My Dad (being a banker and knowing alot about how companies work) says (thankfully) no they won't, at least not yet. If they do go, it will be VERY sad. Such a grand old company with such a rich automotive history :happysad:.

-Captain Dan

You gotta be kidding. GM will never go out of business.

Yeah, it's not possible unless they sold ZERO cars. Even with the costs of running the company GM still has billions in cash reserves and captial. If it really came down to it they could either sell off capital, or pull on thier reserves.

GM COULD NEVER GO OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE THE GORVERNMENT WOULD BAIL THEM OUT....

I HIGHLY DOUBT WE WILL SEE THE END OF ANY OF THE BIG 3 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS ANYTIME SOON.

I hope your dad laughed at you when you asked him this question.

thats one of the reasons toyota raised there prices

they dont want higher Tarifs, and gm went with employ priceing

gm=dropped prices
toyota=rasied (i think 3%) not much though

The only reason GM is surviving is because of

A)Government Subsidies (aka Corporate welfare)
B) Toyota is raising the prices of it's vehicles becuase if GM were to crash, a heavy tariff would be imposed on all forein cars.
C) The company is being artificially inflated by investors just to stay up becuase of B).

Considering they are on of the biggest/richest companies in the universe...i somehow doubt it

The only reason GM is surviving is because of

A)Government Subsidies (aka Corporate welfare)


Please explain this a little more, how exactaly is our gov't giving GM "corporate welfare". I bet you can't explain because I'm certain that you're full of it (shit that is).

Well, im guessing the US government is helping out GM because of the fact that it provides thousands of jobs to people in the US.

However, it could easily survive on it's own without them, it'd just make a much lower profit.

GM's Australian branch (Holden) has been doing quite well. Because the Australian market is small and the workers are under constant threat of losing their jobs, the local industry is quite agile. The Commodore sells well because it's reliable and it looks good (they didn;t go in for the 'edge design' fad, all squares and triangles).

Anyhoo, a couple of years ago Holden developed a 2-door Commodore, called the Monaro here and the GTO in the US. Everyone said 'oh, great, an Australian design being exported. Well done.'

So what does the struggling GM-USA operation do? They have closed GTO production in Australia and it's to be moved to the US. How nice when you can cherry-pick the global operation to cover up for head office's inability to plan and make good business decisions.

GM won't go out of business- people make doomsday statements when the current business is not sustainable. This means the business just shrinks a bit.

BTW, just as the 'GTO' has nothing in common with the original GTO, the Monaro name has historical significance in Australia. Anyone who has seen the movie 'Max Max' will know the Monaro as the car being driven by the Knight Rider in the opening chase scene.

GM's Australian branch (Holden) has been doing quite well.

Holden has sold in the year to date about the same number of cars as it did in the same period for 2002.

I'd not say a company which cannot increase its market share in a period of growth for the automotive industry within Australia is doing well, let alone 'quite well'.

My Dad (being a banker and knowing alot about how companies work) says (thankfully) no they won't, at least not yet. If they do go, it will be VERY sad. Such a grand old company with such a rich automotive history :happysad:.

-Captain Dan

i hope they do.

Please explain this a little more, how exactaly is our gov't giving GM "corporate welfare". I bet you can't explain because I'm certain that you're full of it (shit that is).


The government gives corporations grants, or tax breaks (especially domestic corporations and popular nation products SUCH AS CARS) becuase corporations create jobs and help the economy. It's essentially "corporate welfare". In a true freemarket, the government would just allow a company to go bankrupt.

The government gives corporations grants, or tax breaks (especially domestic corporations and popular nation products SUCH AS CARS) becuase corporations create jobs and help the economy. It's essentially "corporate welfare". In a true freemarket, the government would just allow a company to go bankrupt.


Every gov't gives local companies tax incentives and grants. It's call economic stimulation. "corporate Welfare" would imply that the gov't was directly giving the money, which they aren't. Besides, I dont see capitol hill doing anything about Delphi going under and if GM were to go bankrupt there federal government couldn't afford to bail them out.

Every gov't gives local companies tax incentives and grants. It's call economic stimulation. "corporate Welfare" would imply that the gov't was directly giving the money, which they aren't. Besides, I dont see capitol hill doing anything about Delphi going under and if GM were to go bankrupt there federal government couldn't afford to bail them out.


Government subsidies/grants/tax incentives = Corporate welfare.

It's generally just what economists say, wether it may be "welfare" or not. Grants are also usually in the form of money, whcih means pretty much 'giving out' the moneyl

Government subsidies/grants/tax incentives = Corporate welfare.

It's generally just what economists say, wether it may be "welfare" or not. Grants are also usually in the form of money, whcih means pretty much 'giving out' the moneyl
I dont see why thats so bad. Every other country in the world subsidises thier exports. America would be in a lot better shape if we would just adapt the same trade policies as everyone else is using. I'm sure China wouldn't be to pucker if we started dumping steel on thier door step.

JVpiston:

if you want a excellent example of what hes talking about, look up plymouth/dodge online.. in the 80s, they did go bankrupt and the gov bailed them out.

luckily, they got their shit together, and with the help of the K-car, went from nothing to paid off entirely, YEARS ahead of time... im sure theres alot of good articals about it online.

I dont see why thats so bad. Every other country in the world subsidises thier exports. America would be in a lot better shape if we would just adapt the same trade policies as everyone else is using. I'm sure China wouldn't be to pucker if we started dumping steel on thier door step.


I hate to break it to you, But tax payers shouldn't be expected to support a company that can't support itself on a commercial basis.

I agree with tax breaks, but that's it. No money grants.

I hate to break it to you, But tax payers shouldn't be expected to support a company that can't support itself on a commercial basis.

I agree with tax breaks, but that's it. No money grants.

While I agree that companies should be able to remain commercially viable, one must consider the following hypothetical situation.

Say you have a company which employs 50000 people in the one nation. The average income of these persons is $25000, of which they pay 10% in taxes. They save 10% of their gross income and the remaining 80% is spent purchasing goods and services. This means they contribute $1 billion to the nation's economy each year just by purchasing goods and services with 80% of their income.

Now, say the company in question suddenly goes bankrupt, it is $500 million in debt and the administrators take the most drastic action. Only 12500 people find employment because there is no excessive need for the qualifications of these 50000 people. Another 25000 find jobs in lower paid positions, earning just 50% of their former income. The remaining 12500 become unemployed and earn nothing.

The result:
12500 contribute $250 million per annum.
25000 contribute $250 million per annum.
12500 contribute nothing (Of course, in Australia they'd be contributing all their dole payments. The dole however is paid for by taxpayers.)

However, it doesn't actually stop there. Say 6250 of those left unemployed live in a small town of 12500 people. Suddenly, half the population has no money, shops lose money, services lose money, in turn, they then begin to lay-off workers.

Sure, it's hypothetical, but the $500 million to solve the company's debt problem which means everyone keeps their job is no greater than the loss in the economy over a one year period.

And a new company pops up to take its place.

Like i said, it's not my responsibility to pay so the rich can profit.

And a new company pops up to take its place.

Like i said, it's not my responsibility to pay so the rich can profit.

As I said in the hypothetical example 'there is no excessive need for the qualifications of these 50000 people'.

When there is little demand for a product, as a company you wouldn't suddenly increase your workforce and double output.

Therefore no new company would emerge as demand would not warrant it.

As currently the largest automotive maker, I would highly doubt that. However in time though it will most likely change. Just like Sears Roebuck was the largest retail store in the 1950's, over the decades it shifted to Walmart. Within time it will be something else. Whenever one company falls, fifty will rise up to compete for it's place.

And a new company pops up to take its place.

Like i said, it's not my responsibility to pay so the rich can profit.

Rich? You mean hardworking companies who put millions into research and design for the finest products shouldn't get profit from it? Fascinating thinking right there.

Blackwater obviously doesn't understand how bad it would exactaly be if GM with belly-up. IIRC GM is the single largest parivate employer in the United States. Imagine what would happen to this country if 1,244,413 stopped paying imcome taxes? I'll give you a hint...it wouldn't be anything positive.