Yea, I meant for the re-tooling of the plant that lost the trucks, if they can do that. He did mention the line they were keeping but I can't remember which one. I imagine the Chevy would make the cut over the GMC.

Also note that Ford did not take any bailout money. So far they are the best positioned to make a great comeback.

It would have to be Chevy rather than GMC.

Yeah, retooling the plants (the ones that don't close) from trucks to marketable vehicles will be very expensive, but it's necessary and will pay for itself if they are sucessful... big if.

Ford has been through a number lean times, with subsequent management changes, in the recent past and looks like they now have people running the show that know something about cars and the market.

The longer that GM puts off the inevitable, the worse a bankruptcy becomes. Had GM done bankruptcy in 1991 (they were only 4 hours away), then GM may have fixed itself back then. Nobody (except executives) were harmed. But GM played money games for almost 20 years to avoid bankruptcy rather than fix the company. Even shorted the pension funds; then claimed unfair competition due to legacy costs. As a result, bankruptcy becomes almost inevitable and must now be quite painful.

Many are now talking about GM as only Chevy and Cadillac. I suspect that would be too ruthless. Buick should also survive. Not much more. For example, GM should have to sell off its locomotive division. GM has stifled innovation for so long that only ruthless and painful bankruptcy will save it (or something equivalent). That is the only salvation for its suppliers.

As we can see from the latest news reports, Wagoner again pretended it could all be fixed. His denial of problem was down to GM could maybe sell off a few divisions. Nonsense. Who wants divisions that were restructured so they could not be sold? Those denials only meant GM must downsize even more; that employees must even lose jobs. That many suppliers must also face bankruptcy. A disaster that would not have occurred had GM been forced into bankruptcy long ago when Wagoner was earning a reputations in 1991 GM as a shrewd finance guy who could 'make the spread sheets say what they had to say'.

Then we should be reviewing GM’s accounting for fraud prosecution. Why is this any different than Jeff Skilling?

Ford recognized they were in trouble when Jacque Nasser was running Ford into the earth. The fights between William Clay and Nasser were said to be so violent that on two occasions, security was called. Because Nasser was removed, Ford started designing a 70 Horsepower per liter engine. That engine has only recently come to market (little hint to those who learn that investing is all about the product). Therefore Ford does not need bailout money. It may be an ugly car (Futura), but it is one of few American cars worthy of a consumer's attention. Why does Ford not need a bailout? Unlike GM, Ford suddenly started innovating again some 7(?) years ago.

Chrysler has no hope of survival. Fiat may buy its pieces. But Chrysler is gone the same way that AT&T disappeared. Another trophy for the MBA Nardelli. And a slap in the face of Cerebus Capital who ran to the government and who has nothing in the Chrysler innovation pipeline. Chrysler even had a hybrid in 1999. Where is it? Cerebus also played money games rather than innovate. Welcome to why Chrysler's bankruptcy must be even more severe.

Government intervention and regulations are directly traceable to how that corporation or industry was run. Some industries must be heavily regulated due to their history. Others that have a long history of innovation - that are more interested in the product than profits - require minimal if any regulation. Learn from history. Finance industry and auto industries deserve heavy regulation according to their history. Auto no where near as stringent as finance. Finance industry historically being one of the most corrupt requires the heaviest of hands. Semiconductor an example of a resposibile industry that requires so little government oversight.

I agree with you, but I really want them to have to do it on their dime, and not be able to pass that expense on to their customers.

Yea, it's just too bad many of those things have been compromised over the past 8 years.

Hackers stole data on Pentagon's newest fighter jet
Oops

They also stole info on the helicopters that we aren't funding now. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to create a new military
command to coordinate the defense of Pentagon computer networks and
improve U.S. offensive capabilities in cyberwarfare, according to current
and former officials familiar with the plans.
The initiative will reshape the military's efforts to protect its networks
from attacks by hackers, especially those from countries such as China and
Russia. The new command will be unveiled within the next few weeks,
Pentagon officials said.
The move comes amid growing evidence that sophisticated cyberspies are
attacking the U.S. electric grid and key defense programs. A page-one
story in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday reported that hackers breached
the Pentagon's biggest weapons program, the $300 billion Joint Strike
Fighter, and stole data. Lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee wrote to the defense secretary Tuesday requesting a
briefing on the matter.
Lockheed Martin Corp., the project's lead contractor, said in a statement
Tuesday that it believed the article "was incorrect in its representation
of successful cyber attacks" on the F-35 program. "To our knowledge, there
has never been any classified information breach," the statement said. The
Journal story didn't say the stolen information was classified.
President Barack Obama, when he was a candidate for the White House,
pledged to elevate cybersecurity as a national-security issue, equating it
in significance with nuclear and biological weapons. A White House team
reviewing cybersecurity policy has completed its recommendations,
including the creation of a top White House cyberpolicy official. Details
of that and other proposals are still under debate. A final decision from
the president is expected soon.
A draft of the White House review steps gingerly around the question of
how to improve computer security in the private sector, especially key
infrastructure such as telecommunications and the electricity grid. The
document stresses the importance of working with the private sector and
civil-liberties groups to craft a solution, but doesn't call for a
specific government role, according to a person familiar with the draft.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to announce the creation of a new
military "cyber command" after the rollout of the White House review,
according to military officials familiar with the plan.
The Pentagon has several command organizations structured according to
both geography and operational responsibility. Central Command, for
example, oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the Special
Operations Command is responsible for operations involving elite
operatives such as Navy Seals.
The cyber command is likely to be led by a military official of four-star
rank, according to officials familiar with the proposal. It would, at
least initially, be part of the Pentagon's Strategic Command, which is
currently responsible for computer-network security and other missions.
Pentagon officials said the front-runner to lead the new command is
National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander, a three-star Army
general. In a rare public appearance Tuesday at a cybersecurity conference
in San Francisco, Gen. Alexander called for a "team" approach to
cybersecurity that would give the NSA lead responsibility for protecting
military and intelligence networks while the Department of Homeland
Security worked to protect other government networks. His spokeswoman said
he had no additional comment.
Former President George W. Bush's top intelligence adviser, Mike
McConnell, first proposed the creation of a unified cyber command last
fall. The military's cybersecurity efforts are currently divided between
entities like the NSA and the Defense Information Systems Agency, which is
responsible for ensuring secure and reliable communications for the
military. The Air Force also runs a significant cybersecurity effort.
Advocates believe the new command will be able to avoid duplication and
better leverage the technical expertise of the agencies and the military
services' cyberwarriors.
Cyber defense is the Department of Homeland Security's responsibility, so
the command would be charged with assisting that department's defense
efforts. The relationship would be similar to the way Northern Command
supports Homeland Security with rescue capabilities in natural disasters.
The NSA, where much of the government's cybersecurity expertise is housed,
established a similar relationship with Homeland Security through a
cybersecurity initiative that the Bush administration began in its final
year.
NSA's increasingly muscular role in domestic cybersecurity has raised
alarms among some officials and on Capitol Hill. Rod Beckstrom, former
chief of the National Cyber Security Center, which is charged with
coordinating cybersecurity activities across the U.S. government, resigned
last month after warning that the growing reliance on the NSA was a "bad
strategy" that posed "threats to our democratic processes."
Gen. Alexander countered in his speech Tuesday that the NSA did "not want
to run cybersecurity for the U.S. government."
—August Cole contributed to this article.