Why GM decided against a recall.

Reread the article. They aren't talking about the cost of a recall.

The price difference was the additionally cost to use a DIFFERENT switch in NEW cars as they rolled out of the assembly plant. So the labor cost is a wash. Instead of installing a $2 switch, they would install a $2.57 switch from Delphi.

So, the labor costs would be the same. But the parts cost of the new car would be $0.57 higher.

GM was stupid. Originally Posted by ExNYer

GM was criminal.

Some stupid posts here today. Bush bailed out GM in the latter half of December 2008. He would be leaving office in less than a month. His justice department for all intents and purposes never had any oversight of GM during this time. Obama does not have the same excuse. His DOJ oversaw a major recipient of government money and a union that was a major recipient of government money. Can you say "conflict of interest". That is what this is all about. That was never the case under Bush. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Wrong again JD. Bush and Obama bailed out GM. GM received a lot of money from the Obama adminstration in 2009 after Bush left office.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/critic...to_bailout.htm

Reread the article. They aren't talking about the cost of a recall.

The price difference was the additionally cost to use a DIFFERENT switch in NEW cars as they rolled out of the assembly plant. So the labor cost is a wash. Instead of installing a $2 switch, they would install a $2.57 switch from Delphi.

So, the labor costs would be the same. But the parts cost of the new car would be $0.57 higher.

GM was stupid. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes, I realize that once they spent the 400 grand on tooling and implemented the change in the assembly line, it only costs 0.57 more per car. I was just explaining that they must have thought that the public would demand a retrofit on the million cars already on the road when they figured out the problem, so that might have been their boneheaded thinking. Perhaps they just hoped the problem would go away and someone else would take care of it. Or, that they could sell their own stock before people found out. Crooks, liars, thieves and assholes don't think the way you and I do, ExNYer.

Did you go read the Shepard and the goat yet JL ?

A lot of selective memory about how either Bush or Obama "bailed out" GM. Bush extended about $10B in govt loans to GM late in 2008, a lame duck gesture to bridge the real work to the next administration. When that ran out Obama illegally raided TARP money to keep GM on the government tit. Legal scholars can debate, but congressional authors are adamant that TARP was for financial institutions. One of Odumbo's first lawless acts, largely forgotten in the torrent of government waste of TARP and stimulus money. The lawless tragedy is that the Odumbo administration was illegally involved in the bankruptcy negotiation, hence the term "structured bankruptcy" that came in vogue. This is another word for corrupt intervention for political purposes, a hallmark of 3rd world despots, and sadly all too common in the Barry Soetoreo administration. The real reason for the intervention was to cushion UAW from job loss and retirement benefit loss. The forgotten losers are the GM bondholders who lost $100B. That's not supposed to happen in a bankruptcy and is etched into bankruptcy law. Teachers' retirement funds, public employee pension funds, etc., all got stiffed, but what's $100B when union votes are at stake. UAW ended up with 17% of GM. All of this crime to "save" an auto industry that was actually thriving in the South out of reach of union thugs. True bankruptcies are healthy, giving sound businesses with fiscal troubles (airlines) a second chance, or liquidating losers (Solyndra). Too much rule of law for imperious Democrats, our present day commissars. The choice is clear. A rule of law that all may not like, or executive dictatorship. We get to chose again this year and 2016. The weight of evidence is rather obvious. Those not liking our flawed democracy could adjourn to socialist paradises like..............hmm. Any suggestions?

I suggest you report to your handlers at the Harris County Psyco Asylum and inform them you found a way out

Yes, I realize that once they spent the 400 grand on tooling and implemented the change in the assembly line, it only costs 0.57 more per car. I was just explaining that they must have thought that the public would demand a retrofit on the million cars already on the road when they figured out the problem, so that might have been their boneheaded thinking. Perhaps they just hoped the problem would go away and someone else would take care of it. Or, that they could sell their own stock before people found out. Crooks, liars, thieves and assholes don't think the way you and I do, ExNYer. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

That's only partially true.

GM figured out early in the game that the switch was defective - they were warned by Delphi. At the time, there were maybe only tens of thousands of defective cars on the road - maybe a few hundred thousand?

If they had changed THEN to the proper switch from Delphi, they could have limited the cost of a recall to a much smaller pool of cars.

Instead, they KEPT USING THE WRONG SWITCH. For YEARS. That greatly increased the number of cars that need to be recalled.

All to save less than a buck per car. It boggles the mind.

if you buy domestic, buy Ford

product wise, head and shoulders above GM

if you buy domestic, buy Ford

product wise, head and shoulders above GM Originally Posted by CJ7

And they didn't use any bailout money.

I'm with you on that.

if you buy domestic, buy Ford

product wise, head and shoulders above GM Originally Posted by CJ7

Yes, they never declared bankruptcy or screwed their bondholders, either.

A lot of selective memory about how either Bush or Obama "bailed out" GM. Bush extended about $10B in govt loans to GM late in 2008, a lame duck gesture to bridge the real work to the next administration. When that ran out Obama illegally raided TARP money to keep GM on the government tit. Legal scholars can debate, but congressional authors are adamant that TARP was for financial institutions. One of Odumbo's first lawless acts, largely forgotten in the torrent of government waste of TARP and stimulus money. The lawless tragedy is that the Odumbo administration was illegally involved in the bankruptcy negotiation, hence the term "structured bankruptcy" that came in vogue. This is another word for corrupt intervention for political purposes, a hallmark of 3rd world despots, and sadly all too common in the Barry Soetoreo administration. The real reason for the intervention was to cushion UAW from job loss and retirement benefit loss. The forgotten losers are the GM bondholders who lost $100B. That's not supposed to happen in a bankruptcy and is etched into bankruptcy law. Teachers' retirement funds, public employee pension funds, etc., all got stiffed, but what's $100B when union votes are at stake. UAW ended up with 17% of GM. All of this crime to "save" an auto industry that was actually thriving in the South out of reach of union thugs. True bankruptcies are healthy, giving sound businesses with fiscal troubles (airlines) a second chance, or liquidating losers (Solyndra). Too much rule of law for imperious Democrats, our present day commissars. The choice is clear. A rule of law that all may not like, or executive dictatorship. We get to chose again this year and 2016. The weight of evidence is rather obvious. Those not liking our flawed democracy could adjourn to socialist paradises like..............hmm. Any suggestions? Originally Posted by trident60

Spot on right. +1

And yes, Ford is making some of the best cars in the world right now.

after the lawless gm/uaw bailout, strong-armed by Obama, I told myself, "self, I shall never buy another GM product"...and I havent and wont

I love their new Vette!

I love their new Vette!

Originally Posted by WTF

looks as air brushed as some showcase pictures

I love their new Vette!

Originally Posted by WTF

In would have much rather owned a 72 Stingray..

Oh wait ...