Let's Hear It for Government Motors GM!

[Howey]

That's pretty great news..

This is why:

http://www.vindy.com/news/2011/may/11/by-karl-henkel/

Aside from the number of Chevrolet Cruzes that General Motors Co. sold in April — 25,160 — the most intriguing number may be how many it produced during the same time period — 26,184.

If sales in May continue to accelerate, is the Lordstown complex prepared to meet the demand?

According to statistics from WardsAuto.com, GM had about 39 days’ worth of Cruze inventory as of April 30, three weeks less than the 60-day average industry standard.

That number has decreased to 31 days as of Tuesday, said UAW Local 1112 President Jim Graham.

Cruze inventory shrank by two weeks from March to April, most notably because of a 7,142-unit, one-month boost in sales. Overall, GM sold 265 more Cruzes per day in April than in March.

“I don’t think a lot of people anticipated this number of sales this quickly,” Graham said.

The Lordstown GM complex has produced 163,772 vehicles through the end of April, according to GM. Lordstown has produced between 22,000 and 26,000 Cruzes per month in 2011. Cruze sales will surpass 100,000 in the U.S. this month.

There’s not much more GM can do to speed up production. The plant already is running 24 hours a day, five days a week, plus most Saturdays. The company doesn’t discuss projections, but previously stated April’s sales exceeded expectations.

\
Not bad for a car company the Republican Party gave up on two years ago...

[lil mike]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/gms-bailout-has-been-a-huge-net-loss/238795/

GM's Profits are Still a Huge Net Loss For Taxpayers


About $40 billion of the money that the government gave GM was converted to GM common stock. In the November IPO, the government made about $20 billion selling 478 million shares, leaving us with around $20 billion more to recoup on our remaining 26.5% stake in the company.  That means we need to sell the approximately 365 million shares we have left at about $55 per share, net of underwriting and legal costs.  At the current share price of $31, we'd be left with a loss somewhere north of $9 billion--plus the $1 billion we gave the "old GM" to wind things up, and the $2.1 billion worth of GM preferred stock we own.  Since I don't know the details of the preferred transaction, I'll leave that out, which gives us a loss after expenses of $10 to $11 billion on our investment in GM. 


But of course, that assumes that the current share price holds.  It could well fall over the next few months--or when the government dumps an enormous new supply of GM stock on a market that isn't showing all that much enthusiasm for the product. 


It also leaves out a very important extra:  the $14 billion gift that the government seems to have handed the company, in the form of a special tax break:


Lesson of Bailout-nomics?  Any company can be a "success" if you give it enough money. 

Wall Street says thanks by the way!

[Howey]

doom and gloom

Since I don't prescribe to your brand of negativity, I'll just point out the stock sale has not occurred. Yet.

[Howey]

It also leaves out a very important extra:  the $14 billion gift that the government seems to have handed the company, in the form of a special tax break:

How does that compare to the $8 billion yearly in subsidies given to the oil companies or the additional tax breaks yearly given to the oil companies over and above subsidies?

Even so, how would the government possibly taking a loss on the sale compare to the massive effects of destruction of our economy if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to die?

[lil mike]

How does that compare to the $8 billion yearly in subsidies given to the oil companies or the additional tax breaks yearly given to the oil companies over and above subsidies?

Even so, how would the government possibly taking a loss on the sale compare to the massive effects of destruction of our economy if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to die?

The subsidies/tax deductions/tax credits  (I've had a hard time figuring out what exactly they are talking about) are according to US tax law. 

The 14 billion tax break seems to be some sort of special deal that is in violation of US tax law.

[Howey]

The subsidies/tax deductions/tax credits  (I've had a hard time figuring out what exactly they are talking about) are according to US tax law. 

Really? You don't know what they are?

[lil mike]

Really? You don't know what they are?

No.  Are you talking about something in the tax code that is open to most companies that size, or something specific to the oil industry, like the oil depletion allowance?

The reason I ask is when I hear these breaks on mentioned on the news they don't mention the specific breaks they are talking about.

And if you are in favor of a 14 billion give away to GM, why would you object an oil company give away?

[Howey]

No.  Are you talking about something in the tax code that is open to most companies that size, or something specific to the oil industry, like the oil depletion allowance?

Huh? The subsidies given to the oil companies were, inexplicably, given to the oil companies. Why do they even need them now with oil at over $100 a barrell? Even they said a couple of years ago they weren't necessary.

And if you are in favor of a 14 billion give away to GM, why would you object an oil company give away?

Oh. There you go again! Don't you read anything? But I am glad you admit the oil company subsidies are a "give away". Certainly, now in this time of crisis, we definitely don't need that!

[lil mike]

Huh? The subsidies given to the oil companies were, inexplicably, given to the oil companies. Why do they even need them now with oil at over $100 a barrell? Even they said a couple of years ago they weren't necessary.

Oh. There you go again! Don't you read anything? But I am glad you admit the oil company subsidies are a "give away". Certainly, now in this time of crisis, we definitely don't need that!

So... what subsidies are you talking about? 

As to if the oil company subsidies/tax deductions/credits or whatever they are are a "give away" that depends on what they are, and I have not gotten an answer to that.

However the 14 billion look-the-other-way that GM got, that was clearly a give away.

Keep defending corporate welfare.  It amuses me.

[Howey]

So... what subsidies are you talking about? 

As to if the oil company subsidies/tax deductions/credits or whatever they are are a "give away" that depends on what they are, and I have not gotten an answer to that.

However the 14 billion look-the-other-way that GM got, that was clearly a give away.

Keep defending corporate welfare.  It amuses me.

One more time. Reeeeaaaalllll slow.

GM is repaying the government back. That's a loan and an investment, not a giveaway.

The oil company's 14b? That's a yearly giveaway, not an investment. All the government, and we tqxpayers, get out of that is a sore ass, some messy sheets, and a post-coital cigarette.

[lil mike]

One more time. Reeeeaaaalllll slow.

GM is repaying the government back. That's a loan and an investment, not a giveaway.

The oil company's 14b? That's a yearly giveaway, not an investment. All the government, and we tqxpayers, get out of that is a sore ass, some messy sheets, and a post-coital cigarette.

Clearly not slow enough.

The 14 billion?  That's GM, not the oil companies.  It seems like the very article that I posted that I thought we were discussing you didn't even read.

[Howey]

However the 14 billion look-the-other-way that GM got, that was clearly a give away.

The 14 billion?  That's GM, not the oil companies.  It seems like the very article that I posted that I thought we were discussing you didn't even read.

Trust me. I understand everything you're trying to say. Even what you're not saying. Like the fact that losses racked up by GM before its government-funded bankruptcy can be used to offset its future tax liabilities as dictated by the Troubled Asset Relief Program, thanks to George W. Bush.

So why you blamin' Obama?

[lil mike]

Trust me. I understand everything you're trying to say. Even what you're not saying. Like the fact that losses racked up by GM before its government-funded bankruptcy can be used to offset its future tax liabilities as dictated by the Troubled Asset Relief Program, thanks to George W. Bush.

So why you blamin' Obama?

No, you clearly were not understanding it.  You mentioned the 14 billion of the oil companies.  So nope...

However it did push you to go back and and reread the thread.  Glad you caught up.

[Howey]

No, you clearly were not understanding it.  You mentioned the 14 billion of the oil companies.  So nope...

However it did push you to go back and and reread the thread.  Glad you caught up.

How veri lil of you, Mike! Dwelling over a simple typo instead of addressing the topic.

tsk

[lil mike]

How veri lil of you, Mike! Dwelling over a simple typo instead of addressing the topic.

tsk

If it's a typo fine.  Hell, I do that all the tyme.

But if it confuses your meaning and makes you look like you don't even know what you're talking about, as in this case, just admit it and move on.  Don't try to cover for it.  That just stretches out the confusion.