Shouldn't they have killed Buick?

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by e12Euro

Ford have just turned in a billion profit for the 3rd quarter. Granted, Ford never had as many brands as GM, but I wouldn't say Ford has had a better product over the last 10 years, quality or design wise. Ford's success is because they just ran the company better.

Books have been written about the disastrous senior management GM has experienced in the past 40 years.

Many poor decisions of the '80's occurred when Roger Smith ran things, as described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Smith_(executive)

In recent months, Fortune magazine interviewed the head of the government's team overseeing GM who described GM as the worst-managed major corporation they have ever seen.

[oldblu65]

Ford did indeed turn in a Billion dollar profit for the 3rd quarter ! But I read yesterday that their negotiations with the union weren't going well as the union turned down the concessions that Chrysler and GM already have been given . This will come back to bite them ( Ford and the union ) at a later date . This will put them at a competitive disadvantage with GM , Chrysler , and the import manufacturers and their gains may be short lived and spell major problems in the long run . Just my $ 0.02 !

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by oldblu65

Ford did indeed turn in a Billion dollar profit for the 3rd quarter ! But I read yesterday that their negotiations with the union weren't going well as the union turned down the concessions that Chrysler and GM already have been given . This will come back to bite them ( Ford and the union ) at a later date . This will put them at a competitive disadvantage with GM , Chrysler , and the import manufacturers and their gains may be short lived and spell major problems in the long run . Just my $ 0.02 !

I agree. Much of the profit apparently came from cost-cutting..... and the benefits of the clunker stimulus. The fourth quarter may not be as rosy.


Imo that profit needs to be retained and put towards R&D and other means for progress..... and not paid out to overpaid union members and their unskilled jobs, especially when there is close to 10% unemployment right now.

[MrPbody]

Agreed with MR. And add the stockholders to the list of those that should WAIT for the bennies until after the R&D money has been spent. Selfish and pushy stockholders are responsible for the "I want it NOW!" attitude rampant in today's "business world" AND the relocation of industries in pursuit of IMMEDIATE profit over long-term success. Many of the mis-managed American companies do so in response to pressure from those stockholders, and they (executives) want to KEEP their jobs...

Jim

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

Agreed with MR. And add the stockholders to the list of those that should WAIT for the bennies until after the R&D money has been spent. Selfish and pushy stockholders are responsible for the "I want it NOW!" attitude rampant in today's "business world" AND the relocation of industries in pursuit of IMMEDIATE profit over long-term success. Many of the mis-managed American companies do so in response to pressure from those stockholders, and they (executives) want to KEEP their jobs...

Jim

Agreed.

Another problem that compounds this is the way corporate executives are paid. Many of them receive bonuses that are often tied to stock performance and/or return on investment or return on equity. These returns are artificially inflated when large stock dividends are paid out.

So the execs are often encouraged to dole out the money instead of retaining it for the long-term health of the company.

[manicmechanix]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

Agreed with MR. And add the stockholders to the list of those that should WAIT for the bennies until after the R&D money has been spent. Selfish and pushy stockholders are responsible for the "I want it NOW!" attitude rampant in today's "business world" AND the relocation of industries in pursuit of IMMEDIATE profit over long-term success. Many of the mis-managed American companies do so in response to pressure from those stockholders, and they (executives) want to KEEP their jobs...

Jim

I agree. I'd also throw in government regulators who encourage and enabled this same behavior by the management. I've heard that GM was the worst managed company. A lot of people blame Roger Smith, but I think there was a whole group of managers responsible. The wikipedia link someone posted earlier in this thread said so much money, in the billions, was wasted on ineffective projects back in the 80's, the money could've bought the main foreign competitors Toyota and Nissan outright.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by manicmechanix

I agree. I'd also throw in government regulators who encourage and enabled this same behavior by the management. I've heard that GM was the worst managed company.

The government is certainly partly to blame with dregulating the financial industry, which contributed to the finance crisis we have seen recently.

Realistically, though, there is not much the government can do to regulate poor management in manufacturing.

We have seen elsewhere where poorly-run auto manufacturing companies have been nationalized in the public interest. Typically, the companies do worse in public hands than they did in private ones.
For example, Britain's wholesale nationalizing of the auto industry 40 years ago eventually killed it.

[manicmechanix]

I was referring to how the government encouraged outsourcing and importing by putting domestic production at a disadvantage.

[MrPbody]

Perhaps. Unfair trade laws are a major contributor. I've often said our trade laws with other nations should be nothing more than a "mirror". You wanna sell in the US? You gotta allow the US to sell there, at the same level! (what a concept...)

Jim

[manicmechanix]

I agree MrPbody. That's what I was getting at. Not that I didn't like Reagan, but in the 80's the Big 3 went to the administration and complained about foreign automakers dumping cars (selling them, below value to take market share) in the US and not allowing US car sells in their country. And the automakers were told they had to "compete". "Compete" was unfair competition where private sector US automakers were essentially competing against the full resources of foreign nations with their governments support.

In the bigger picture this is what has happened to all our domestic industries and production and why there's few jobs. and that's why I was blaming the gov for enabling/encourage these financial people .

[e12Euro]

Originally Posted by manicmechanix

I agree MrPbody. That's what I was getting at. Not that I didn't like Reagan, but in the 80's the Big 3 went to the administration and complained about foreign automakers dumping cars (selling them, below value to take market share) in the US and not allowing US car sells in their country. And the automakers were told they had to "compete". "Compete" was unfair competition where private sector US automakers were essentially competing against the full resources of foreign nations with their governments support.

In the bigger picture this is what has happened to all our domestic industries and production and why there's few jobs. and that's why I was blaming the gov for enabling/encourage these financial people .

In the '70s and '80s free trade was pretty much one way trade with the protected European and Japanese economies selling as much as they could to North America, there wasn't a level playing field. That said, even a downsized Pontiac Bonneville wasn't the kind of car the average person in Japan would buy (too large) even if there was such a thing as free trade. Hey, we all need a little protection because "free trade benefits all" is a fantasy, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose.

As a counterpoint, looking forward to the day when my new Chinese made U.A.W. free Buick GNX smokes an American made BMW X6 at the lights. Obama is gonna make it happen. Let the good times roll.