies & their inflated prices. Blame the Arabs or the guys in Texas, they all screwed us. But the Big 3 DID make changes & started making economy cars. But they also continued to make the cars WE buy!

Anyway, I still think this is a good idea. Bail outs are socialism, people buying cars or stock is capitalism. To quote Warren Buffet, buy stock in companies that make products you like & use....