Political correctness

[rn4]

The governement bailout in the manner it was done, in the long run probably hurt Ford more than anyone; and this is a Ford Board, go figure.

 

If the bankruptcy of GM/Chrysler was done as it should have been even with a partial bailout, GM and Chrysler would have been much smaller, leaving Ford as the largest American auto company left, with a dealer network that would have kept them in the catbird seat for many, many, years.

 

The way it was all handled, GM/Chrysler now has a leg up on Ford because they eliminated their debt without having to shrink much due to the way the bondholders were treated.....which the likes of have never been seen before I might add.

 

While everything for Ford appears very rosy now, (and very good for them) unless they can manage to shed their debt quickly, they are going to be behind the eight ball down the road. If anyone can do this, Alan Mullhally can, and even though some of you guys view him as an empty suit, his leadership has gotten you to a place where this company can save itself. I would kiss the ground he walks on if you view your job favorably and want to keep it. No other CEO in recent memory has been able to get Ford to turn these kind of profits even in good times, and this man has done it when car sales are far less then the industry as a whole ever expected.

 

The race is now on to see if Ford can keep pace shedding its bond paper with GM/Chryslers shedding of government loans. If they can't keep reasonably close, I fear the future is not as bright as some of you think!

 

I never, ever said anything bad about someone who worked at Ford, but purchased a new something else. Never agreed with them doing it, but it was still their money. But now, every sale, every partial point in marketshare gets them closer to the nirvana spot where their bonds are paid. You/we are all in this together, and this year I am buying a new car, and it will be a FORD! I hope you can convince your fello workers that at least temporarily, this is not only the smart thing.....but the only logical thing to do when they make a purchase.

 

Actually if the bankruptcies had been allowed to go the normal with route GM and Chrysler probably would have gone under,dragging Ford with them. The credit markets were frozen so who do you think was going to save them. The cost to the government would have been much higher just from the jobs lost,tax revenue lost and the hundreds of thousands of pension obligations put on the government.

[Imawhosure]

Actually if the bankruptcies had been allowed to go the normal with route GM and Chrysler probably would have gone under,dragging Ford with them. The credit markets were frozen so who do you think was going to save them. The cost to the government would have been much higher just from the jobs lost,tax revenue lost and the hundreds of thousands of pension obligations put on the government.

 

1. It woulda been billions of pension obligations, but your point is well taken.

 

2. If Ford would've known that the outcome of this created bankruptcy would be the outcome it has, their stance would have been different. Remember------>Ford got the financing to stay solvent which it now has to pay back. GM/Chrysler got a pass.

 

Thats like saying you and I have competing widget factorys across the street from each other, we finance our machinery at the same time, but someone allows you to keep your factory and wipes your bills off the books, leaving me with a larger overhead and expects me to compete.

 

Understand---------->this is NOT about the UAW being able to keep their jobs, pay, or retirement. It is more about that the company who did the right thing is the one left holding the bag because its competitors were.....through almost illegal creative bankruptcy policys never heard of before, being able to stay much larger than they should have been.

 

If America buys 12 million vehicles this year, or 13, or 15, Ford and the remainder of the auto companys would have sold far more if GM and Chrysler would have been forced to go smaller, which they should have because of the bondholders getting some of their money back. And IF the government wanted to keep them this size for whatever reason, then IF they would have done right by the bondholders, GM/Chrysler would have had more government debt, giving FORD more time.

 

Anyway you cut it, Ford got the shaft in my opinion, as far as fair business practice..........and if it comes back to haunt them down the road because of doing the right thing, then something is really wrong here.

[rn4]

1. It woulda been billions of pension obligations, but your point is well taken.

 

2. If Ford would've known that the outcome of this created bankruptcy would be the outcome it has, their stance would have been different. Remember------>Ford got the financing to stay solvent which it now has to pay back. GM/Chrysler got a pass.

 

Thats like saying you and I have competing widget factorys across the street from each other, we finance our machinery at the same time, but someone allows you to keep your factory and wipes your bills off the books, leaving me with a larger overhead and expects me to compete.

 

Understand---------->this is NOT about the UAW being able to keep their jobs, pay, or retirement. It is more about that the company who did the right thing is the one left holding the bag because its competitors were.....through almost illegal creative bankruptcy policys never heard of before, being able to stay much larger than they should have been.

 

If America buys 12 million vehicles this year, or 13, or 15, Ford and the remainder of the auto companys would have sold far more if GM and Chrysler would have been forced to go smaller, which they should have because of the bondholders getting some of their money back. And IF the government wanted to keep them this size for whatever reason, then IF they would have done right by the bondholders, GM/Chrysler would have had more government debt, giving FORD more time.

 

Anyway you cut it, Ford got the shaft in my opinion, as far as fair business practice..........and if it comes back to haunt them down the road because of doing the right thing, then something is really wrong here.

 

Here is the thing, they wouldn't have been smaller, they would have went out of business dragging a bunch of suppliers with them. Beings that most the industry uses the same suppliers, it would have impacted all of them including the transplants. Toyota even came out and said that. Somebody had to be a loser , so the least amount of hurt for the economy at the time was the way it down. The U.S. economy me could not afford to take the gamble that some hidden investor would have come through and invest in either a downsized GM or Chrysler. If you work at Ford , are you willing to risk your job because of ideology, Mullally wasn't ,that is why he didn't mind the restructuring of GM and Chrysler. It didn't help Ford directly, but they are still in business and making record profits which wouldn't have happened through a traditional bankruptcy.

[partsisparts]

Yeah, the Government Motors Volt has been such a success....oh wait..that's right...not so much...my bad....

The Volt is a technologcal success. It is the future. It is American ingenuity. It has given the American auto business much needed global prestige. The eurpoean version just won European Car of The Year . And it would not be around if our President did not bail out GM.

[akirby]

The Volt is a technologcal success. It is the future. It is American ingenuity. It has given the American auto business much needed global prestige. The eurpoean version just won European Car of The Year . And it would not be around if our President did not bail out GM.

 

How is it better or more technologically advanced than the new Fusion PIH?

 

Which one (Fusion PIH or Volt) is cheaper to drive on a 20 mile Round Trip commute?

 

Which one is cheaper to drive on a 75+ round trip commute in cold weather?

[the_spaniard]

How is it better or more technologically advanced than the new Fusion PIH?

 

Which one (Fusion PIH or Volt) is cheaper to drive on a 20 mile Round Trip commute?

 

Which one is cheaper to drive on a 75+ round trip commute in cold weather?

 

Not to sound like a jerk, but is any of that information available from Ford yet? I googled and couldn't find a single review of the Fusion PiH. I have no doubt that it will better the volt (that won't be hard), but Im assuming the reason the Volt was in the running for those accolades is that it's out, reviewed, and you could actually buy one.

 

If the Fusion Pih does what Ford claims it can, it has the potential to score those accolades next year. For now, the government motors Volt gets it's 15 minutes.

 

BTW, has anyone actually seen a Volt on the road? I saw one so far. For all this press, you think they would sell more.

[akirby]

Not to sound like a jerk, but is any of that information available from Ford yet? I googled and couldn't find a single review of the Fusion PiH. I have no doubt that it will better the volt (that won't be hard), but Im assuming the reason the Volt was in the running for those accolades is that it's out, reviewed, and you could actually buy one.

 

If the Fusion Pih does what Ford claims it can, it has the potential to score those accolades next year. For now, the government motors Volt gets it's 15 minutes.

 

BTW, has anyone actually seen a Volt on the road? I saw one so far. For all this press, you think they would sell more.

 

I've seen several Volts.

 

Ford has said the hybrid will get 47/41 and the PIH will be able to go 20 miles on a charge. The Volt can go 35 miles but only gets 37 mpg on the ICE. So up to 20 mph they're both running on battery power alone. At longer distances the Fusion PIH's hybrid powertrain should return at least 6 mpg better fuel economy than the VOLT.

 

The problem is the Volts ICE is not super efficient AND it loses too much energy converting the ICE mechanical energy to electricity and back to mechanical. The PIH drives the wheels directly which is more efficient.

 

If they put a more effficient ICE in the Volt (diesel?) then it would far much better.

[fmccap]

Here is the thing, they wouldn't have been smaller, they would have went out of business dragging a bunch of suppliers with them.

Here's the thing. Do you honestly believe they would of just disappeared? They would have had to sell off parts of the business to pay the bondholders. Then whatever is left after paying them off would be what's left of them. In these two cases it would have been much smaller companies.

[rn4]

Here's the thing. Do you honestly believe they would of just disappeared? They would have had to sell off parts of the business to pay the bondholders. Then whatever is left after paying them off would be what's left of them. In these two cases it would have been much smaller companies.

 

 

Who was going to buy the parts the credit markets were frozen, someone would of had to have cash, not likely, they would have been no more.

[Imawhosure]

Who was going to buy the parts the credit markets were frozen, someone would of had to have cash, not likely, they would have been no more.

 

 

The question you asked is answered by--------->why/how/who purchased Chrysler? And, the government instead of giving loans to GM, could have just manipulated the loans elsewhere.

 

Again--------->this is not about UAW jobs, wages, retirement, etc. I DO believe in the end, the government will save money by bailing them out, instead of letting them go under and paying the percentage amounts they would have had to pay. Let me rephrase that.....they will lose LESS money!

 

The point of my post is that Ford got the shaft. They were smart enough before the credit markets melted down to borrow the money they needed. The question that has to be asked is------>if Ford could borrow the money and manage to survive so far and prosper, why is it that GM and Chrysler had to file bankruptcy after having far more access to money than Ford ever had since they had the government giving it to them?

 

That is the multi BILLION dollar question RN4. In fact, we at Ford even have a higher interest rate then GM or Chrysler received since the feds were basically giving them an interest free (or very close to) gift. Ford borrowed the money off the market.

 

All I am pointing out is that their bailout with great gifts from the taxpayers, may yet come back to haunt Ford; and under every business circumstance, it should not. Ford saved itself, only to be met by carmaking behemoths that should have shrunk in size leaving them a much larger slice of the pie.

 

I would be very sad indeed to hear I lost my retirement, old friends lost their job, or that the Blue Oval went under because of such tawdry dealings as Ford owed to much to compete; when they actually did the right thing for our company, and it seems the taxpayer.

 

Hope you understand, and I wish you well!

[cal50]

Here is the thing, they wouldn't have been smaller, they would have went out of business dragging a bunch of suppliers with them. Beings that most the industry uses the same suppliers, it would have impacted all of them including the transplants. Toyota even came out and said that. Somebody had to be a loser , so the least amount of hurt for the economy at the time was the way it down. The U.S. economy me could not afford to take the gamble that some hidden investor would have come through and invest in either a downsized GM or Chrysler. If you work at Ford , are you willing to risk your job because of ideology, Mullally wasn't ,that is why he didn't mind the restructuring of GM and Chrysler. It didn't help Ford directly, but they are still in business and making record profits which wouldn't have happened through a traditional bankruptcy.

 

 

 

More of your tax dollars / bail out at work......

 

Begin cut / paste~

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201....out-for-france/

 

Attention U.S. taxpayers: You now own a piece of a French car company that is drowning in red ink.

 

That’s right. In a move little noticed outside of the business pages, General Motors last week bought more than $400 million in shares of PSA Peugeot Citroen – a 7 percent stake in the company.

 

Because U.S. taxpayers still own roughly one-quarter of GM, they now own a piece of Peugeot.

 

Peugeot can undoubtedly use the cash. Last year, Peugeot’s auto making division lost $123 million. And on March 1 – just a day after the deal with GM was announced – Moody’s downgraded Peugeot’s credit rating to junk status with a negative outlook, citing “severe deterioration” of its finances.

 

In other words, General Motors essentially just dumped more than $400 million of taxpayer assets on junk bonds.

 

GM has said the deal is designed to give GM access to Peugeot’s expertise in small car and hybrid vehicle technology and ultimately allow both GM and Peugeot to save money by pooling their resources. But auto industry analysts find the deal mystifying.

 

An analysis by auto industry consultants IHS said it is “somewhat baffling that GM is willing to get involved in an alliance that it frankly does not need for size or complexity, while still avoiding any public plan to rationalise its European production, cut costs, or deal with labour rates.”

 

The deal will allow the Peugeot family to reduce its share of the family business. The family, which Forbes estimated to be worth more than $2 billion, still owns about 30 percent of the company. The Peugeots declined the opportunity to buy a piece of GM.

 

GM’s European operations have not enjoyed the same kind of rebound as its US operations. In fact, GM’s European operations, primarily the carmaker Opel, lost more than $700 million last year.

[Imawhosure]

So Cal50, what you are saying reading between the lines is that Government Motors which is partially owned by the Obama administration, is using taxpayer dollars to fund foreign hybrid/small car technology because they think Obama is going to win...........keeping in place government policys which will keep gasoline/diesel prices higher than they should be, thus giving them a leg up.

 

Yeah, I concur with your assessment if that is what it means. Hooray for Obama Motors, to hell with Ford, and let the taxpayers help fund the vision. The only surprise in this is if Ford employees can't figure out they are one of the ones slowly getting the shaft by proxy. When a government picks winners and losers in a marketplace that make the same product, if you aren't one of the builders under government control, with politics being what it is, why would you NOT think your company wouldn't be under a end around assault.

[cal50]

So Cal50, what you are saying reading between the lines is that Government Motors which is partially owned by the Obama administration, is using taxpayer dollars to fund foreign hybrid/small car technology because they think Obama is going to win...........keeping in place government policys which will keep gasoline/diesel prices higher than they should be, thus giving them a leg up.

 

Yeah, I concur with your assessment if that is what it means. Hooray for Obama Motors, to hell with Ford, and let the taxpayers help fund the vision. The only surprise in this is if Ford employees can't figure out they are one of the ones slowly getting the shaft by proxy. When a government picks winners and losers in a marketplace that make the same product, if you aren't one of the builders under government control, with politics being what it is, why would you NOT think your company wouldn't be under a end around assault.

 

 

Pretty much. I think the current admin will do anything to call their efforts a "victory".

 

It gives his green base a woodie even if its a huge money loss that the tax payers are eating (and Ford as a competitor is up against).

Government is the only place where they can call billions of dollars lost a success, and have other really dumb people agree with that logic.

But since those same people never ran a real business it explains a lot.

 

Our tax dollars helped our domestic competition, now its funding foreign competition as well.

Brilliant!

[silvrsvt]

The bailouts were good for Ford in the long run. Ford motor company got loans too. Don't forget that.

 

But they where better for GM and Chrysler....and for those (DOE) loans.... Nissan and other automakers got them also.

[Imawhosure]

as far as I am concerned, all that is germane to me is--------->did the GM/Chrysler bailouts by the feds leave them much LARGER than they should have been as far as capacity by circumventing normal business practice. And if so, does that mean Ford got the shaft by having to face 2 competitors who have much more power in the marketplace than they should have by this deal, and aren't you actually financing your competitiors.

 

If that is the case, then by proxy, did Ford not get the shaft by doing the right thing in advance!

 

You do realize that if you believe it was all good, you are highly inconsistent. If Wall Street, banks and their minions needed to get hosed for its excesses, then so did GM and Chrysler, yes/no?

And to put the guys who fixed their excesses by themselves behind the eightball, is akin to making the good guys pay the price for the failure of others.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot............these boards are left leaning, forgive me. No need to ask such a polarizing question, even if it is Ford and your jobs who may have got screwed. I am sure you are all willing lose your income if need be for the vision!

Edited March 17, 2012 by Imawhosure

[rn4]

General Motors will close or idle 14 manufacturing plants and three service and parts operations as part of its bankruptcy filing. That brings GM's U.S. assembly, powertrain and stamping facilities from 47 in 2008 to 34 by year-end 2010 and 33 by 2012. GM will reopen an unnamed, now-idled, now-closed plant to build future small cars.

 

My link

 

 

[grbeck]

The Volt is a technologcal success. It is the future. It is American ingenuity. It has given the American auto business much needed global prestige. The eurpoean version just won European Car of The Year . And it would not be around if our President did not bail out GM.

 

You also must have been the PR chief for the Edsel...

[grbeck]

Who was going to buy the parts the credit markets were frozen, someone would of had to have cash, not likely, they would have been no more.

 

 

Sooooo....? Obviously, car buyers wouldn't have cared, and they are the only ones who matter. We could have still bought Toyotas, Hondas, Hyundais, Nissans, Fords, Subarus, etc., all of which are superior to anything from GM or Chrysler.

 

I guess the bailout supporters were probably still wailing that they can't buy a Studebaker or a Packard, too.

[Trimdingman]

It doesn't matter how well or poorly the auto industry does from here on. High paid hourly jobs in the auto industry are on the decline, and will eventually be phased out. Hourly people will work for sub-contractors. Sub-contractors will be squeezed and threatened with loss of contracts if they do not meet budgets. If you are young, get out while you can.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Trimdingman

[rn4]

Sooooo....? Obviously, car buyers wouldn't have cared, and they are the only ones who matter. We could have still bought Toyotas, Hondas, Hyundais, Nissans, Fords, Subarus, etc., all of which are superior to anything from GM or Chrysler.

 

I guess the bailout supporters were probably still wailing that they can't buy a Studebaker or a Packard, too.

 

 

You don't have a clue what would of happened to the auto industry if GM and Chrysler were allowed to go under, it would have impacted all those other manufactures also. The loss of tens of thousands of good paying jobs at the time would have possibly been the catalyst that sent us from a recession to a depression , but I guess you would have rather of taking that chance just for your ideology.

Edited March 19, 2012 by rn4

[partsisparts]

You also must have been the PR chief for the Edsel...

Maybe you should read up and find out what really caused the Edsel's demise.

[grbeck]

You don't have a clue what would of happened to the auto industry if GM and Chrysler were allowed to go under, it would have impacted all those other manufactures also.

 

No, you don't have a clue because you are gullible enough to believe that Ford, Toyota and Honda would have sat around and twiddled their thumbs while GM and Chrysler went under.

 

They simply would have spent their OWN money to keep the supply chain going. Of course, they were able to stampede the federal government into spending taxpayer's money to do so. People like you bought it hook, line and sinker. (Funny how the people who usually squawk about corporate influence on government, and insist that nothing a corporation say can be trusted, were ready to take it as the gospel truth what Ford said at the hearings and Toyota's subsequent statements, and also think the bailouts are just wonderful.)

 

Toyota knew it had to support the bailout because the "Buy American" dunces and UAW members would have run around blaming it for the demise of GM and Chrysler, when it was really inept management, with a strong push from a spoiled union, that sank both companies. Toyota's support was a PR move, and nothing more.

 

We would still have a domestic auto industry. It would actually be healthier because the deadwood would have been pruned off with GM and Chrysler either gone away, or come back in reconstituted (and smaller) form. It would have hurt more in the short run, but helped us in the long run. Of course, the deadwood in the industry also happened to be two of the three companies that employed UAW members (there is a lesson there for those smart enough to see it), and the union wasn't about to accept reality, so we had the bailouts.

 

The loss of tens of thousands of good paying jobs at the time would have possibly been the catalyst that sent us from a recession to a depression , but I guess you would have rather of taking that chance just for your ideology.

 

You might find it helpful to take a basic course in economics. "High-paying jobs" are worthless unless they produce something that people want, and can be sold at a profit. Otherwise, we could have the federal government employ everyone at $75,000 a year, plus benefits, and claim full employment.

 

GM and Chrysler were destroying wealth, not creating it. Their purpose is to make products that can be sold at a profit, not provide jobs for UAW members. If they went away, other manufactuers would take their place. If no other manufacturer takes their place, or only offers jobs at lower wages, then guess what - the workers obviously have inflated sense of their worth.

Edited March 20, 2012 by grbeck

[grbeck]

Maybe you should read up and find out what really caused the Edsel's demise.

 

I already have. Tom Bonsall's book, Disaster in Dearborn: The Story of the Edsel, is particularly good.

 

The Edsel failed because there wasn't sufficient demand to remain viable, and the market segment it was aimed at contracted during the 1957-58 recession. Even worse, other, more established nameplates (primarily Oldsmobile and Buick) offered superior products in the same segment, so there was little reason to buy an Edsel.

 

Robert McNamara was smart enough to realize this BEFORE the Edsel launched, and, at any rate, he had a far better way to attack the medium-price segment - the four-seat Thunderbird. Which, of course, was a huge success.

 

Substitute "Volt" for "Edsel" and "Prius" for "Oldsmobile and Buick" and you've got the story of the Volt, minus the huge contraction in that particular market segment.

Edited March 20, 2012 by grbeck

[rn4]

No, you don't have a clue because you are gullible enough to believe that Ford, Toyota and Honda would have sat around and twiddled their thumbs while GM and Chrysler went under.

 

They simply would have spent their OWN money to keep the supply chain going. Of course, they were able to stampede the federal government into spending taxpayer's money to do so. People like you bought it hook, line and sinker. (Funny how the people who usually squawk about corporate influence on government, and insist that nothing a corporation say can be trusted, were ready to take it as the gospel truth what Ford said at the hearings and Toyota's subsequent statements, and also think the bailouts are just wonderful.)

 

Toyota knew it had to support the bailout because the "Buy American" dunces and UAW members would have run around blaming it for the demise of GM and Chrysler, when it was really inept management, with a strong push from a spoiled union, that sank both companies. Toyota's support was a PR move, and nothing more.

 

We would still have a domestic auto industry. It would actually be healthier because the deadwood would have been pruned off with GM and Chrysler either gone away, or come back in reconstituted (and smaller) form. It would have hurt more in the short run, but helped us in the long run. Of course, the deadwood in the industry also happened to be two of the three companies that employed UAW members (there is a lesson there for those smart enough to see it), and the union wasn't about to accept reality, so we had the bailouts.

 

 

 

You might find it helpful to take a basic course in economics. "High-paying jobs" are worthless unless they produce something that people want, and can be sold at a profit. Otherwise, we could have the federal government employ everyone at $75,000 a year, plus benefits, and claim full employment.

 

GM and Chrysler were destroying wealth, not creating it. Their purpose is to make products that can be sold at a profit, not provide jobs for UAW members. If they went away, other manufactuers would take their place. If no other manufacturer takes their place, or only offers jobs at lower wages, then guess what - the workers obviously have inflated sense of their worth.

 

You truly don't have a clue, keep drinking the FOX koolaid.

[xr7g428]

You truly don't have a clue, keep drinking the FOX koolaid.

 

Is that the best you can do? A "sez who" would have been equally as effective...