GM's current market cap is $1.18 billion. Nationalize it.

[smoogatz]

Throw out management--all of them. Keep the entire labor force on the payroll. Discontinue every vehicle that gets less than 30 mpg. Turn the company into a green tech R&D and manufacturing powerhouse. Put Al freaking Gore in charge. I mean, why the fuck not?

[Occam Bandage]

1. Hell, nationalizing it would barely cost more than the paper the bill would be printed on!

Well, maybe a bit more, but hey. GM is hella cheap. Just buy it up, turn it around, and then make a nice profit for Joe Taxpayer on the deal.

[Horse with no Name]

2. I like this! n/t

[JDPriestly]

3. That would solve a lot of problems -- about 100 birds with one stone.

Great ideas.

[LuckyTheDog]

4. The cars that get 30 mpg or more

Are mostly sitting on dealer lots right now. They need to make more of what is selling, for now.

They'll need to improve the high-mileage fleet, for sure. Gas prices will go up again -- maybe soon. GM needs to get geared up for that and they already know it. They are pushing hard in that direction.

But to suggest that GM should not make highly profitable larger vehicles is unrealistic. Even when has prices surge, there will be a need for larger vehicles. Yaris-like econoboxes suit the needs of some people, but not all. GM will want to be in all the market segments it can profitably serve.

[smoogatz]

16. You're not paying attention.

I'm talking about totally remaking the company as a model of what green tech/mfg can be. They could make everything from solar panels to geothermal furnaces to 100 mpg cars to hydrogen cars. You want to keep making freaking Buicks? For what?

[StreetKnowledge]

44. Because some larger cars do sell.

That's a point far too many here are not getting, or are ignoring.

Not everyone wants to drive an econobox. I drive a big four-door with a V8 engine. If somebody wants to tell me about how I should scrap it for a small car, I'm gonna ignore them.

I don't agree on nationalization, either. Those of us who know the auto industry remember when Britain nationalized their car industry in the early 1970s and what resulted from it. No thanks.

I figure that if the Obama administration forces enough smart people on it, the better, and once the company is making competitive cars, the company won't have to rely on the feds or lean on the UAW any longer. That's where they need to go.

[LuckyTheDog]

50. Yep.

My brother, who has a wife and 4 children, is not about to try to squeeze his whole family into a Yaris. It ain't gonna happen.

[MercutioATC]

5. Kill every vehicle that gets less than 30mpg???????

Kill the Corvette? Trucks?

There's a market for vehicles that get less than 30mpg. With the economy in it's current state, why would you advocate killing a viable market?

[LuckyTheDog]

8. You've got that right

Killing every car that gets less than 30 mpg would mean killing the 'Vette, all the SUVs, the Silverado pickup truck and the new Chevy Camaro. That would be suicide for GM.

[tammywammy]

11. Yep. Thank god the OP isn't in charge. n/t

[smoogatz]

14. Dude.

GM is already dead. It committed suicide a long time ago.

[ContinentalOp]

10. LOL, and what does that leave?

A couple of Saturns, a couple of Pontiacs, the Malibu Hybrid, and the Aveo that's made by Daewoo?

[smoogatz]

13. Read the post.

You can't have a green tech-driven company if you're selling Corvettes and big-ass trucks.

[MercutioATC]

17. So do what, stop making their most profitable vehicles?

Yeah, that's a recipe for success. :eyes:

Nothing I'd want to try with taxpayer money.

[smoogatz]

18. You're stuck in exactly the same mind-set that killed the U.S. auto industry.

Remarkable.

[MercutioATC]

19. Riiiight. Making profitable cars killed the auto industry...

I'd argue that three things killed GM.

1) Redundancy.

2) An inability to change production to meet demand.

3) GMAC

#2 probably had the biggest impact. When gas prices rose, they were still intent on building large vehicles when people wanted more fuel-efficient cars. That doesn't mean that building high-profit SUVs was a bad idea, it means that they lost sales when they didn't change production to meet market demands.

[smoogatz]

20. No--short term bottom line considerations at the expense of innovation

are what killed GM. They bet everything on high profit trucks and SUVs, and have since the late '80s. That's per unit profit; the company as a whole has obviously not done well for some years now. They've put next to nothing into R&D, and now they've basically got a product-line dating from 1995. That and a huge pension liability and health-care costs, and as you say, too many redundant product lines. GMAC was spun off in 1996, I believe.

On edit: anyway, I'm proposing a complete re-invention of the company as a green tech flagship. Obviously you wouldn't want to keep making 12 MPG SUVs if you were going to show the world what green tech was all about.

[MercutioATC]

22. I hear what you're saying, but why have a car company make solar panels?

Innovation is great, but GM is a car company. Hell, it's even called General MOTORS.

Let solar panel manufacturers make solar panels...

[smoogatz]

27. Because they suck at making cars?

Who cares what they make, as long as it's green and keeps union workers in their jobs?

[MercutioATC]

28. Well played, sir!

I still think it's be better to do it as a completely different company, though.

[ContinentalOp]

29. Uh, why bother to buy them out then?

If you're just going to make solar panels there's absolutely nothing of value in GM that we would want to buy.

[smoogatz]

33. How about a talented, motivated union work force?

And a shitload of giant factories? It's about keeping people employed, and getting the green economy ball rolling. Come on, admit it--it's elegant.

[dysfunctional press]

35. why would you need to buy a work force...? and how do you do it?

and why would you want a shitload of giant factories that are set-up and tooled to make cars, if you're not going to make cars?

[smoogatz]

40. Preserving union jobs is a good thing, right?

So preserve them. Keep everybody on the payroll while you re-tool. You'd make green cars, but you'd make other stuff, too, maybe. Why not? GM made tanks and military vehicles in WWII; a factory can be re-tooled to make just about any damn thing.

[StreetKnowledge]

45. Agreed on that front, but.

There is always demand for cars, always will be. Get some smart guys in charge at GM, and go from there. That alone will help the union jobs.

[dysfunctional press]

34. but at least cars is what they're set-up and tooled to make.

how cost-effective would it be to turn a car factory into a solar panel factory?
it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense- especially as there's still going to be a need for cars in the future- and with fewer people buying now, that many more replacement vehicles will be needed in the not-so-distant future.

[smoogatz]

41. Did I say they'd stop making cars?

No, I did not. Cars, sure, but why not other green tech, too? You guys are such linear thinkers.

[dysfunctional press]

47. seeing as you're such a visionary, with such a mind for business- why not start one...?

after all, the world is obviously in dire need of the contributions of great green thinkers like yourself.

[smoogatz]

52. Why so hostile?

What have you got against green technology?

[dysfunctional press]

56. i don't have anything against green technology...

what have you got against rationality?

and...

why so snotty?

[smoogatz]

57. There you go again.

Whatever.

[ContinentalOp]

6. Plus pay off their what, $25 billion in debts?

And then pay the same amount each year in operating costs while waiting for them to make a profit?

[smoogatz]

15. Nope.

You negotiate a percentage of the debt, just as you would if the company went Chapter 11.

[roamer65]

7. Buy it and give it to the workers to run.

It would be profitable within 2-3 years and the quality would be the best of them all.

[corruptmewithpower]

9. Why not? Get some DARPA brainiacs to work on the cars.

Make nuclear powered Hummers that'll go a million miles on one tiny fuel rod.

[PM Martin]

12. And dump OnStar.

[C......N......C]

21. I think green cars will only be popular if gas prices goes up.

[MercutioATC]

23. Even if gas prices go up, there will still be a market for trucks and performance cars.

A smaller market, but a market nonetheless.

The solution isn't to stop building gas hogs...regardless of gas prices. It's to tailor production to market needs.

[C......N......C]

24. Begs the question, are there not enough buyers left. Is the drop in demand

due to the global economic crisis and not a preference of models or features.

[MercutioATC]

25. There are NOT enough buyers to justify past production levels.

There's still a market for new cars, but the economy's impact on most people has shrunk it.

There will be fewer total units sold and there will be a shift to lower-cost models, but the market for "toys" is still there...and there will always be a segment of buyers to whom a large truck is a necessity, not a toy.

[C......N......C]

26. I totally agree with your statement that

There are NOT enough buyers to justify past production levels.

[StreetKnowledge]

46. That is true.

The OP isn't doing that though, he's saying scrap them, period. I don't think that will help GM survive, it will sink them for good in weeks.

[Oregone]

30. No shit

Shifting the healthcare/pension plans to available offered government ones would cut costs immediately. Then comes the green tech. We need a national Green Volkswagen project, yesterday, and its not going to get done with the magic of the free market.

Unfortunately, I don't think Obama will touch ANY nationalization with a 10 foot pole

[AndyTiedye]

31. GM Doesn't Make Anything Here that Gets Over 30 MPG (Combined EPA)

Discontinue every vehicle that gets less than 30 mpg.

That would be all of them. GM doesn't make anything here that gets over 30 mpg (combined EPA).

This Ford SUV beats them all:

[LuckyTheDog]

37. VERY few cars do

Only a small handful of cars on the market now get a combined 30 mpg. Only about 20 vehicles dold here get more than 30 mpg on the highway.

We cannot have an entire national fleet made up of Smart cars and the smallest of hybrids.

[smoogatz]

43. Are you fucking kidding me?

Not one vehicle? No wonder they're in the crapper.

[LuckyTheDog]

49. But only a very few cars on the market

... get a combined 30 mpg. And in no case are those vehicles big contributors to the bottom lines of the companies that make them. Why? Because very, very few car buyers purchase a car based on fuel economy alone.

GM makes a lot of cars that get 30 mpg or better on the highway.

[AndyTiedye]

32. The UAW Could Buy Them Outright. Perhaps They Should

[LuckyTheDog]

39. I could go for that (nt)

[TreasonousBastard]

36. Great idea! Since there is not one major car company...

in the entire world that's a "green tech" company and has it's entire fleet get over 30mpg, GM would have the whole field to itself while losingeven more money.

(That'd teach Toyota to drop everything but the Prius and Yaris, and close down Lexus.)

[LuckyTheDog]

38. The Prius is a money-loser

The Yaris has had quality problems.

Just sayin'.

[smoogatz]

42. Got a link?

I've done a quick Google search and can't find any conclusive info about whether the Prius makes money or not. Care to share your source for that tidbit?

[LuckyTheDog]

48. We've gone over this before here

Toyota spent billions developing the Prius and, by its own admission, spent years selling them at a loss. The company now says that it is selling them for more than they cost to build. But Toyota is nowhere close to recovering all those initial costs. Given that they have sold only about 1 million Priuses (Priui?), the math does not add up.

[smoogatz]

51. Toyota says that the R&D cost on the Prius

drive-train, battery, energy return system, etc. should be spread across the product line, since they're planning to introduce hybrid versions of the entire fleet down the road. So it's all in how you read the balance sheet, I guess. For me, the only problem with the Prius is that they're butt ugly; I'll still probably buy one in the next year or so, though. Also a hybrid minivan, when/if they come out.

[LuckyTheDog]

54. No, I get that. Toyota is right.

Over the long haul, the investment in the Prius WILL pay off. But as of now, it hasn't. Luckily for them, Toyota has had the profits to fund a project like that. But those profits have come in large part from the sale of SUVs and non-hybrid cars.

That's not a knock on Toyota. Toyota is the best-run car company on Earth.

[AndyTiedye]

53. "Money Loser" Implies that They Are Continuing to Lose Money On Them

which they are not. Some of their development costs for the Prius were also leveraged in their other hybrid models, though most of those haven't sold all that well. Not sure how that would affect the numbers.

[LuckyTheDog]

55. See my response to smoogatz (above) NT

[C......N......C]

58. It's not about finding a model that sells. It is finding buyers.

For 2008 : 5 Million new unemployed 2.5 Million less cars sold. There are really people unemployed that were past car buyers. There are not enough buyers to turn the car industry around. No matter what kind of model is made.