Well, let's see.
I'm curious; Ford what(s)?

You can't really blame the unions for the problems when they turn out a superior product at a lower price, with better dependability.

And at exactly what point did that happen?

Third, a bankruptcy by GM would put (guessing here) a few to several hundred thousand people out of work *immediately*

That's not how modern American bankruptcy law works. How many airlines have gone bankrupt over the last few years and continued to operate?

Chapter 11 would allow GM to reorganize and minimize some bad debt and move on. Whether it'll continue to exist in the long term as "General Motors" or whether the likes of Oldsmobile will continue, I dunno. I can just about guarantee that Chevy and GMC will be here decades from now, though.

They also have smaller and more efficient cars that aren´t sold in the US. For instance, the Ford EcoSport, a compact SUV that´s a bestseller in Brazil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNccrSiH0uQ&feature=related

Ford abandoned it's core business to go whoring after margins by buying upscale name plates instead of preparing for the lean times and concentrating on producing the cheap solid reliable hoi-poli vehicles which built their business in the first place.
They only need a revival and new leadership who better understands their history.

GM squirreled off all their profits into GMAC, and then started crying that they were broke, instead of living up to their honest[and contractual] obligations.
ANYTHING that happens to a company is the fault of management by simple definition.
Good GAAWWD! They get paid enough to work wonders and poop cucumbers,and you think that they are naive enough to fall victim to bunch of guys too stupid to deserve a decent wage?

Aaaaah, the magic bullet of the idealogue. "If we just took care of the unions, then ... PONIES!"

Actually, wasn't that the promise we were given to justify unions?

Are there other problems aside from unions? Certainly, government being the biggest among these others. Will eliminating all the other problems solve GM's woes to the point of sustainability, if we leave the unions in place? NO. (Remember just a short while ago when the big battle cry from leftists claiming to be fighting for the life of the planet was 'sustainability'?)

First, if Megan says that the sun rises in the east, expect sunrise to shine in your west-facing windows tomorrow morning. The woman is so full of it that it's not even funny anymore; I've seen her state extremely dumbf*ck things, get schooled by her own commenters in the first few comments, and continue on, blithe as Maureen Dowd.

Second, James: "Besides that, propping up the likes of Citibank will likely actually result in saving Citibank."

Note how:

a) The money which was supposed to restore liquidity seems to have gone instead into the banks' balance sheets, while the banks cut back lending,
b) How the bailout has grown - AIG has now sucked down ~ $100 billion, and is going to get ~$50 more billion, and
c) The administration is doing this with the same level of transparency and accountability that they've displayed for the past 8 years.

I think that a bailout might work, but it'll be an FDR-style New Deal II, *after* the Bush*t bailout has been spent - and I expect the administration to have p*ssed away all $700 billion long before Inauguration Day, and to have spent several hundred billion $ more that they weren't authorized to spend.

Third, a bankruptcy by GM would put (guessing here) a few to several hundred thousand people out of work *immediately* (GM workers and supplier workers), with that number doubling in a month or so (people who work at every place where GM/supplier worker dollars are spent). And that's *beside* the psychological impact.

In short, a GM bankruptcy would probably doom us to a Great Depression II.

Aaaaah, the magic bullet of the idealogue. "If we just took care of the unions, then ... PONIES!"

Of course, oversimplification is best for some. Having a single demon, particularly one they didn't like in the first place, helps them sleep at night.

Basis for that? It's interesting that you toss out the Energy Dept's figures out so casually. Who says they are so wrong, other than you?

Heh... there's one obvious answer...

You're ignoring the fact that the offshore rigs, specialized ships, and people to do the work don't exist.

Like any other busienss, those pop up when allowed to.

Ramping up is also only a sound choice if there is so much oil that the new equipment will be fully utilized. Big oil in this country knows that its not worth an enormous capital investment for the amounts of oil still left. Better to get your leases and, as your wells go dry, move the existing equipment. That is called smart business. Even if "drill here, drill now" would be good for the country, it's not necessarily smart business.

Nice try. We have enough dopmestic oil, even assuming current consumption rates and YOY consumption increases, AND assuming we're talking about pulling from only domestic sources, to last for 60 years.

No, you said "As usual, when given the choice, people go for anything but the compact." That statement is demonstrably false when you look at overall car sales, not just sales by American manufacturers. Japanese compacts and even subcompacts have been top sellers for years, and Hyundai looks like its coming on strong.

But have been outsold, on an order of scale, by trucks and vans and SUV's. That WAS the complaint, wasn't it?

It's only partially labor costs. I have no love of auto unions, but to lay the entire set of problems at their feet is to dodge the fact that the American companies have lagged in technology, engineering, and quality control for decades.

and...

As to quality, one only has to look at Consumer Reports to see what is reliable and what is not. GM experimented with this when they first created Saturn (I believe their slogan was "a different kind of car company") but Saturn is now just another GM nameplate, and their quality has suffered because of it. They no longer rate as high as their competition.

Still, their quality has been good. As I say, I'm driving two. And to the etent taht GM was forced to reduce Saturn's footprint, guess why? Labor costs, imposed by UNIONS.

Again, your ability to dance around the bloody obvious is staggering.

Each of which has but one base cause.

Basis for that? It's interesting that you toss out the Energy Dept's figures out so casually. Who says they are so wrong, other than you?

Even if I take this at face value... and I don't... you don't suppose that wouldn't have an effect on the price? Consider the price jumps after only a 5% tightening of supply.

You're ignoring the fact that the offshore rigs, specialized ships, and people to do the work don't exist. There are much larger world-wide finds (like Brazil) that are being exploited very slowly because of the amount of time it takes to ramp up the necessary infrastructure.

Ramping up is also only a sound choice if there is so much oil that the new equipment will be fully utilized. Big oil in this country knows that its not worth an enormous capital investment for the amounts of oil still left. Better to get your leases and, as your wells go dry, move the existing equipment. That is called smart business. Even if "drill here, drill now" would be good for the country, it's not necessarily smart business.

Look again; I said the relative sales figures are off, across the board.

No, you said "As usual, when given the choice, people go for anything but the compact." That statement is demonstrably false when you look at overall car sales, not just sales by American manufacturers. Japanese compacts and even subcompacts have been top sellers for years, and Hyundai looks like its coming on strong.

The ones you mention are not failing for one primary reason, and it's not because they're selling mor cars in the states...it's beacsue their labor costs are lower.

It's only partially labor costs. I have no love of auto unions, but to lay the entire set of problems at their feet is to dodge the fact that the American companies have lagged in technology, engineering, and quality control for decades.

I'll give you a "for instance". There was an article out relatively recently about how Toyota created a new process to make engine blocks for the Camry. They were able to reduce the cost of manufacturing a Camry by over $1,000 while improving quality, but it took a big up front investment.

As to quality, one only has to look at Consumer Reports to see what is reliable and what is not. GM experimented with this when they first created Saturn (I believe their slogan was "a different kind of car company") but Saturn is now just another GM nameplate, and their quality has suffered because of it. They no longer rate as high as their competition.

Not the drilling canard again. Guess what! There are over 30 billion barrels in undersea reserves ALREADY LEASED. There are 66 million acres of land ALREADY LEASED. The companies are the ones holding up drilling, not the government. They're doing this for several reasons.

No.
That's what the government thinks is there.The oil companies are not drilling because there's nothing there.

Opening up the entire East Coast to drilling will do nothing more than add 25% to the already unutilized drillable inventory.

Even if I take this at face value... and I don't... you don't suppose that wouldn't have an effect on the price? Consider the price jumps after only a 5% tightening of supply.

That's right. That's why Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Hyundai, and Kia are all going bankrupt and don't sell any cars, right?

Look again; I said the relative sales figures are off, across the board. The ones you mention are not failing for one primary reason, and it's not because they're selling mor cars in the states...it's beacsue their labor costs are lower.

I suppose it's not occurred to you to look at the cost of production per vehicle, in terms of what kind of vehicle costs what? Even asuming everyone wanted a smaller vehicle...(Demonstrably untrue) the Big three couldnt' produce it because their labor costs are too high, making smaller cars unprofitable, even assuming they'd sell.

Why would their labor costs be too high, do you suppose? Yep... unions, which have been backed by the force of government.

Not the drilling canard again. Guess what! There are over 30 billion barrels in undersea reserves ALREADY LEASED. There are 66 million acres of land ALREADY LEASED. The companies are the ones holding up drilling, not the government. They're doing this for several reasons.

First, it's not smart business to suck all of your future resources dry today. Second, holding those leases boosts their balance sheets. And third, there is a limited amount of equipment and trained personnel to do the job. Opening up the entire East Coast to drilling will do nothing more than add 25% to the already unutilized drillable inventory.

Actually, you're a little behind the time... they're already buidling them to sell... And why not? They're selling. As usual, when given the choice, people go for anything but the compact.

That's right. That's why Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Hyundai, and Kia are all going bankrupt and don't sell any cars, right?

Take a look at the most popular cars on edmunds.com, based on searches. The top 5 are all by Honda, Toyota, or Mazda, and the biggest vehicle is a Honda CR-V. The first American car is #18, and the first full-sized truck is #29.

America's big 3 are dying because they simply haven't kept up. They ran to the markets of full sized pickups and minivans, and have little else to offer. In the meantime, the Japanese and Korean manufacturers have a whole series from "first car" to luxury car, and are creating brand loyalty among the young.