thegriffon

What "other approach" do you expect? Everything people are demanding has been done already! Wages are being slashed, employees trimmed, the healthcare burden passed to the union. How is firing management making an effort? All you'll be doing is putting ina new team to take the credit for what the old team actually did, provided of course the new team does not completely f— it up. Ford is not merely in debt, they are hocked to the hilt—the entire company is mortgaged, they can't sell anything to raise money if they wanted to (sell yes, raise money, no). Ford can struggle on, yes, but only until Obama takes office. You can't look at the result in isolation—you have to understand the position they were in at the turn of the century and what the current management team has done to turn things around. GM paid Fiat $2billion to get out of the deal, at the behest of it's bankers who would not finance a takeover. They are still getting Fiat's diesel engines, including brand-new state-of the art engines in the Insignia—before Fiat gets them itself. If that's all you can think of to blame the current management with, you need to think a lot harder. The current team revamped manufacturing totally—they made vast improvements in efficiency and quality, which enabled them to cut costs. They shifted to lean manufacturing in a big way. They rationalized and revitalized design and engineering. They cut duplicate models, and eliminated overlap. They accelerated the intro of a near-complete program because they saw the market would not last. They expanded overseas in a big way, because that's where future growth and profits were and are, not because they were looking at replacing American workers (an accusation I hear repeatedly). They bought Daewoo for a steal and turned it into a growth and profit powerhouse whose importance is only increasing every day. When Toyota could not give away the Echo (they still had some to sell last month) they brought in the Aveo and instantly boosted the segment to a significant portion of the market. While Ford is still talking about EcoBoost, the new Insignia has just two naturally aspirated engines, but three turbo gasoline engines and several more diesels. Finally, they have slashed wages, gotten ridden of most of the higher-paid older workforce, with more to go, and have off-loaded the enormous healthcare burden. If GM is still here in 18 months with the current management you will be amazed at how good things are looking, with no major changes to strategy. Now I know you can all think of things you think they should have done differently, like importing the Holden Sportwagon, or reviving the El Camino as a Chevrolet, but you're dreaming if you think that would have made an iota of difference right now. I know that a lot of you are worried and even scared, but chucking a hissy fit and looking for scape-goats won't fix anything.

That's merely an excuse. There is politicking go on here more than any actual opposition. The truth is the Democrats don't want to do anything that Bush can take credit for, even this late in the game. If they can blame the Republicans for their own objections, then even better. Who have you heard opposition from? Two or three Representatives and Senators? All the administration is asking for is authorization for funds, which the Democrats did not want to provide. Some even explicitly state that they think a bailout for GMAC, Chrysler Finance and Ford Credit under the current finance plan is all that's needed, showing their vast ignorance of the issue.

Morici is an ignoramus, no exaggeration. An an airline executive talking about out-of-whack costs and quality, especially when he hasn't even owned an American car for 10 years? Now that's Chutzpah. I do expect a Chinese-style oversight board approving any and all investment decisions. Welcome to national socialism.

It turns out that ideas can be imported even easier than manufactured goods, and without worrying about the cost of insurance or fuel. It's a shame that the only industry to realize that goods should be made locally and the ideas distributed is being crushed in the USA.

You can't put a company in drydock though. Wagoner and co. have been patching the hull and fixing the engines as fast as they could because they knew it was sinking, even without the storm. The lack of maintenance happened before they took over, and until the pump broke down they couldn't convince the passengers they needed to start throwing their excess baggage overboard and head for the lifeboats.

Isn't Ohio a UAW state? Surely they can apply some heat to make him change his mind, or has he lost his seat already?

Good one, I almost thought it was April already. Cerberus has promised not to make any money from Chrysler in exchange for a capital injection. GM is still working on new cars, and you have to look at delays in the light that most other automakers are doing the same. Blaming management is like blaming a surgeon because someone was shot. The economic situation has deteriorated faster than anyone could have predicted, and hit automakers harder than anyone could have expected. Who could have expected that dealers would be told they could not buy cars, that they could not line up finance for the cars they have, that suppliers would not be allowed to sell to the Big 3? How does any measure of planning stop that? I don't want to hear anymore BS about years of losses pointing to management incompetence. The incompetence was in the union leaders and GM management decades ago, not now. The last several years of big losses have stemmed from past idiocy in demanding and conceding company pensions and healthcare. Everything the current management has done has been to fix that problem. That is where the losses have come from (both operational and extraordinary), not the bad planning of the current executives. Hundreds of billions of dollars had to be poured into the UAW pension plan, tens of billions more to provide healthcare at sky-rocketing prices. Forget Toyota, no new auto company would face these burdens. They tried closing a division, which all the armchair pundits still call for, and it only cost them money and sales. Not until the financial situation was transparently dire could they convince the UAW to accept concessions, and even then it was not without resistance, and at great expense. The restructuring plan has been devised, it is in progress already, but until 2010 it will have no immediate impact on cash flow. The UAW held on too long, the economy collapsed, and that put them into this mess. To ask now "What are you going to do to change things?" simply shows the gross ignorance of pundits and politicians. Employment has been slashed, wages will be reduced dramatically, healthcare will be passed to the VEBA trusts. That is already coming. Calls by many to simply not fund the VEBA and deny health coverage are grossly offensive. Didn't all this change you voted for include providing healthcare to everyone? How can anyone now call on the government not to fund GM because it would only go to provide healthcare to UAW workers? The government should be funding 100% of VEBA, not just for the UAW, but everyone else as well. Perhaps the UAW should offer to give back $50 billions set aside for pensions and VEBA, if the Democrats will promise to replace the money next year. I don't see either the UAW or the Democrats doing anything of the sort, do you?

The effect on GM's sales of a bankruptcy would ensure that anyway smk. Even the rumor of bankruptcy has a negative effect. To add to the bad news, suppliers have been told by European insurers they cannot supply components to the Big 3 without cash in advance.

Americans Strongly Support Aiding U.S. Automakers, Survey Finds WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- By nearly two-to-one, Americans across all segments of the population believe the U.S. government should provide loans to American automakers, according to a poll released today by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. "Americans' broad support for providing government assistance to the auto industry is built mainly on a genuine fear that a failed GM, Ford, and Chrysler could lead to a depression," said Peter Hart, chairman of the national polling firm. "But their support also is grounded in the hope that a revitalized auto industry could mean good things for the manufacturing sector and the country as a whole." The Hart poll, conducted Nov. 11-12, found that 55% of Americans believe that the government should provide loans to American automakers, while 30% oppose. Members of all political stripes (Democrats, Republicans and independents) support this action. By an even wider margin (64% to 25%), Americans agree with President-elect Barack Obama's stand of ensuring that the American automobile industry is able to continue to operate. Hart said that behind the support for the automakers is a fear that the failure of GM, Ford, and Chrysler in the next few years could trigger an economic depression (with 60% believing a depression would result). Nearly 80% (79%) of Americans believe that the auto industry is very or extremely important to the U.S. economy. The Hart poll found that Americans have deep concerns about the harmful impacts of the collapse of the U.S. auto industry: -- 90% fear the harm it would do to America's manufacturing sector. -- 84% of Americans say it would harm the U.S. economy. -- 70% fear the harm it would do to America's standing in the world. -- 68% worry about the lack of consumer choice for America's car buyers. "The public sees in stark terms the harm it would do to the country if the domestic auto industry no longer had the resources to produce vehicles," Hart said. "It is recognition that it is the country's central manufacturing base." The polling organization of Peter D. Hart Research Associates was commissioned by General Motors to conduct an independent survey. GM had no input or review of the design, methodology, content or interpretation of the survey. The poll was conducted by telephone among a cross section of 804 American adults on Nov. 11 and 12, 2008. The data's margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for 804 adults at the 95% confidence level. Sample tolerances for subgroups are larger. 1724 Connecticut Avenue, NW Interviews: 804 adults Washington, DC 20009 Dates: November 11-12, 2008 (202) 234-5570 FINAL 48 Male 52 Female Study #8877 [109] Auto Industry Survey November 2008 Please note: all results are shown as percentages unless otherwise stated. 1. Do you or does anyone in your household work in market or opinion research, advertising or public relations, media, including radio, television, print, or on-line publications, or the auto industry, including auto sales, manufacturing, or finance? Yes - TERMINATE [137] No 100 CONTINUE Not sure/refused - TERMINATE 2. For statistical purposes only, would you please tell me how old you are? (IF "REFUSED," ASK:) Well, would you tell me which age group you belong to? 18-24 4 [138-139] 25-29 8 30-34 13 35-39 6 40-44 7 45-49 12 50-54 11 55-59 11 60-64 9 65 -69 6 70-74 5 75 and over 7 Refused 1 3a. And again, for statistical purposes only, are you from a Hispanic or Spanish-speaking background? Yes, Hispanic 10 [140] No, not Hispanic 90 Not sure/refused - 3b. And again, for statistical purposes only, what is your race -- white, black, Asian, or something else? White 76 [141] Black 11 Asian 1 Other 4 Hispanic (VOL) 7 Not sure/refused 1 My next questions are about the American automobile industry. . . 4. How important do you feel the American automobile industry is to the American economy -- extremely important, very important, somewhat important, not important, or not at all important? Extremely important 38 [142] Very important 41 Somewhat important 17 Not important 2 Not at all important 1 Not sure 1 5. If the American automobile industry no longer had the resources to produce vehicles, how much harm would it cause to (READ ITEM) -- a great deal of harm, quite a bit of harm, just some harm, or very little harm? THIS TABLE HAS BEEN RANKED BY THE PERCENTAGE WHO SAY A GREAT DEAL OF HARM Harm A Quite Just Very Not Great A Bit Some Little Sure Deal ----- ---- ------ ---- ---- America's manufacturing job sector 58 32 7 2 1 [146] The American economy 52 32 12 3 1 [143] America's standing in the world 37 33 19 7 4 [144] Consumer choice for America's car buyers 37 31 21 8 3 [145] 6. Do you believe that the government should or should not provide loans to America's automakers so they have the money to manufacture vehicles? Government should provide loans 55 [147] Government should not provide loans 30 Not sure 15 7. President-elect Barack Obama has stated that one of his first economic priorities as president is to make sure that the American automobile industry continues to be able to operate, and he favors an economic assistance program to help them. Do agree or disagree with him? Agree 64 [148] Disagree 25 Not sure 11 8. Do you believe that America's automakers will face bankruptcy without government loans? Yes 60 [149] No 22 Not sure 18 9. The federal government has recently provided financial aid to the insurance and banking industries to make sure that these industries do not fail. Do you feel that providing financial aid to ensure that the U.S. auto industry does not fail is more important, just as important, or less important? More important 14 [150] Just as important 55 Less important 27 Not sure 4 10. If General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were to go out of business in the next few months, how likely do you think this would be to trigger an economic depression in the U.S. -- extremely likely, very likely, somewhat likely, not likely, or not at all likely? Extremely likely 33 [151] Very likely 27 Somewhat likely 29 Not likely 7 Not at all likely 2 Not sure 2 11. I'm going to describe several reasons some people say it is important to ensure the survival of America's automakers. Please tell me how important you feel each reason is using a zero-to-ten scale, on which a "ten" means that you feel that reason is extremely important, and "zero" means you feel it is not at all important. (AFTER EACH ITEM READ:) On a scale of zero to ten, how important is this as a reason to ensure the survival of America's automakers? THIS TABLE HAS BEEN RANKED BY THE PERCENTAGE WHO SAY EXTREMELY IMPORTANT (SCORE OF 9-10) Extremely Not At All Important Important Cannot 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Rate -- - - - - - - - - - - ---- To protect American Jobs 51 10 15 9 3 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 [152-153] To keep this recession from becoming a depression 37 11 18 9 5 8 3 2 2 1 3 1 [154-155] America can't afford for China, Japan, South Korea, and Europe to lead the way in building cars that run on alternative fuels 39 7 15 7 6 13 2 2 3 1 3 2 [158-159] America will be a weaker nation if it can't manufacture cars and trucks 31 10 15 11 6 11 4 4 2 1 4 1 [160-161] Because America's manufacturing base is important for national security 29 8 15 12 8 11 3 5 1 1 5 2 [156-157] 12. Let me read you four facts about the auto industry's effect on the American economy. 1. The U.S. auto industry affects numerous other American industries because it is the largest purchaser of steel, copper, plastics, electronics, and computer chips. 2. The U.S. auto industry provides pensions to seven hundred and seventy-five thousand Americans and health benefits to two million Americans. 3. The U.S. auto industry supports approximately five million U.S. jobs in all fifty states. 4. The U.S. auto industry has fourteen thousand dealers in nearly every town in America employing seven hundred thirty thousand people. Knowing this, if General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were to go out of business in the next few months, how likely do you think this would be to trigger an economic depression in the U.S. -- extremely likely, very likely, somewhat likely, not likely, or not at all likely? Extremely likely 44 [162] Very likely 32 Somewhat likely 18 Not likely 4 Not at all likely 1 Not sure 1 13. If you learned three to five years from now that America's automakers had successfully weathered the current economic challenges and emerged as leaders in the worldwide automobile industry, how important would that be to America -- extremely important, very important, somewhat important, not important, or not at all important? Extremely important 44 [163] Very important 38 Somewhat important 16 Not important 1 Not at all important - Not sure 1 14. Which of the following types of vehicles, if any, do you or members of your household own or lease? A hybrid vehicle 3 [164-165] A compact car 25 > A full-size passenger car 22 A mid-size passenger car 31 A station wagon 4 A minivan 16 CONTINUE A pick-up truck 35 A small SUV or crossover 9 A mid-size SUV or crossover 16 A large SUV 12 Other (VOL) 5 None/do not own or lease any vehicle (VOL) 3 Skip to Not sure - FACTUALS (ASK RESPONDENTS WHO SAY THEY HAVE A VEHICLE IN Q.14.) 15. What brands of vehicles do members of your household own or lease? Acura 1 [166-168] Audi 1 > BMW 2 Buick 5 Cadillac 3 Chevrolet 26 Chrysler 10 Dodge 11 Ford 32 GM 9 Honda 14 Hyundai 2 Infiniti 2 Jaguar 1 Jeep 4 Lexus 2 Mazda 4 Mercedes Benz 2 Mitsubishi 2 Pontiac 4 Porsche - Saab - Saturn 2 Scion - Subaru 3 Toyota 21 Volkswagen 3 Nissan 7 Volvo 1 Kia 1 Oldsmobile 2 Mercury 1 Lincoln 1 Other 3 Not sure 2 FACTUALS: Now I am going to ask you a few questions for statistical purposes only. F1. What is the last grade that you completed in school? Grade school 1 [176-177] Some high school 5 High school graduate 24 Some college, no degree 17 Vocational training, 2-year college 9 4-year college/bachelor's degree 26 Some postgraduate work, no degree 2 2-3 years' postgraduate work/master's degree 11 Doctoral/law degree 3 Not sure/refused 2 F2. Are you currently employed? (IF CURRENTLY EMPLOYED:) What type of work do you do? (IF NOT CURRENTLY EMPLOYED:) Are you a student, a homemaker, retired, or unemployed and looking for work? Currently Employed ------------------ Professional/ manager 25 [178] White-collar worker 20 Blue-collar worker 16 Farmer, rancher - Not Currently Employed ---------------------- Student 2 Homemaker 7 Retired 23 Unemployed, looking for work 5 Other - Not sure 2 F3a. Are you registered to vote, or have you not had a chance to register? Registered 91 [215] Not registered 7 Not sure 2 F3b. Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Democrat, a Republican, an independent, or something else? (IF "DEMOCRAT" OR "REPUBLICAN," ASK:) Would you call yourself a strong (Democrat/Republican) or not a very strong (Democrat/Republican)? (IF "INDEPENDENT," ASK:) Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party, closer to the Democratic Party, or do you think of yourself as strictly independent? Strong Democrat 28 [216] Not very strong Democrat 7 Independent/lean Democrat 8 Strictly independent 17 Independent/lean Republican 6 Not very strong Republican 8 Strong Republican 17 Other (VOL) 3 Not sure 6 F4. If you added together the yearly income of all the members of your family who were living at home last year, would the total be less than ten thousand dollars, between ten thousand dollars and twenty thousand dollars, between twenty thousand dollars and thirty thousand dollars, between thirty thousand dollars and forty thousand dollars, between forty thousand dollars and fifty thousand dollars, between fifty thousand dollars and seventy-five thousand dollars, between seventy-five thousand dollars and one hundred thousand dollars, between one hundred thousand dollars and one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, or would the total be more than that? Less than $10,000 1 [217-218] Between $10,000 and $20,000 7 Between $20,000 and $30,000 8 Between $30,000 and $40,000 6 Between $40,000 and $50,000 6 Between $50,000 and $75,000 17 Between $75,000 and $100,000 15 Between $100,000 and $150,000 12 More than $150,000 8 Not sure/refused 20 November 2008 Poll On Americans' Views of the Auto Industry The accompanying poll results are from a survey conducted by the polling organization of Peter D. Hart Research Associates for General Motors on November 11 and 12, 2008. The survey was conducted by telephone among a cross section of 804 American adults. The national sample for this poll was drawn in the following manner: 350 geographic points were randomly selected proportionate to the population of each region and, within each region, by size of place. Individuals were selected in accordance with a probability sample design that gives all landline telephone numbers (both listed and unlisted) an equal chance to be included. One adult, 18 years old or over, from each household was included, selected by a systematic procedure to provide a balance of respondents by sex. The data's margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for 804 adults at the 95% confidence level. Sample tolerances for subgroups are larger. Source: Peter D. Hart Research Associates

Unfortunately it took the beginnings of that day of reckoning to appear to convince the UAW of that. Until then all they could do is what they did—focus on the product. It's not like they weren't been asking for concessions until last week. What would you have had him do? File for bankruptcy 8 years ago?

Speculators aren't panicking about the fuel supply anymore, they're panicking about too many other things.

Before or after the $10K rebates which are, once again, on offer by the Europeans?

The Volt has 4 seats, the Tesla 2. That makes a big difference.

AN is reporting now that Bush did not demand the Colombian free trade deal in exchange for a Detroit aid package: "John Podesta, co-chairman of President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, today disputed reports that President Bush is tying stimulus legislation to congressional approval of a free trade agreement with Colombia. Democratic leaders oppose the trade deal. Obama and Bush merely exchanged views on the two issues during a meeting at the White House Monday, Podesta said at a briefing."

Then either CNBC are idiots ot you need your ears waxed. GM sales were down 45% last month, not this year. The delays you quote are rumor, not fact. GM went to great pains during their dire warning on Friday to point out that most of those models were not being delayed. The GLK and Q5 were always going to beat the SRX to market, and are smaller models in a different segment that has few entrants and few sales.

Masterful smk, that explains why Toyota builds all their cars in China instead of the US. Oh wait, they don't. Alone among major industries, automakers know that JIT, lean production, and market responsiveness requires you to build plants to serve local markets wherever possible. You really don't want to be loading a cargo ship full of thousands of SUVS just as oil prices start to rise. It's too late to cut production when they're halfway across the Pacific. Haven't you noticed BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, Honda, Toyota and now VW building more and more plants in the US? It's not just a matter of labor costs and tariffs. It's lead time and transport, and inventory control. But then that's typical of the dime-a-dozen MBA's on Wall-Street who only know how to manage a paper trail, and have driven one business after the other into the ground. I'm sure GM's bankers are still asking why they build cars in the US instead of China, and why like Chrysler they weren't taking to Great Wall about importing 20-year-old carburetted Hiluxes to replace the Colorado. Case in point: Oneida used to make cultery and china in the US, in company-owned factories. They were premium products and they could charge what they wanted to compete with American and European competitors whose costs were similar. Then they decided to outsource everything and sooner than you can cash your redundancy check they were bankrupt. Brilliant.

My, we are sensitive. I didn't accuse you of anything you didn't repeat right there. I never said you wished this, I never said you didn't have a stake. Plenty of other people have acted with malice and resentment toward GM, but I never said you did. I just don't think you understand how bad things really were when it looked like they were "selling tons of profitable trucks". I think GM was already run into the ground and in need of rebuilding. Those truck sales just hid the underlying problems, problems they have finally come to grips with. The high sales they had in years past were just a fantasy, inflated by dumping into daily fleet and bolstered by unsustainable rebates. To some extent they had no choice. Despite what many people seem to think they have been restructuring for years, and it cost them a ton of money to do so, but without it they could have only suffered a slow and agonizing death. They looked at it and said "this can't go on", and they made a valiant effort to fix it, and under the circumstances they did a stellar job. The money that's gone is money that was promised long ago to employees and retirees. That's not Wagoner's fault. The sales that have been lost were unsupported by true market demand. That's not Wagoner's fault either. They've got themselves into a position where they can control inventory, where legacy costs will be sustainable in future, where they can earn money and start to rebuild. But they can't do that in an economy that has turned into a basket case because the housing bubble has burst, manufacturing jobs in other industries have been decimated by idiots at retailers like Wal-Mart who source candy from China instead of Chicago. How is Wagoner responsible for that? I can understand you're upset and worrid, and have been for a long time, but GM has been making a last stand at the Alamo and the bullets have just run out. You think firing Bowie or Crocket or Travis would have made any difference at all?

SMK really does live in cloud-cuckoo-land. You know, you're not supposed to eat the lotus-flowers. What exactly do you think autoworkers should be retained to do? Collect cans for recycling? Sell home loans? Plant trees? How exactly is the economy going to recover when no-one has a job? Who is going to buy all those cars from Toyota and Honda when everyone is unemployed? Investing billions in the auto industry is exactly the kind of economic stimulus that was needed even without the cash crisis facing the industry. What else is the government going to do? Upgrade rural road 4 from a pony trail to a 4-lane interstate? Replace the plumbing in the congressional bathrooms with gold fittings?

Don't forget, congress doesn't want to do anything either. If the Administration says they aren't authorized to spend he financial bailout money on the big three, that is easily fixed—enact more legislation, better targeted at the auto industry. Wagoner at least is offering the kind of deal that the democrats did not ask of the finance executives—salary caps, equity, and an R&D strategy they can sell as aiding climate change and fuel economy. It seems clear that not enough democrats want to do anything either. Dingall and Obama and his economic advisors can beg all they want. I think you are looking at an apocalyptic economic landscape. The US in two years time will look like Haiti. Russia will be looking good. If you're a resident alien, quit your job, take all your money, and go home now. You'll be better off.

If he doesn't you won't be the only one who never votes for him or anyone else again. To e fair, he may not be allowed to do what he needs to do, however much he'd like to.

Wait and see if he can convince the democrats to recall congress and vote the necessary funds first. He doesn't have to be president to do that, or to support the legislation in the senate. If he can't, what will change once he is?

This has been coming for 30 years, and only in the last 10 have they done anything to prevent it. Investment in R&D was too low, they ramped it up. Sales to fleets were too high, they slashed them. Development work was duplicated, they consolidated it. Design was poor, they revived it, quality was low, they increased it. Healthca5re costs, always a problem, went through the roof (you seriously can't blame Wagoner for that), they finally found a way to offload it. Wages were too high, they found a way to cut them. They had to fix an immense structural problem, without panicking consumers by letting them know how bad a problem it was. How long did it take them to convince the UAW how bad things were and how much things needed to change? JP Morgan is correct, GM has been pursuing an out-of-court restructuring for years that is on the cusp of paying off, and may pay off big time. It would be a shame if ignorance, malice and resentment were to prevent them from overcoming the last unexpected hurdle, a hurdle that GM cannot be blamed for in any way.

JP Morgan is right except for one thing: I would give a congressional bailout a 20% chance at best. Too many Democrats on the left coast don't understand the consequences of a failure to act, and their constituents don't either. I don't recall enzl doing anything but rant and bitch about management, and call on management to resign, as if they were only making things worse. That's all many people here did. I don't recall any such suggestions from those who really knew how bad things were, or why. Perhaps they understood that Wagoner was dealt a bad hand, far worse than enzl seems to realize, than many of you realize. Wagoner realized the magnitude of the problems and did his best to address them, hampered by franchise laws and a union which only saw profits from sales of SUVS and rental cars which only hid the true problems. By the time the UAW realized how bad things were and agreed to concessions, it was too late. If the market had held up two more years, then it might not have been, but it would have been close. This is a management team coming in with the score at 30-0 and battling back to 60-55, only to have the game washed out by rain. It is mean-spirited at beast to then blame them for the final score. If the cash had held up till 2010, they would have achieved a turn-around and restructuring of North American operations of epic proportions. Without the collapse of the housing market and credit crunch, I think they would have done it, at which point they would all be heroes. I would have done some things differently, I have always said so. I am not arrogant enough or as ignorant of the real situation to think it would have made much difference right now. What else they could or should have done would have only helped long term. It would not have saved them now. There are people who realized before I did that they would not make it to 2010 without assistance. Enzl was not one of them. It is disingenuous now to say "I told you so".

You still need work to pay yourself. What makes you think there will be any business for you to do in 6 months time? Most contractors are self-employed, what are they all doing now? Where are all the MBAs that used to work on Wall Street 3 months ago? Toyota is scared. They aren't in any danger of going out of business, but their biggest market is collapsing, their profits are collapsing, and that all has an effect on their ability to fund future product programs. If they keep losing nearly $1billion a quarter in the US their $5billion dollar profit won't survive long. It could crash to a $1billion next year if things stay as they are. If GM, Ford and Chrysler fail, that remaining billion could go up in smoke for a very long time to come. They are in a strong position, but they have every reason to be worried, and their $40billion cash hoard would last about a year if they had to support GM, and would take another decade to restore. GM collapsing would not hurt Toyota in the short term, it would hurt Toyota for decades. Millions of people will lose their jobs. Millions more would lose their pensions and healthcare. It will be a black hole in the US economy sucking more and more jobs into it. With the resulting collapse in the US economy, the income of billions of more people around the world will be severely impacted, crippling Toyota's other markets, markets in which it is already by far the largest automaker. Toyota is not in a good position to meet the demands of a new, poorer global economy. Sales, profits and leadership will increasingly pass to companies such as Renault, Tata, Volkswagen, and even Suzuki.

BTW, Toyota's NA loss in the quarter was not $200 million. It was $353 million. That figure is misleading however. Toyota's losses in NA actually include a reduction in export income for the Japanese operations of an additional $461 million, due entirely to the appreciation of the yen. In effect the Japanese unit is absorbing the cost increases the NA unit should face. If that cost was passed on, the NA loss would be more like $US814 million. Say it with me: OUCH!!!