• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump 'very disappointed' with General Motors after plant closures

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...nted-with-general-motors-after-plant-closures
[FONT=&quot]President Trump lambasted General Motors in a tweet on Tuesday, just one day after the auto manufacturer announced it was cutting 15 percent of its North American workforce and halting production at several plants. Shares slipped over 2 percent following the twee[/FONT]
Trump, shut the **** up. It's a business decision to get out of unprofitable products, and move to get ahead of the market trends. There are times you really are an asshat.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,086
Reaction score
44,025
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I think this is a fair post.

Though I doubt the 25% steel tariffs are helping, either.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think this is a fair post.

Though I doubt the 25% steel tariffs are helping, either.

Not ideal, but 95% of this is GM moving their focus away from unprofitable vehicles.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,086
Reaction score
44,025
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not ideal, but 95% of this is GM moving their focus away from unprofitable vehicles.
Agreed.

But does not costs of materials, and other manufacturing costs, affect profitability?
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Agreed.

But does not costs of materials, and other manufacturing costs, affect profitability?

It has an impact, but the fact they are moving so hard away from sedans and low sale vehicles says that is the real reason, while yes the Tariff's impact their profitability as a whole, I have serious doubts they would not have made this move were there no tariff's. Companies make changes based on what's profitable... Sedans aren't the future right now, so it makes sense to move away from them. Trump made a fool of himself wading in like that.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
155,838
Reaction score
54,698
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...nted-with-general-motors-after-plant-closures

Trump, shut the **** up. It's a business decision to get out of unprofitable products, and move to get ahead of the market trends. There are times you really are an asshat.

Oh, the products are profitable...in China.


Cadillac, behind China, nears sales peak. Significant growth in China propelled Cadillac to its second-highest annual sales tally in the brand's 115-year history. The General Motors luxury brand on Friday said it delivered 356,467 vehicles worldwide in 2017, a 16 percent increase over 2016.

China drives Cadillac to near-record sales
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,086
Reaction score
44,025
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It has an impact, but the fact they are moving so hard away from sedans and low sale vehicles says that is the real reason, while yes the Tariff's impact their profitability as a whole, I have serious doubts they would not have made this move were there no tariff's. Companies make changes based on what's profitable... Sedans aren't the future right now, so it makes sense to move away from them. Trump made a fool of himself wading in like that.
Fair enough in your opinion. I'm simply pointing-out that kicking a struggling market segment in the ass with additional artificial & unnecessary taxes, is not conducive to promoting growth or profitability.

When you apply tariff taxes, you are artificially picking winners & losers.
 

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
36,959
Reaction score
13,281
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,165
Reaction score
33,057
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't think he understands that people owe loyalty to the country, and that the presidency is merely an office representing power over the country. He thinks people, corporations - anything really - owe loyalty to him personally.



Then again, as to the tax cuts: we told you so. Nobody invests in building more widgets because of a tax cut.

Well, nobody except someone who is soon out of business. Investment only happens if demand is forecast.
 

jdog21

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
3,429
Reaction score
716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fair enough in your opinion. I'm simply pointing-out that kicking a struggling market segment in the ass with additional artificial & unnecessary taxes, is not conducive to promoting growth or profitability.

When you apply tariff taxes, you are artificially picking winners & losers.

Same can be said for gas taxes hikes, unions, and minimum wage laws. It all effects the profitability of GM and their ability to get a stable footing in the market place. But I see only justifications for those, while dismissing any justification for tariffs.
 

Pedestrian

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
1,901
Reaction score
340
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
GM has known since the bailout and has been planning this ever since the Volt and Cruz never really caught on.

Still this is capitalism and for the capitalist there are no people, no workers, no community or country.

ALL there is, is...profits and taxes. So to hell with America ($80 billion bailout) and to hell with the workers.

Blogroids for a co. that had no layoffs for 52 years, (IBM 1940-1992 then laid off 60,000 the largest ever in 1993 eventually 150,000) to then in 2013 (?)

report a record quarterly profit of some $3.3 billion only to have management celebrate that record by announcing 8000 layoffs and $9 billion to buy their own stock back.

Now that's capitalism. The good ones are sociopaths...the best psychopaths.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,509
Reaction score
7,630
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not ideal, but 95% of this is GM moving their focus away from unprofitable vehicles.

Its about time. However if GM does not change its management style which is mired in the 1970's if not earlier, I am not sure it will help. No matter how many times we bail Detroit out, they don't seem to learn very much. Most specifically GM needs to be more in touch with its markets. Frankly, what they have of the American market is more what has been left to them, a slim threading of the needle to a particular type of customer.

The proposed changes might actually help in that regard. My concern is that it will just turn into another opportunity to be beaten like a wet mule again. But they have plenty of cash. Hopefully they put it to good use.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,890
Reaction score
3,449
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Fair enough in your opinion. I'm simply pointing-out that kicking a struggling market segment in the ass with additional artificial & unnecessary taxes, is not conducive to promoting growth or profitability.

When you apply tariff taxes, you are artificially picking winners & losers.

The reality is that U.S. consumers are moving away from sedans to SUVs and what are called crossovers. Please remember that Ford announced the same type of move a while ago. This had to do with GM catching up with buyers preferences,so tariffs don't apply in any true sense.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

Pedestrian

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
1,901
Reaction score
340
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Its about time. However if GM does not change its management style which is mired in the 1970's if not earlier, I am not sure it will help. No matter how many times we bail Detroit out, they don't seem to learn very much. Most specifically GM needs to be more in touch with its markets. Frankly, what they have of the American market is more what has been left to them, a slim threading of the needle to a particular type of customer.

The proposed changes might actually help in that regard. My concern is that it will just turn into another opportunity to be beaten like a wet mule again. But they have plenty of cash. Hopefully they put it to good use.

Well we know now beyond all doubt, the tax rate cut that happened and repatriation that hasn't, did nothing for the American worker.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Not ideal, but 95% of this is GM moving their focus away from unprofitable vehicles countries.

Fixed that for you.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It has an impact, but the fact they are moving so hard away from sedans and low sale vehicles says that is the real reason, while yes the Tariff's impact their profitability as a whole, I have serious doubts they would not have made this move were there no tariff's. Companies make changes based on what's profitable... Sedans aren't the future right now, so it makes sense to move away from them. Trump made a fool of himself wading in like that.

Why can't we make electric vehicles and crossovers in this country?
 

Checkerboard Strangler

💉COVID Longhaul ZOMBIE 😓
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
47,193
Reaction score
28,703
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are several kinds of "sedan style cars" that Americans have been buying in the last decade or so.

1. The hatch, also sometimes known as a "hot hatch" because it might have some jazzy performance.
2. The highly bespoke luxo-sport sedan.
3. Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima, Honda Accord.

Although American carmakers, particularly GM, have indeed made cars similar to the Camry, Altima and Accord with what could be argued EQUAL and sometimes better quality in the last decade or so, the fact is, Camry, Altima and Accord owners WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER switch.
And, the Camry, Altima and Accord were STILL just a teensy weensy bit better anyway.

The US manufacturers lost that market segment for the most during the 80's when they started making absolute crap and they never were able to win back that market to the point where it was super profitable again, despite making a decent product once again. And an entire generation grew up SINCE then, conditioned to accept that when one looks for a sedan, one looks to Toyota, Nissan or Honda.

The only way GM, Ford or even Chrysler were ever going to find enough profitability in that market was going to be if they stomped Toyota, Nissan and Honda into the ground and claimed the Numero Uno spot.
They should be happy that they got #2 or #3, and I guarantee you a lot of people are impressed, but it wasn't enough given the overhead here in the U.S.

The US has never made a decent hot hatch except for the Ford Focus, and most of the market for those is EU anyway.
And the luxo-sport sedan market belongs to Mercedes, and BMW, and always has.

Nowadays it could be argued that we make a very GOOD luxo-sport sedan, like the Chrysler 300, but it's not THE BEST.
And again, with our overhead being what it is, if we aren't going to be #1 by a wide margin (stomping a mudhole in MBZ-BMW) we cannot make enough profit to be sustainable.

Ford finally figured it out a while back. Ford will continue to offer Lincolns, and the Mustang.
That's IT for Ford in the car market, PERIOD.
GM is now finally admitting the same. They realize that they can probably offer ONE Buick model, maybe TWO Caddy models, and the Camaro and Corvette and that's all she wrote.
And FCA (formerly Chrysler) might just kill the series that replaces the 300 pretty soon, I would wager twenty bucks on it.

The fact is, if Americans buy American vehicles, they mostly buy crossovers, minivans, small SUV's, large SUV's and pickup trucks.

And as far as killing the Volt, they are killing the Volt because it is ALSO a SEDAN, despite the fact that it has a hatchback.
It is STILL a four door sedan and Americans do not buy very many American four door sedans.
Voltec hybrid technology is probably going to live on, at least for the next five or even ten years, just not in a four door sedan.

And GM is stating that it really intends to transition, as soon as possible, to FULL Battery Electric Vehicles anyway, so Voltec technology style powertrains may eventually give way to full EV powertrains anyway.

I expect we will see Volt powered crossovers and small SUV's for a few years more, but only for as long as it takes for the electric charging infrastructure to become accepted as ubiquitous and thoroughly commonplace throughout the entire country.=, and for the battery technology to transition to the point where ten or fifteen minutes is more than adequate for sufficient charge time to keep a vehicle topped up enough to travel within humanly feasible range for a full day's driving.

The core mark for that is 65% charge. If you can top up a BEV to 65% charge in 15 minutes, and the vehicle has a max EV range of 250 miles, that puts it within the acceptable outer range of human driving capability for a day's drive, because 250 miles on a full charge plus another 175 miles equals 425 miles, and that equals about seven hours worth of driving.
Add another fifteen minute top off and you get 600 miles and that's eight and a half hours worth of driving.
The majority of people seldom drive for more than eight and a half hours in a day. That's not to say there aren't road dogs like myself who can do twelve hours without flinching, but people like me are the exception, not the rule.

So my point in all of this is, car mfr's see that as a golden meatball, and GM sees it as something doable by 2022 or even sooner.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Fair enough in your opinion. I'm simply pointing-out that kicking a struggling market segment in the ass with additional artificial & unnecessary taxes, is not conducive to promoting growth or profitability.

When you apply tariff taxes, you are artificially picking winners & losers.

And not applying tariffs on foreign automobiles when manufacturers are using dirt cheap foreign labor is in effect picking winners and losers. Those who win are those who abuse local populations and pay them dirt while the losers are American workers who used to have good paying jobs. Yes, a lack of tariffs is a subsidy for the rich because those who pay for that are workers who no longer have their good paying jobs.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I don't think he understands that people owe loyalty to the country, and that the presidency is merely an office representing power over the country. He thinks people, corporations - anything really - owe loyalty to him personally.

How is GM exhibiting loyalty to the country here?
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Same can be said for gas taxes hikes, unions, and minimum wage laws. It all effects the profitability of GM and their ability to get a stable footing in the market place. But I see only justifications for those, while dismissing any justification for tariffs.

You seem to have a lot more sympathy for GM than for the thousands of auto workers who are losing their livelihoods.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
report a record quarterly profit of some $3.3 billion only to have management celebrate that record by announcing 8000 layoffs and $9 billion to buy their own stock back.

Now that's capitalism. The good ones are sociopaths...the best psychopaths.

It's true. It's absolutely disgusting, and the only ones who win are the idle rich. There ought to be a riots on the streets over this. Instead, those "patriotic" conservatives are crying for GM while their fellow citizens lose everything.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Thousands of good paying American jobs are lost, and you're upset that the president thinks that's a bad thing?

Whom are you working for?

Jobs get lost, it happens. Trump's tweet is asinine
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
125,207
Reaction score
37,633
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Simple fix. Subsidize the production and purchase of GM electric vehicles in coal powered towns. When coal miners plug all those discount GM electric vehicles into the grid, they'll create demand for their jobs.
 
Top Bottom