This is another encouraging story about the US auto industry. Some significant changes have been made and it shows. I saw the full story on TV and the video is here as well as the transcript.
Quote
The Big Three's dramatic U-turn
(CBS News) Nearly given up for dead a few years ago, American carmakers are in the fast lane once more, as Lee Cowan reports in our Cover Story:
It was only two years ago that Detroit - and the Big Three U.S. automakers - were in a ditch so deep many thought they might never get back on the road. Both Chrysler and General Motors were bankrupt, and Ford was teetering on the edge.
But after hitting rock bottom back in 2009, U.S. auto sales are on the rebound - poised for a second straight year of profitability.
Which is why at this year's Detroit Auto Show, it wasn't just the headlights that were beaming. Ford CEO Alan Mulally was like a kid in a suped-up candy store.
"Look at the styling!" he beamed. "It's all integrated, very aerodynamic, you know great stance, and the inside matches the outside."
It's his new toy he's talking about: Ford's redesigned Fusion, which includes a plug-in hybrid version that may get the gasoline equivalent of 100 miles a gallon.
It's already winning awards, including Best in Show in Detroit this year.
As long as they can keep supporting three generations of retired workers plus their current work force they'll be ok - Or they could wind up in the same shape in a year. if taxpayers don't help again.
I wonder who will fall after the Postal service gets squared away? Their in the same boat GM was they just have easier access to bailout money.
In trhe same vain as my other 'surplus' comments, GM and Crystler's profits are on paper only, they owe the American People Billions in bailout money, so there is NO PROFIT to show until those are paid back. Making money does not mean it is yours.
In trhe same vain as my other 'surplus' comments, GM and Crystler's profits are on paper only, they owe the American People Billions in bailout money, so there is NO PROFIT to show until those are paid back. Making money does not mean it is yours.
The American tax payer through the government owns about 30% of the stock in GM that's true but is that doesn't mean that the company can't make a profit. We should damn well hope they do because it makes our investment worth more when the stock is sold over time. Using your acounting method ExxonMobil can't make a profit either! They haven't given back all the money people invested.
Investing is another thing all together. If I volentary invest money and loose it that is my bad. GM was not invested in, it was bailed out using money the government had no business using for that purpose.
More good news and GM stock currently
27.05 +2.11 +8.48%
Hear the "roar of our engines" yet?
Quote
General Motors unveils record profits for 2011
US carmaker General Motors made record profits in 2011 but unveiled huge losses in its European operations.
The firm made a profit of $7.6bn (£4.85bn) over the year, up 62% from 2010.
However, it lost $700m in Europe, which includes its UK Vauxhall plants in Ellesmere Port and Luton, and made a $100m loss in South America.
The firm, which faced bankruptcy two years ago, saw sales rise 7.6% last year to more than 9 million vehicles.
Much of its growth came from North America, where profits more than tripled to $7.19bn in 2011.
I hear the "roar" of pissed off americans without jobs when they realize they are being taxed to make sure union workers keep THEIR jobs...
Union workers are just as American as non-union workers and pay their taxes too! 750 went to new jobs last night at the Flint Michigan GM Plant and will be paying taxes on good jobs rather than drawing unemployeement or struggling at some subsistance job that barely feeds their families.
So why do Union workers get a bail out when Non Union workers don't could it be that Unions donate a lot of money to the democatic party? Naw I must be wrong
So why do Union workers get a bail out when Non Union workers don't could it be that Unions donate a lot of money to the democatic party? Naw I must be wrong
You think saving the US auto industry is just about saving union jobs? Every job at GM supports maybe 10 other jobs directly and a lot more indirectly. I worked most of my adult life in two non-union shops in Texas and without business from GM, Ford, and Chrysler there would have been a lot less work for non-union people in those companies. And I and the people I worked with making parts for new cars spent money raising children, buying houses, cars, etc.,etc. And the company I worked for bought new tooling from a local machine shop and new injection molding machines from companies in Ohio. One GM job kept five machines and operators busy at one point in our small company. NOPE, not just about union jobs!
I ran across a piece in the local paper's op/ed page today that I think is interesting given the Republican candidates refusal to see what is in front of their faces with a revived auto industry in the US. Are you an "Ideologue" or a "Pragmatist"? I think I identify mostly with the pragmatists. When I think something is not possible and somebody proves me wrong by concrete actions and results I have no problem changing my mind.
Quote
Republicans Must “Cowboy Up” on Saving U.S. Auto Industry
Of Margaret Thatcher's British administration, this compliment was paid: "The government has a heroic commitment to hard-nosed pragmatism" — by which each policy was judged not on its philosophical roots, but instead by whether or not the intended practical results were achieved by that policy. The difference between a pragmatist, one who is driven by results, and an ideologue, the proponent of an abstract, usually dogmatic ideology, is simple: The ideologue believes what is right works, while the pragmatist believes what works is right.
Fortunately, most Americans are pragmatists. Take this question asked in 2009 and again just recently by the respected pollsters at the Pew Research Center: "The government also gave loans to General Motors and Chrysler. ... Do you think that was mostly good or mostly bad for the economy?" Three years ago, by a decisive three-to-two margin, Americans answered Washington's loans to the car companies had been "mostly bad" (54 percent) rather than "mostly good" (37 percent).
But in the Pew survey, completed less than two weeks ago, the evidence of General Motors' comeback — once again the world's largest automaker, with record 2011 net income of $9.19 billion — and Chrysler's own fourth-quarter profit of $225 million in 2011 — the company's first year out of the red since 2005 — had totally reversed public opinion.
Now, a healthy majority (56 percent) judges that Washington's loans to Detroit have been "mostly good" for the economy, while just 38 percent says "mostly bad." Note that this represents a 35 percent turnaround in public opinion in support of the federal loans in just three years.
0
