Why would GM cut R & D, the source of its future growth, in order to show profits in the short run? Is something happening in, say, November, for which the 26%-government-owned entity might want its balance sheet to look artificially rosy?
Posts Tagged ‘GM’
Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry bailout — closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and Chrysler — were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky.[D]ealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, to meet numbers forced on them by the Obama administration, General Motors and Chrysler were forced to shutter other, potentially more viable, dealerships. The livelihood of potentially tens of thousands of families was thus eliminated simply because their dealerships were not minority- or woman-owned.As has been widely reported, the Inspector General’s study skewered the Obama Gang for strong-arming the companies into closing 2,000 dealerships, costing an estimated 100,000 people their jobs during a recession.
I’m not losing any sleep over the GM scenario and neither is Burgess (I think), but it’s a tasty hypothetical given the left’s basically correct assertion that Commerce Clause jurisprudence lets them do anything their hearts desire. Any legal eagles care to weigh in? If it’s constitutional to impose an insurance mandate, i.e. “you must purchase a product from this industry,” why would it be unconstitutional to refine that to “you must purchase our product from this industry”?
Allahpundit may not be losing sleep over it, but I have to confess this does not help my general paranoia about the SDP’s plans for taking over our Republic.
December sales of Ford cars and trucks shot up 33 percent compared with December 2008, solidifying the automaker’s primacy among Detroit’s Big Three.
Ford’s share of the U.S. market climbed 1 percent in 2009 to about 15 percent, the company said, marking the first year-over-year increase since 1995.
Ford car sales rose 42 percent, and truck sales rose 29 percent.
Chrysler said its December sales dropped 4 percent, which counts as a pretty strong month for the ailing automaker, which routinely was shedding 35 percent of its sales each month during the recession.
Of course Ford was the only American manufacturer to not sell out to the government. to me, that is sufficient explanation for the difference. But then too, I have always thought Fords were better cars. In this case, Ford just deserve our support for toughing it out. I will be very interested to see what Governmental Motors (GM) figures are the this period
Chip published this cartoon before Christmas. It was funny then. Suddenly its not so funny any more.
I have no doubt the Obamnoids are looking for a way to “incentivize” buying Governmental Moters cars. Perhaps a 50% surtax on all cars not made by GM or Chrysler? Hey, it’s the Chicago way!
I was over at Rasmussen’s site getting my daily fix of poll data and this bit caused me the chuckle
Forty-six percent (46%) of Americans say they’re more likely to buy a Ford because it did not take a federal
bailout. Two-thirds of Americans (66%) have a favorable opinion of Ford. Ratings for GM and Chrysler are much lower.
Well, Barry, how’s that bailout stuff working out?
Just one month after the government took a 60% stake in GM, it reported its first half sales fell 22%.
Ford rejected a big government bailout. How’s it doing? It posted a $2.3 billion quarterly profit in the second quarter, confounding analysts and critics alike. “We strengthened our balance sheet, reduced cash outflows and improved our year-over-year financial results despite sharply-lower industry volumes,” said Ford Chief Financial Officer Lewis Booth.
And no, this is not an unusual situation. Anytime the government sticks its nose in business, the business will be corrupted.