[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Ford = took loans that were offered with extremely low interest rates in hard times after mortgaging nearly all assets to restructure. A sound business decision.

GM = took loans and tens of billions of dollars in free money (in an inflated exchange for equity) that will never be accounted for.

They are simply not comparable. FoMoCo turned around in one of the most successful restructurings in recent history and GM went bankrupt, restructured under government ownership, and is now flourishing as a new corporation. Alan Mulally worked miracles with Ford while GM was gutted and thrown money because it was necessary to keep the doors open. These Ford loans will be paid back, the equity the gov holds in GM will NEVER be valuable enough to recover the total invested. Debate cars all you want, but Ford leadership (post 2006) has been a bright light in dark times within the auto industry and it's damn near disrespectful to even try to argue that it's remotely similar to that financial travesty of a company that was Old GM.

This being the same Ford that has lost money two quarters in a row?

Also I hope when you make these statements that you do so knowing Ford got every break GM did except a no strike clause from the UAW simply by threatening to also go bankrupt too don't you?

[Berean]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

In a just world corporate pay would be based on performance and executives of failing companies would not walk away with eight and nine figure pay packages when their corporation goes under and their investors lose everything. In a just world my graduate level economics textbooks would not be published by McGraw-Hill, of which Standard and Poor's is a subsidiary. This isn't a just world. It's a world built on manipulating the system and sheepies buying every out-of-context POS explanation they want to believe in because the truth doesn't suit their taste. On the contrary, I would hate to see what our manufacturing base would look like now if we hadn't bailed the auto industry.

I know exactly what it would look like. Efficient companies who didn't pay their executives eight and nine figure salaries for poor performance, and didn't have union millstones around their necks, would have bought the profitable pieces of the company in bankruptcy, taken their market share, and the taxpayers would not have lost billions.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

On the contrary, I would hate to see what our manufacturing base would look like now if we hadn't bailed the auto industry.

It would probably look like the rest of the world's manufacturing output as a percentage of world GDP; it would be for the better.

[derklug]

Originally Posted by Number 3

This being the same Ford that has lost money two quarters in a row

Ummm, Q1 .39 per share profit, Q2 .30 per share, Q3&4 expected .30. Ford is still making a profit, but European sales are dragging them down along with GM and Fiat.

[Renegade]

Originally Posted by TOBY J

[ParisTNDude]

What's really bad is that all the money the government loaned out, the government borrowed from China. So, who really bailed them out? Dang...that thought sucks!

[Renegade]

Originally Posted by ParisTNDude

What's really bad is that all the money the government loaned out, the government borrowed from China. So, who really bailed them out? Dang...that thought sucks!

Imagine if China really wanted to screw the U.S. they could possible take states or whatever if the U.S. don't pay them back in time.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Number 3

This being the same Ford that has lost money two quarters in a row?

Also I hope when you make these statements that you do so knowing Ford got every break GM did except a no strike clause from the UAW simply by threatening to also go bankrupt too don't you?

No, you must be talking about a different Ford considering Ford Motor Company has posted 11 consecutive profitable quarters.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by a_Username

It would probably look like the rest of the world's manufacturing output as a percentage of world GDP; it would be for the better.

You really think our manufacturing industry would have been stimulated to pre-2000 levels by GM gaining no federal financial support and taking American Axle and other suppliers down the closed doors road with it? What happens to Ford and Chrysler when their American suppliers can't fill orders anymore? The bail out was a necessary evil brought on by decades of poor corporate governance and bad union policy. If we had been on the ball 20 years ago it would have been a bad idea to bail the industry in 2009. At the time, it was the only solution. Look at the graph you posted post 2009 on the X. Do you think there would have been an uptick if GM had liquidated to the top bidder and US-based suppliers had to fend for themselves? As I stated earlier in the thread, the bailout has only proven stabilizing in the short-term. In the long run, I actually agree it may have been a poor decision, but that has yet to be proven. Anyway, this discussion is better suited to private messages.

P.S.

I have been drinking heavily. Please disregard any logical and/or grammatical discrepancies

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by derklug

Ummm, Q1 .39 per share profit, Q2 .30 per share, Q3&4 expected .30. Ford is still making a profit, but European sales are dragging them down along with GM and Fiat.

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

No, you must be talking about a different Ford considering Ford Motor Company has posted 11 consecutive profitable quarters.

Sorry,wasn't clear. Was referring to the Billion dollar per quarter sink hole in Europe. If they are so smart............

[Rhyder]

6 billion < 132 billion and counting.........


I cant believe so many people focus on one minute fact about this, that ford took a loan from the government and ignore every other aspect....so what if ford took a loan from the government....it was 6 billion dollars, not even 20 percent of Fords net worth in 2009....

GM has now taken 132 billion and still counting, this not counting the billions in debt shed from the first bankruptcy, almost 150% of GM's net worth in 2009........how is it even a comparison? Thats like saying when confronted about stealing a car, the thief starts into a rant about oh ya, that little kid over there stole a pack of gum......

A company borrowing up to 20% of its net worth to build and inprove is a healthy company.

A company borrowing 150% of its net worth to just survive is not.

[Rhyder]

As of 2009, GM was not bigger than Ford, at least in market share, GM was just under 16% and Ford was just over 15%...if they were bigger per manpower and facilities, that just underscores how horribly they were being managed, if they had more people and resources, and they could only do less than 1% better than Ford, thats the biggest red flag there is.......

ford had as much as 30 billion in loans in 2009, people act as if thats a huge amount? You and they also set it as if Ford should not of had any loans, What company of any size doesnt have loans at any given time? which for your argument makes 30 billion sound like alot. If you take the 6 billion taken for retooling and the other 5 billion for normal business expenses, both of which the other companies had taken loans out for similar things, your only talking 19 billion of extrenous loans.


Here is a statement taken from the 2009 reported finacial records.

*Ended the year (2009) with $25.5 billion of Automotive gross cash and $34.3 billion in Automotive debt

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=31920

So even if they had taken 30 billion out for only cash purposes, they were showing only 9.3 billion in dept, that would be all loans and other projected inclusions such as leases etc. Less than 20% of the companies net worth. Well within most any companies comfort zone and usual status.Ford was actually hiring and openeing a new plant for the retooled eco lineup per the governments requirements.


While GM was firing 14 of every 16 employees, getting rid of union pension and medical retirement funds as a desperate bid to shed costs, had sunk to less than 16% of the car market (ford actually went up 1% to 15%), thats including all thier individual lines, such as Chevy, Hummer etc, and filing bankruptcy (we should include the billions they got rid of through the bankruptcy but we dont) as they were over 69 billion in the hole, thats right, almost the whole of thier net worth at the time..the only thing that saved them was over 100 billion in give-me's, and that cost hasnt stopped yet, they are still recieving free money..while Ford was solvent enough to not need even close to that large an influx, even counting the loans you state they got solely for the purpose.



So one company gets 29.8 billion, the other gets 100+ billion to survive....which do you consider the stronger company? Considering they had basicly equal amounts of the market share pre bailout, it was Ford no question.

[Berean]

It's funny how the defenders of the bailouts act like every single GM job, and all their supplier jobs, would have been lost if they went into normal bankruptcy.

It's as if all the people who were going to buy cars and trucks would suddenly decide to never buy anything again. Ridiculous.

Sure, there would have been jobs lost. The inefficient parts of the company would have went under. But guess what?

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED ANYWAY WITH THE TAXPAYER BAILOUT. GM STILL LOST 23 THOUSAND JOBS AND CLOSED 13 PLANTS.

You know what the difference is? Government got to pick the winners (UAW) and losers (secured bondholders, salaried employee retirement funds), and THEY USED YOUR TAX MONEY TO DO IT.

It's truly sad that so many Americans swallow the propaganda and happily let government take their money for political paybacks.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

You really think our manufacturing industry would have been stimulated to pre-2000 levels by GM gaining no federal financial support and taking American Axle and other suppliers down the closed doors road with it? What happens to Ford and Chrysler when their American suppliers can't fill orders anymore? The bail out was a necessary evil brought on by decades of poor corporate governance and bad union policy. If we had been on the ball 20 years ago it would have been a bad idea to bail the industry in 2009. At the time, it was the only solution. Look at the graph you posted post 2009 on the X. Do you think there would have been an uptick if GM had liquidated to the top bidder and US-based suppliers had to fend for themselves? As I stated earlier in the thread, the bailout has only proven stabilizing in the short-term. In the long run, I actually agree it may have been a poor decision, but that has yet to be proven. Anyway, this discussion is better suited to private messages.

P.S.

I have been drinking heavily. Please disregard any logical and/or grammatical discrepancies

You're such a positivist! Agreed on the bold.