Drew Dowdell

only glitches, i thought oshawa had the rights to the impala name.

Oshwa builds a Zeta now don't they?

I haven't seen a single Enclave that was driven by Edgar and Mabel BlueHair. Nearly all of them were what you breeders would call MILFs... the EXACT type you'd picture in an RX.

Cost.

The Kappas weren't money makers under any brand.

Pontiac is/was different enough from Chevrolet, with its better products (Solstice/G8) to justify itself. And Buick? They ain't there yet, with a plastic wheel-covered LaX CX.

Again, knowing that the Kappas were going to have to die because they always lost money... and knowing the G8 was going to die because exchange rates were too volatile.

What was there left of Pontiac? Don't give me some imaginary platform that we haven't seen mules for yet. Tell me how Pontiac makes money, makes sense, in August 2009.

buick does not make sense then either, only because they chose to keep it around to try. the only saving grace buick had was higher transaction prices than pontiac, but they certainly did not have higher volume or an actual living demographic.

Pontiac is/was too close to Chevy. It's a mainstream brand right along with Dodge and Ford. Buick is movin on up to be the soft luxury side of GM. There is a world of difference between a Malibu and a 2010 LaX. How much difference between a Malibu and a G6 could there be that couldn't instead be handled by a Malibu SS? With Kappa dead, Torrent going to GMC, and G8 canceled..... you have the Vibe, G3, G5, and G6. When the most compelling product in the lineup is the Vibe, your brand has problems.

Like the Rendezvous before it, the Enclave has brought Buick's average age down. The 2010 LaX and Regal are likely to continue that trend.

Moral of the story is, if the board sees you trying to log in from an IP it hasn't seen for you before, it will ask for your credentials again.

They do, it's called the first amendment.

They're allowed to be very very wrong and I'm allowed to call them out on it.

If your IP Address changes to one we haven't seen before, you'll get the log in prompt again

BV, you have 1056 IP Addresses listed for you, all of them very similar.

I'm guessing your ISP assigns you a new IP frequently.

Edit: Actually it looks like your ISP changes your address every 12 hours.... which is retarded, but whatever.

If your IP Address changes to one we haven't seen before, you'll get the log in prompt again

The LEDs also use a lot less power.

Clear out your cookies and try it again. We may need to reset your password.

BTW, are you on dialup or something? You have 79 unique IP addresses logged for your account.

I can reset your cookie hash for you.

yes, I know that sounds like something completely different.

Saturn Aurora

Since when does Canada count?

unless they bring in the astra from magna now, or the megane from renault, saturn will not have what they most need, a small car.

i would also suggest roger look at returning saturn to better pricing structures.

i wonder how saturn plans to achieve styling and performance consistency with its models being sourced from all over the place.

or a Samsung built Sentra.

He wants to keep the Outlook, Aura, and Vue.

With Penske buying Saturn, does that mean we now have the Big 3.2?

Generation Y is extremely cynical and skeptical with zero brand loyalty. The "everyman" imports will have to actually prove themselves with this group. BMW, Benz and Lexus will still be the fashion accessories they are, but these people aren't going to go out and buy Camrys just because their mom has one. IF anything, that would probably be the biggest mark AGAINST the Camry.... Mom had one.

Just wondering Evok, all i proposed was a government DIP financing, it would have allowed them to make the same conditions as they made doing this. The only difference is that it is only equity ownership if the company fails its restructuring.

Provided GM makes it through, i don't even see any difference between whats happening now vs a government DIP; other than in the end .gov doesn't own the company (and later have to incur additional expenses in selling off their vast stake).

Where's the upside for the government then? If anything this method puts MORE pressure on the government to make it work and it's MORE capitalistic than if the government had just thrown them money with no strings.

I would prefer to NOT have government run them into the ground or force them into making cars people don't want to buy.

Again, it is NOT in the government's best interest to do either of these things.

I don't care about market share. I care about profitability.

Address the hole in the bow first before you worry about getting under steam again.

In a 9 million vehicle per year market with 19% market share, Pontiac and Saturn don't make sense. Pontiac would have to be so "niche market" they'd end up being Tesla.

Personally, I think Pontiac's fate was sealed with the new Malibu. Once GM proved they could sell a main stream Chevy again that was far superior to the Pontiac sibling, Pontiac was doomed.

If GM feels the need to sell a sporty version, they can make RS or SS models.

One idea, hold all of GM's assets like their plants as collateral, like the lenders did when they loaned Ford money? Look at what the govt did with their ownership stakes in banks, telling them where and how they could spend their money, and they didn't even have majority ownership. Do you need to ask your mortgage lenders permission when you take a trip somewhere? Do you need to ask them what method you can use to travel there? I sure hope not. They have no say as to what goes on in your property, as long as you don't default. Therefore, they do not own the property, they own the lein, in case the loan is defaulted on.

Stocks are much more fluid, can be bought and sold easily, and gives the government an upside for taking the risk. The government DID NOT tell the banks where to spend the money. The Federal Reserve, a private corporation, directed the cash flow.

Many mortgages have clauses regarding maintaining the livability of the house, whether or not you can rent it out while not occupying it, requiring certain levels of insurance, etc. Did you know that the bank can (usually) inspect your home after the first thirty days you are late on your mortgage? If they feel you haven't been taking care of the property, they can begin foreclosure proceedings.

It's rarely enforced, but it's there.

How does owning stock in public companies like GM and AIG provide the government the type of ownership over the means of production that is the hallmark of socialism (as Hayek and Von Mises tell us themselves)? Stock ownership does not necessarily yield control; the management still has that. Hence, I don't see how it makes any sense to call this activity socialist in any way.

The Bush and Obama administrations were faced with three basic choices: (1) let these companies fail, (2) help these companies out with no strings attached, or (3) help these companies with strings attached that allow the government to be participate in any downstream upside. While I don't necessarily agree with it (or its execution) in every instance, option 3 certainly seems like the most rational choice given where everything stood. It's also the most business-like approach.

It is not so much mob mentality than just the people who did not benifit from the goverment action. There were winners in this deal and losers. The UAW for the most won due to a lot of donations and the invester who lost out.

I have no issue with the UAW getting a part of the action if anything it will put them at stake. But the investor should have been included somewhere.

No matter what anyone did someone would be pissed.

The bondholders wanted liquidation.