PDA

View Full Version : GM posts $1.33 billion profit, a sign of strength



Roger Perry
08-13-2010, 11:14 AM
General Motors Co. (http://www.gm.com/) said Thursday it made $1.33 billion in the second quarter, a sign it's getting healthier as it prepares to sell stock to the public


It was the second straight quarterly profit for the Detroit automaker, which made $865 million in the first quarter, and sets the stage for GM to file paperwork soon to start the public stock sale process.

CEO Ed Whitacre said last week that the company is eager to sell shares in an initial public offering so it can end its dependence on the government and pay off $43.3 billion in bailout funds that were converted into a majority stake in the company. Whitacre wants the company to shed its "Government Motors" moniker because it's hurting sales and the company's image.

Looks like Gooberment Moters is doing just fine for itself. Better than the other option of going bankrupt and out of business. :grin:

Franco
08-13-2010, 11:24 AM
I doubt tax payers will ever see much of that 43 billion back.

Investors are not going to buy stock in a company that in controlled by the UAW! That's becase the UAW will only allow Gooberment Motors to make just enough to may be keep them afloat.

Look for the UAW to pressure GM for more and more concessions.

GM may have been better off going kaput so that a solid company would have emerged from the ashes rather than saving a faulty company with all the same problems.

Buzz
08-13-2010, 11:28 AM
[QUOTE=Franco;659952
Investors are not going to buy stock in a company that in controlled by the UAW![/QUOTE]

That remains to be seen.

road kill
08-13-2010, 12:51 PM
General Motors Co. said Thursday it made $1.33 billion in the second quarter, a sign it's getting healthier as it prepares to sell stock to the public


It was the second straight quarterly profit for the Detroit automaker, which made $865 million in the first quarter, and sets the stage for GM to file paperwork soon to start the public stock sale process.

CEO Ed Whitacre said last week that the company is eager to sell shares in an initial public offering so it can end its dependence on the government and pay off $43.3 billion in bailout funds that were converted into a majority stake in the company. [U][COLOR="Red"]Whitacre wants the company to shed its "Government Motors" moniker because it's hurting sales and the company's image.


ROFLMMFAO!!!!!!!:D



RK

badbullgator
08-13-2010, 01:03 PM
Of course the speculation is that a lot of that profit comes from cutting so many dealerships, but a profit is a profit I guess

Roger Perry
08-14-2010, 10:31 AM
ROFLMMFAO!!!!!!!:D



RK

I would not expect any other response from you. If obama doesn't get the economy started then there is no chance for re-election which is what all you righties are hopping and praying for although I don't know why. The last Republican to hold that office almost drove our country into a depression that we have not had since the 1930's unless you want another republican in office to finish the job.

subroc
08-14-2010, 10:35 AM
...The last Republican to hold that office almost drove our country into a depression that we have not had since the 1930's..

a canard....

Eric Johnson
08-14-2010, 03:47 PM
The last Republican to hold that office almost drove our country into a depression that we have not had since the 1930's unless you want another republican in office to finish the job.

As I recall,conditions were much worse during the Carter years.

Eric

YardleyLabs
08-14-2010, 04:23 PM
As I recall,conditions were much worse during the Carter years.

Eric
It depends on what you count. Unemployment declined under Carter from what it was under Ford, and increased as soon as Carter left the White House and was replaced by Reagan. It took five years under Reagan before the unemployment rate finally went below the high rates seen under Carter. Inflation went out of control under Ford and then declined slowly until Carter came in at which point it began to climb again to double digit levels that Carter passed on to Reagan. Reagan brought inflation under control after two years, but only by increasing unemployment to the same levels we are seeing today. By then, tax cuts plus rapid increases in spending had stimulated the economy dramatically, producing declining unemployment and lower inflation at the cost of a skyrocketing Federal deficit. After a period during which every President following the end of WWII had decreased the national debt as a percentage of GDP (including LBJ with his spending for guns and butter), Reagan drove deficit levels up through the ceiling, leaving GHWB with the job of trying to restore some semblance of balance to the economy. Clinton finally managed to put all the pieces together with low unemployment, low inflation, real income growth and a declining national debt as a percentage of GDP, only to have the whole thing trashed by Bush 43.

road kill
08-14-2010, 05:27 PM
It depends on what you count. Unemployment declined under Carter from what it was under Ford, and increased as soon as Carter left the White House and was replaced by Reagan. It took five years under Reagan before the unemployment rate finally went below the high rates seen under Carter. Inflation went out of control under Ford and then declined slowly until Carter came in at which point it began to climb again to double digit levels that Carter passed on to Reagan. Reagan brought inflation under control after two years, but only by increasing unemployment to the same levels we are seeing today. By then, tax cuts plus rapid increases in spending had stimulated the economy dramatically, producing declining unemployment and lower inflation at the cost of a skyrocketing Federal deficit. After a period during which every President following the end of WWII had decreased the national debt as a percentage of GDP (including LBJ with his spending for guns and butter), Reagan drove deficit levels up through the ceiling, leaving GHWB with the job of trying to restore some semblance of balance to the economy. Clinton finally managed to put all the pieces together with low unemployment, low inflation, real income growth and a declining national debt as a percentage of GDP, only to have the whole thing trashed by Bush 43.


Any economic indicater you want.


RK

Don Horstman
08-16-2010, 03:57 PM
This screwed up math may be how you sell things to the poor slobs in Detroit, but in my mind when you bring in $1.33 billion, but owe $40+ billion I am not looking at that as a profitable company. When you top a bullsh#$$t ice cream sundae with a cherry and whip cream, it is still a bullsh*&%t sundae. The bottom line is the only profitable domestic auto maker is the one that didn't take the government bail out (FORD). Also never mind that pesky end around that bothersome little piece of paper called the constitution. How the government gets away with taking over private industry is mind boggling. It seems that every politician, no matter if the have an R,D, or I in front of their name, only want to follow the constitution when it suits their needs. There is a couple of great books by Peter Schiff (one of them is called How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes and the other is Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit From the Economic Collapse) that point out how we have totally abandoned the economic principals that made our country and economy the envy of the world. These books should be required reading for all liberals and any other politicians that do not seem to understand how you manage to balance the books for a business or household.

road kill
08-16-2010, 04:09 PM
This screwed up math may be how you sell things to the poor slobs in Detroit, but in my mind when you bring in $1.33 billion, but owe $40+ billion I am not looking at that as a profitable company. When you top a bullsh#$$t ice cream sundae with a cherry and whip cream, it is still a bullsh*&%t sundae. The bottom line is the only profitable domestic auto maker is the one that didn't take the government bail out (FORD). Also never mind that pesky end around that bothersome little piece of paper called the constitution. How the government gets away with taking over private industry is mind boggling. It seems that every politician, no matter if the have an R,D, or I in front of their name, only want to follow the constitution when it suits their needs. There is a couple of great books by Peter Schiff (one of them is called How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes and the other is Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit From the Economic Collapse) that point out how we have totally abandoned the economic principals that made our country and economy the envy of the world. These books should be required reading for all liberals and any other politicians that do not seem to understand how you manage to balance the books for a business or household.

It's simple, all you need is willing accomplices!!;-)


RK