in a new 500 Million $ Mexican plant/The Link "U.S. automobile giant General Motors Co. said Tuesday it plans to invest close to $500 million in its Ramos Arizpe plant in northern Mexico to produce a new line of engines as well as a new vehicle... "We estimate that these technologies allow for a 9% improvement in fuel efficiency from current engines," Lieblein said, adding that the investment will directly create 390 jobs in Coahuila state, where Ramos Arizpe is located. Another $215 million will go toward upgrading the factory's production lines to build a new vehicle for the domestic and international markets, she said, noting that the investment will be key to maintaining 400 jobs. Assembly of the vehicle, which wasn't named, is set to begin in the last quarter of 2011. GM plans for it to "give long-term viability to this plant by gradually substituting some production volumes." At least this will keep some on their own side of the border so they have that going for them
Horn- Spend 5 minutes looking up how many of the supplier and manufacturing plants ALREADY were in Mexico pre-bailout. Then, not that you'll do any of this, try going to Roger Ailes right wing publication, the WSJ, to read a couple articles touting the GM revival and rescue from bankruptcy. Ask yourself, is it better for America to have GM alive and profitable with the vast majority of operations in the US, with some foreign operations, or was it better to let them die and have no plants in Mexico?
helping GM worldwide helps GM in the US, correct? I mean I was opposed to the GM bailout, but now that GM has the money from us, I want them to use it however they can to return to profitability.
Low and behold, both GM and Chrysler are profitable. Tens of thousands of American jobs saved, as well as support related jobs. Wow, their bailout worked. And the tax payer owns equity it can sell at a profit in two different firms. WSJ
1. I have no problem with GM's legal activity here or in Mexico. Profit is profit, and I own stock via Uncle Sam. 2. I will believe a total payback when I see it. 3. The bailout of Chrysler and GM was bad even if it works. It contributed to the "too big to fail" lie, and it helped prevent or delay the alternative future of the US automotive industry by perpetuating our dinosaurs, or at least prolonging them.
Man some people just don't get it, you are comparing Chrysler of the 80's to the situation now? You need to get a clue!!!! The Link
Nice edit, Major. How exactly do I need a clue? If you read what I wrote, I noted that Chrysler is the exception to the rule as twice it needed govt. help to be saved. Personally I'm not aware of any other firms in the US that come close to this. And a $1.5B loan in 1980 that was repaid plus a $350MM profit, and produced around 30 years of a large, tax and job generating revenue base sounds like a good deal for the tax payer, until of course they failed again. I would think they don't get a third chance, nor would GM. So, how exactly do I need a clue? Would you like to state your stance on bailout loans, would you prefer that GM and Chrysler not exist now? You said so much yet so little with your bold statement there major.
Why was GM building plants in Mexico to begin with, even pre-bailout? Obviously GM couldnt handle its business, hence the bailout. So whatever plants it had in Mexico or China didnt seem to do it a whole lot of good. We are suppose to be proud of GM for building a plant in Mexico when Americans desperately need jobs here? Why does building a plant in Mexico make more sense than building a plant in the USA and employing Americans?
mcbrett- The fallacy with your reasoning is you assume that GM or Chrysler would have simply disapeared in a bankruptcy. This is patently false. The companies would have continued to operate via bankruptcy and would have emerged just as they have now. The difference is who would have owned them post bankruptcy. Likely the unions would have been crippled, plants would have moved to other US cities as well as Mexico and others. Ford would have benefited greatly. The legal owners of the company, the preferred bondholders, would have had control of the management of the company. The total effect on jobs would actually be greater as more folks would have been employed for less money but still very good wages. The auto bailout was shameful. It was an outright giveaway to the unions. Even you should be able to see this.
You assume that GM would have ceased to exist without this massive government intervention. A structured bankruptcy could have eliminated much of the "protections" that union workers have including job banks, bloated insurance contracts and sweet pensions that make a stock broker envious. Much of this crap will remain maybe under a different name and sweet heart deals all protected as payback from the current admin. Chrysler and GM will remain bloated dinosaurs selling dinosaur cars.
Agreed McBrett, Fool me once....... No more bailouts, for anyone. Period. End of discussion. Otherwise, I want mine too.
Gm was never going to be dissolved. recall obama gave them 85 billion to start to keep them from bankruptcy. well....how did that work out oh dipsh** in chief. they ended up in bankruptcy anyway with 85 billion in taxpayer money sunk. He then told the secire debt holders to piss off, gave the company to the uions, gave them more of our tax dollars, and then by doing so destroyed any leverage the firm might have had in negotiating a better labor deal with their employees going forward. The company would have reorged and porbably come out of it ahead of the game. Now they will end up either being a government entity in perpetuity, or eventually go public then fold as their business model and cars still suck. Oh, and that lovely new "green" mobile costs 41k, and they lose money on every sale. But fear not our tax dollars get to subsidize that too. Epic, epic fail all the way around.
So, how well do you think the $42,000 Volt will go over? Of course, taxpayers will subsidize $7,500 of each car sold; kind of like the FTHB credit. Sounds like another great plan. I think we better wait to find out how many Americans are in a position to indebt themselves another $35,000 before we praise GM.
^^ That is exaclt what I was thinking. If I was a Dem senator, I would push hard for a $20,000 rebate on the car. At such a price point, the car would sell. GM would make a profit. And practically no one would push the point that the car was being bought with taxpayer money. It really is the perfect crime. Shoot, Airbus does it all the time and the only people calling them on it are americans with some interest in Boeing.
Well I don't have a subscription, but creating jobs and investing money in areas that will increase fuel efficiency. I like it.
Why are so many of you complaining about auto plants in foreign countries when you don't mind foreign companies serving as tax havens for some US corporations?
My point was that your comment was utterly unwarranted. If you try to count you will see why. The criticism that pervades the thread is not of the Mexico location but rather of the large government bailout/ stake in GM and Chrysler. If you can discern any of these critics who favored other large government bailouts/ buyins, perhaps then you will have a chance to make a meaningful point. Good luck.
Where was the profit to the taxpayer again? Also you may want to net that against the billions that were stolen from the legitimate owners, the bondholders. And I can tell you GM wasnt headed for Chapter 11. They were going to be utterly unable to secure any private financing and they were going Chapter 7. You cannot act like transferring a huge ownership chunk directly to the unions doesnt count, especially when the taxpayers funded every dollar of it.
