I would like to give this some additional exposure. This is a letter from http://gm-volt.com

(unfortunately I am not a US citizen, so I am not supposed to sign this petition)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Volt enthusiast:

The auto industry is at the brink of collapse, and the Chevy Volt is in peril.

Please consider helping by signing the letter to the US government at this link:

http://gm-volt.com/2008/11/14/gm-vol...us-government/

Thanks

Lyle
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I m not in favor. I believe if a company cant make it the government shouldn t give out money. I m sure some companies will make it and some won t. That s how a free market works. My guess would be that Honda will still be around. What does that tell you?

Sorry, I m not in favor. I believe if a company cant make it the government shouldn t give out money. I m sure some companies will make it and some won t. That s how a free market works. My guess would be that Honda will still be around. What does that tell you?

*facepalm*

Listen up people, and listen good. GM is not, in any way, shape, or form, asking for a bailout. GM is simply asking for a loan.

And I guarantee you that if GM goes down, Ford will come crashing down with it, followed by Chrysler. And I can guarantee that EVERY other major automaker in the world, toyota, honda, nissan, BMW, Mercedes, whatever, will be affected by the collapse of the Big 3. In fact, some reports predict that even the high and mighty toyota will not survive without the US automakers.

It's estimated that if America's automakers go under, around 4.5 million people will be out of work. Think about that for a second. You have two options: Help Detroit out with loans, or face an economic crisis as well as having to support millions of families on welfare and unemployment.

*facepalm*

Listen up people, and listen good. GM is not, in any way, shape, or form, asking for a bailout. GM is simply asking for a loan.

And I guarantee you that if GM goes down, Ford will come crashing down with it, followed by Chrysler. And I can guarantee that EVERY other major automaker in the world, toyota, honda, nissan, BMW, Mercedes, whatever, will be affected by the collapse of the Big 3. In fact, some reports predict that even the high and mighty toyota will not survive without the US automakers.

It's estimated that if America's automakers go under, around 4.5 million people will be out of work. Think about that for a second. You have two options: Help Detroit out with loans, or face an economic crisis as well as having to support millions of families on welfare and unemployment.

[I] m not trying to diminish the fact that it would hurt the ecomony,(and many people too) but I believe GM is trying to paint the worst picture so they can secure this cheap money (loans). The stronger auto makers will survive. Also, where does it stop then? Everybody will want these loans and the government can t help every company that can t make it. Survival of the fittest.

PS/ and I hate the fact that GM is partly blaming the union because of the high cost of the workers. At the end of the day , GM management settled with those costs.

[I] m not trying to diminish the fact that it would hurt the ecomony,(and many people too) but I believe GM is trying to paint the worst picture so they can secure this cheap money (loans). The stronger auto makers will survive. Also, where does it stop then? Everybody will want these loans and the government can t help every company that can t make it. Survival of the fittest.

As it stands right now, none of the Detroit automakers are going to be left standing if GM goes down. It will be a sad day indeed when imports are the only vehicles left to buy. I am one of the most conservative people you'll ever meet, but I'm willing to support government intervention if it means saving GM. That's more important to me than party politics.

And you're right, the government can't help every company. But when the companies in trouble employ a good percentage of the workforce, provide industrial infrastructure for the nation, and contribute heavily towards our nation's exports, I think that's more than enough to help these companies out.

GM expects to return to profitability in 2010. That's only about a year away. As long as we can secure some money for 2009, we'll be all right.

PS/ and I hate the fact that GM is partly blaming the union because of the high cost of the workers. At the end of the day , GM management settled with those costs.

The union definitely is to blame. They have grown extremely corrupt and power hungry to the point where they have GM in a chokehold. Believe me, I have seen more than enough faults with the UAW, from forcing GM to rehire workers who were fired for a lack of productivity to striking assembly plants over a lack of floormats. GM management may have settled the high cost of the workers, but did you ever consider that the threat of strikes were thrown around to influence that decision?

There are a LOT of elements in this crisis situation. The way I see it, GM management is to blame, the UAW is to blame, and the American people themselves are to blame.

you make alot of valid points, but It makes me uneasy to see our government go down this road. GM wants the money and don t want the government to have any say on how they spend it. I m sure the top management will get there s. I think they should replace the top end because they lead GM into this situation. How can you be rewarded for failing?

With all this being said, I m sure the government will help out in some way.

I think that the Volt is a very important project for all of us. Things like that are a lot like space programs that do not have a clear and immediate financial sense. Someone simply has to do that for all of us, and if it falls victim to the current crisis it will be a huge waste of time and resources. I don't care much if GM does it or someone else takes it over, all I care about is that it has to be finished as soon as possible. It's easier to have it running to completion than abandoning and at some point starting from scratch.

As to GM not making it, it will be a huge blow to all of us. There are countless writeups on the net about a loss of at least 3 million jobs. Whould it be worth it having those people on social assistance? Also suppliers typically work for many manufacturers and loss of one will basically tank many suppliers affecting other manufacturers as well.
That having been said the GM has to change so they don't come to that state again.

BTW, one guy said - look, GM managed to produce the Malibu WITH the unions dragging it back and all that. That tells you somehting.

you make alot of valid points, but It makes me uneasy to see our government go down this road. GM wants the money and don t want the government to have any say on how they spend it. I m sure the top management will get there s. I think they should replace the top end because they lead GM into this situation. How can you be rewarded for failing?

Wagoner HAS to go. Lutz is the only executive doing his job. If GM gets any government money, there HAS to be some sort of mandate that says that Wagoner MUST be replaced.

This is an article written by John McElroy, and I think he sums it up very well. As long as GM can get through the next year, there is no doubt that they'll emerge stronger than ever from this crisis.

How The Big Three Will Come Roaring Back


Way back in 1979 when Chrysler needed government help, there was a political cartoon that perfectly captured the situation. If featured an old Plymouth Fury with giant tail fins teetering halfway over a cliff, with a tow truck parked nearby. A bystander wearing a shirt labeled U.S. Taxpayer was staring at the car on the cliff. The tow truck driver was nonchalantly picking his teeth and telling the taxpayer, "I can tow it out, or push it over the cliff, but either way it's going to cost you."

And so here we are again, only this time it's not just Chrysler. Now GM and Ford need to get towed back onto solid ground, too. And while there are plenty of people saying, "Let them die," the reality is that it'll be cheaper to bail them out.

John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers.

While it's frustrating to see that Chrysler needs help again, it's important to remember what happened after the government bailout of 30 years ago. Not only did Chrysler come roaring back and pay off the loans seven years early, Uncle Sam made a $350 million profit on the whole deal. Investors who stuck with the company made a fortune, too. Chrysler stock shot from $3 a share to over $30, a 1,000% return in just a few years time.
Most people seem to miss the fact that they are on the verge of a massive turnaround.

If the Big Three get a government bailout this time, I see history repeating itself. Most people seem to miss the fact that they are on the verge of a massive turnaround. I'm not trying to be a rah-rah cheerleader here. I'm persuaded simply by the facts.

Last year's UAW contract was truly historic in that it will completely remove the health care cost burden off the Big Three. Though they have to give the union the money to assume this burden, they're paying 40% less than it would otherwise cost them. After 2010 they stop paying billions in health care every year and start dropping that money to the bottom line.

Moreover, there will no longer be any pensions for new hires. They'll get 401k's instead. Again, massive cost savings going forward.

On top of that the UAW workforce takes big pay cuts, and new hires come in at a wage rate that is roughly the same that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, et al, are paying their American workers. In other words, the Big Three can finally compete with the transplants from a labor cost standpoint. That means they can now make small cars in America without losing money on every one they make.

The Big Three can finally compete with the transplants from a labor cost standpoint.

Another benefit of that new labor contract is that the Big Three are no longer pressured to keep building cars and trucks in the face of weak demand. Under the old labor contract it was cheaper to build cars and slap big incentives on them than it was to not build them in the first place. Now, they can build to actual demand, and they're running on much tighter inventory.

That means they'll be able to slash their incentives. Every $1,000 that General Motors cuts from incentives will drop roughly $4 billion to the bottom line. And GM has an average of $3,500 in incentives!

Plus, the Big Three are taking out a huge amount of overcapacity, roughly two million units. To fulfill demand in the future their plants will have to run at full capacity, and that's when car companies literally become cash machines.

What this means is that when the economy finally starts to recover and the car market begins to grow again, GM, Ford and Chrysler will be in an extremely competitive position, one they haven't been in for more than 40 years.

And that's why those who say giving them a bailout is just throwing good money after bad are dead wrong. The Big Three are not only on the verge of a roaring comeback, I predict that in the next decade they'll go on to hit record profits.

I wonder how much of your money you would put into GM stock now if you believe this? Not saying you are wrong but I don t have that kind of confidence in them. I think Honda is years ahead of most. They already have alternative fuel vehicles but the lack of inferstructure to support the re fueling of these cars is holding them back. My question is, If GM was gone wouldn t others just take up that market share and grow themselves?

I wonder how much of your money you would put into GM stock now if you believe this? Not saying you are wrong but I don t have that kind of confidence in them. I think Honda is years ahead of most. They already have alternative fuel vehicles but the lack of inferstructure to support the re fueling of these cars is holding them back. My question is, If GM was gone wouldn t others just take up that market share and grow themselves?

Other companies could take up GM's market share, but as I said earlier, there would be a massive ripple effect across the auto industry. Picture GM as the first domino, Ford as the second, Chrysler as the third, and thousands of suppliers behind them. If any of these three go down, chances are high that the other two will follow, and the 2,000+ suppliers that Detroit derives parts and materials from would follow as well.

And it may not even stop there...those same suppliers also supply the import brands. We may be looking at the worldwide collapse of the entire automotive industry.

Which we can't have. I agree that Ford and GM both will make amazing comebacks...I just do not know how long it will take. Ford has to, their foreign presence makes them well known and many overseas see a Ford and think of quality and fair pricing, what we see in Toyota and Honda state-side.

The only cause to Ford's losses is that the U.S. market is still the automotive market of the world, we consume nearly 50% more than all of western Europe does in the automotive market, and almost 30% than the Chinese and Indochinese countries combined.

With our economy's downturn, it has hurt all companies abroad, not just the domestics. I have told my dad for a year now to buy Ford stock...abroad they have the best PR in the world; with the U.S. / Canada being it's lagging. I would seriously consider GM, with it riding the 3 dollar line now.