It sure looks like GM may go down the tubes.
Their burn rate of available cash may not last until Obama takes office.

According to some analysts, Chapter 11, which keeps the creditors and
suppliers off their backs while they reorganize really isn't an option. Who
would buy a car from a company in bankruptcy? Furthermore, consumers have
pulled in their horns in terms of buying big ticket items in general with
concern of continued employment.

There's a 25 billion dollar government "loan" available to the auto industry
in general that is intended to help them finance the development of new,
high efficiency vehicles. Bush has recommended expediting the release of
funds associated with this loan, but is against a further "bailout" using
funds from the recent 700 billion TARP plan.

GM's burn rate is 3.1 million per *hour* and as of the end of September,
they had about 16 billion in cash.


Personally, I have very mixed feelings about this. A while back GM dropped
the Oldsmobile line due to poor sales and to cut costs. They also hinted
that another line .... either Buick or Pontiac .... would be on the
chopping block in the future if their financial situation didn't change.
That was a couple of years ago and nothing has been done.

Although it would be disastrous for the employees and suppliers for GM to
fold, I also can't see why the taxpayers should spend good money after bad.
The only way I personally could support a general bailout would be if it
were tied to a very specific and aggressive business plan laid out by GM
that would cut costs, simplify operations and overhead and otherwise provide
believable proof that the bailout money would not simply extend their
existence for a while longer while business goes on as usual. GM had the
opportunity to address their problems and have done very little to save
themselves. Their problems did not originate with September's market
meltdown.

The other problem with bailing GM out is that it sets a precedent to justify
the bailout of any company experiencing financial problems. How do you save
a job here, but let an equally important job to someone else in another
company dissolve?

Eisboch

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:58:49 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Although it would be disastrous for the employees and suppliers for GM
to fold, I also can't see why the taxpayers should spend good money
after bad. The only way I personally could support a general bailout
would be if it were tied to a very specific and aggressive business plan
laid out by GM that would cut costs, simplify operations and overhead
and otherwise provide believable proof that the bailout money would not
simply extend their existence for a while longer while business goes on
as usual. GM had the opportunity to address their problems and have
done very little to save themselves. Their problems did not originate
with September's market meltdown.

The company has been very poorly managed. Under normal circumstances, I
would say let them go, but these aren't normal circumstances. With the
overall precarious economy, can we afford to let GM go down now? I don't
know, but just throwing money at them won't bail them out.

Eisboch wrote:
It sure looks like GM may go down the tubes.
Their burn rate of available cash may not last until Obama takes office.

According to some analysts, Chapter 11, which keeps the creditors and
suppliers off their backs while they reorganize really isn't an option. Who
would buy a car from a company in bankruptcy? Furthermore, consumers have
pulled in their horns in terms of buying big ticket items in general with
concern of continued employment.

There's a 25 billion dollar government "loan" available to the auto industry
in general that is intended to help them finance the development of new,
high efficiency vehicles. Bush has recommended expediting the release of
funds associated with this loan, but is against a further "bailout" using
funds from the recent 700 billion TARP plan.

GM's burn rate is 3.1 million per *hour* and as of the end of September,
they had about 16 billion in cash.


Personally, I have very mixed feelings about this. A while back GM dropped
the Oldsmobile line due to poor sales and to cut costs. They also hinted
that another line .... either Buick or Pontiac .... would be on the
chopping block in the future if their financial situation didn't change.
That was a couple of years ago and nothing has been done.


The taxpayers have given AIG billions and billions, and all AIG does is
push around paper. I favor bailing out the automakers if they can be
restructured into companies that make what the market wants and needs,
and if competent management can be found to replace the slackers that
are there now.

Management, labor, and suppliers are going to have to eat some of the
weenie if they want the companies to survive. There are millions more
jobs at stake here than just those at the auto plants.

As for what Bush recommends, well, he ought to just leave town before he
does any more damage.

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Management, labor, and suppliers are going to have to eat some of the
weenie if they want the companies to survive. There are millions more
jobs at stake here than just those at the auto plants.

As for what Bush recommends, well, he ought to just leave town before he
does any more damage.



Hold on to your chair Harry. I don't want you to flop over.

Mrs.E. and I were discussing the economic problems this morning while having
coffee, trying to sort out what type of government led programs would serve
to point towards an eventual recovery.

I've come to realize that the current situation is unlike anything in the
past. I know it's subject to great debate, but Reagan led the country out
of Carter's mess by applying a "trickle down" philosophy that enabled big
companies to expand and grow, carrying the smaller subcontractors along with
them. For conditions at the time it worked.

Those conditions don't exist anymore. Manufacturing is gone.

I come around to recognizing that Obama is the right man for the job right
now. McCain is too unimaginative and stuck in the past to solve the
problems of 2008 and beyond.

Like the current Time cover suggests, Obama is going to have to focus on
internal infrastructure programs designed to produce jobs (even if the
particular program isn't completely necessary). It will be a "trickle-up"
approach rather than the other way around. A recovery is going to have to
include the need and reason for a business to exist, not simply the issuance
of a bunch of new contracts.

In the case of the auto industry, every one involved is going to have to
accept a new set of conditions and rewards, from management to the labor
unions. New management *is* required with a fresh, blank sheet to develop
the business model. There will still be layoffs, cuts and downsizing
required. The market simply doesn't support the combined sizes of GM, Ford
and Chrysler (although I doubt Chrysler will remain much longer).

And the consumer .... the car buyer ... needs to have a job with a secure
income in order to purchase the new car, house or other consumer related
product. Herein is the big problem that makes this situation unique.
Without manufacturing, there are no jobs. Everyone cannot be employed in
the service or entertainment sectors. Consumer spending makes up 70% of our
economy.

This country has some very serious problems and they cannot be solved by
simply turning back the clock.

I wish I knew how to help. I don't mean helping by just supporting any
particular leader or program. I mean actively *help*.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Management, labor, and suppliers are going to have to eat some of the
weenie if they want the companies to survive. There are millions more
jobs at stake here than just those at the auto plants.

As for what Bush recommends, well, he ought to just leave town before he
does any more damage.



Hold on to your chair Harry. I don't want you to flop over.

Mrs.E. and I were discussing the economic problems this morning while having
coffee, trying to sort out what type of government led programs would serve
to point towards an eventual recovery.

I've come to realize that the current situation is unlike anything in the
past. I know it's subject to great debate, but Reagan led the country out
of Carter's mess by applying a "trickle down" philosophy that enabled big
companies to expand and grow, carrying the smaller subcontractors along with
them. For conditions at the time it worked.

Those conditions don't exist anymore. Manufacturing is gone.

I come around to recognizing that Obama is the right man for the job right
now. McCain is too unimaginative and stuck in the past to solve the
problems of 2008 and beyond.

Like the current Time cover suggests, Obama is going to have to focus on
internal infrastructure programs designed to produce jobs (even if the
particular program isn't completely necessary). It will be a "trickle-up"
approach rather than the other way around. A recovery is going to have to
include the need and reason for a business to exist, not simply the issuance
of a bunch of new contracts.

In the case of the auto industry, every one involved is going to have to
accept a new set of conditions and rewards, from management to the labor
unions. New management *is* required with a fresh, blank sheet to develop
the business model. There will still be layoffs, cuts and downsizing
required. The market simply doesn't support the combined sizes of GM, Ford
and Chrysler (although I doubt Chrysler will remain much longer).

And the consumer .... the car buyer ... needs to have a job with a secure
income in order to purchase the new car, house or other consumer related
product. Herein is the big problem that makes this situation unique.
Without manufacturing, there are no jobs. Everyone cannot be employed in
the service or entertainment sectors. Consumer spending makes up 70% of our
economy.

This country has some very serious problems and they cannot be solved by
simply turning back the clock.

I wish I knew how to help. I don't mean helping by just supporting any
particular leader or program. I mean actively *help*.

Eisboch




What would help is for those who hold white collar jobs to control their
disdain for blue collar factory workers and their desire to earn a
decent, middle-class income for themselves and their families, and along
with that income, quality health care, a safe job, and a reasonable
pension. The sad thing is that the "disdainful" are one generation from
blue collars themselves.

There's a lot of that here. I am not including you in that group.

I'd also try to figure out a way to "cap" upper echelon executive pay
and perks. It is just plain disgusting there are execs pulling down
multiples of millions of dollars a year while they lay off their
workforces. There is no need for those sorts of paychecks.

I'm hoping for a huge investment in rebuilding our
infrastructure...roads, bridges, airports, treatment plants, power
generation plants, light rail, et cetera. Nothing puts Americans back to
work faster and at better paying jobs than heavy construction and all
the ancillary industries that support it, white and blue collar.



`

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:


I wish I knew how to help. I don't mean helping by just supporting any
particular leader or program. I mean actively *help*.

Eisboch




What would help is for those who hold white collar jobs to control their
disdain for blue collar factory workers and their desire to earn a decent,
middle-class income for themselves and their families, and along with that
income, quality health care, a safe job, and a reasonable pension. The sad
thing is that the "disdainful" are one generation from blue collars
themselves.

That's a subjective issue that means different things to different people.
You are more tuned into it, most likely because of your involvement with
labor unions. I've worked for about 5 companies before starting my own.
Three were "blue collar" jobs. The ones that came later were management
and/or engineering level jobs. I never experienced any "disdain" for
anyone, blue or white collar, unless the person just happened to be a
complete jerk. One employer had the over-all "haves" and "have-nots"
attitude but he was universal in his contempt for anyone not as rich and
powerful as he. (He was the prime modivation for me to start a similar
business and guess what? I won. He went belly-up.)


I'd also try to figure out a way to "cap" upper echelon executive pay and
perks. It is just plain disgusting there are execs pulling down multiples
of millions of dollars a year while they lay off their workforces. There
is no need for those sorts of paychecks.


The only way to influence that is to tax the crap out of income that exceeds
a certain amount.
Even then, I am not sure I agree with it, but not on a moral grounds. It's
because I just don't think it's a good idea for government to control one's
personal income opportunities. Too close to what I saw in China years ago.



I'm hoping for a huge investment in rebuilding our infrastructure...roads,
bridges, airports, treatment plants, power generation plants, light rail,
et cetera. Nothing puts Americans back to work faster and at better paying
jobs than heavy construction and all the ancillary industries that support
it, white and blue collar.


Yep, I agree. That's exactly what is needed. Now, how do we convince all
the people who got their cookie-cutter computer science or finance degrees
that they should put them in the closet and go learn how to build bridges
and nuclear powerplants?

Eisboch

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:58:49 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Although it would be disastrous for the employees and suppliers for GM to
fold, I also can't see why the taxpayers should spend good money after bad.
The only way I personally could support a general bailout would be if it
were tied to a very specific and aggressive business plan laid out by GM
that would cut costs, simplify operations and overhead and otherwise provide
believable proof that the bailout money would not simply extend their
existence for a while longer while business goes on as usual. GM had the
opportunity to address their problems and have done very little to save
themselves. Their problems did not originate with September's market
meltdown.

Well, there you have it. That's the problem.

However, the problem is that that is the problem. They've had time to
do this and refused. For various reasons, but simply, refused.

There is another way to look at this. While certain companies are too
big to fail, the opposite is also true - companies can be too big to
succeed.

GM is a case study in being too big to succeed.

My own feeling is that let 'em go. Do the pre-pack, restructure to a
smaller, leaner, less expensive operation, drop a number of lines that
make no sense (like Hummer) and start competing again as a more
efficient and cost effective company.

GM going under will give Ford some breathing space and possibly
Chrysler.

You also have to look at something else - this represents a good
opportunity for small businesses to pick up the slack. For other
ideas about fueling transportation needs to come up for air and be
seen and evaluated. It's not all going to be in the hands of GM -
opportunities of a smaller world in terms of manufacturing actually
make for a larger world if only because now the ogre is gone - other
people, other ideas, other methods.

You know, all you have to do is look back at the history of the heavy
construction and farming equipment manufacturing business - hell, even
the heavy machine tool business. Too big to fail? International?
Allis Chalmers? McCormick? Heald Machine Tool? They all made lousy
bets and they are all gone. Once the monsters were out of the way,
the smaller companies like Deere and Cat and Case could innovate and
take over.

And they are still around.

Again, too big to fail also equals too big to succeed.

Let GM die - fertilizer for smaller, leaner and better companies to
suceed.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...


Let GM die - fertilizer for smaller, leaner and better companies to
suceed.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.



Did I ever tell you about my hollow cathode plasma energy generator?

(seriously)

I stumbled across this many years ago purely by serendipity, doing some
experiments in a vacuum chamber.
It converted electrical energy into heat at about 100 times (or more) the
efficiency of conventional electric or fossil fueled heat generators.

I always wanted to go back and follow up on it. For example, I think it
could be used to heat a house very economically. Sorta like a mini nuclear
power generator without the nuclear reaction.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

Let GM die - fertilizer for smaller, leaner and better companies to
suceed.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.



Did I ever tell you about my hollow cathode plasma energy generator?

(seriously)

I stumbled across this many years ago purely by serendipity, doing some
experiments in a vacuum chamber.
It converted electrical energy into heat at about 100 times (or more) the
efficiency of conventional electric or fossil fueled heat generators.

I always wanted to go back and follow up on it. For example, I think it
could be used to heat a house very economically. Sorta like a mini nuclear
power generator without the nuclear reaction.

Eisboch




A precursor to the flux capacitor?

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

Let GM die - fertilizer for smaller, leaner and better companies to
suceed.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.



Did I ever tell you about my hollow cathode plasma energy generator?

(seriously)

I stumbled across this many years ago purely by serendipity, doing some
experiments in a vacuum chamber.
It converted electrical energy into heat at about 100 times (or more) the
efficiency of conventional electric or fossil fueled heat generators.

I always wanted to go back and follow up on it. For example, I think it
could be used to heat a house very economically. Sorta like a mini
nuclear power generator without the nuclear reaction.

Eisboch




A precursor to the flux capacitor?

Beats me. It works though and I have test measurements to back it up.

A "plasma" is not completely understood by the scientific community,
although it happens all around us.
The visible flash of a lightning bolt or the light emitted from a
fluorescent bulb are plasmas.

Many consider it a completely unique state of matter and when applied in
certain hardware configurations can do some strange things.

Anyway, I have to think about this some more.

Eisboch