GM to add 60,000 vehicles to its production, re-hire 1,350 employees

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/business/2009/08/18/D9A5FCO06_us_gm_production_increase/index.html

GM to add 60,000 vehicles to its production


Aug 18th, 2009 | DETROIT -- General Motors Co. says it will add 60,000 vehicles to its production in the third and fourth quarters, spurred partly by demand from the government's Cash for Clunkers program.

The automakers says it will bring back about 1,350 laid-off workers in the U.S. and Canada to bolster production at factories.

GM says it will add a shift to its CAMI factory in Ingersoll, Ontario, where the new Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain midsize crossover vehicles are made.

The company's Lordstown, Ohio, assembly plant, where the Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5 are made, also will see additional shifts.

GM says production also may be increased at other factories, including those that make the Chevrolet HHR small wagon.

So much better than being pissed on by the top 2%.

I don't understand why our stimulus money is used to re-hire Canadians.

Because it would be considered an illegal subsidy under WTO rules if CFC money were used to only benefit American jobs/companies/workers. That's also why you can use the cash to buy Nissans, Hondas, Toyotas, etc., regardless of whether they were built in the US.

:hi:

though I suppose that's too much to ask. However, I cannot believe that WTO rules specify that government incentive program money needs to be spent outside of the US. That makes no sense.

"Actionable subsidies: in this category the complaining country has to show that the subsidy has an adverse effect on its interests. Otherwise the subsidy is permitted.

The agreement defines three types of damage they can cause. One country’s subsidies can hurt a domestic industry in an importing country. They can hurt rival exporters from another country when the two compete in third markets. And domestic subsidies in one country can hurt exporters trying to compete in the subsidizing country’s domestic market ."

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm8_e.htm#subsidies

Your quote demonstrates clearly that the burden of proof lies with the complainant, and that subsidies to domestic industry, as a general category, are permitted.

"Actionable subsidies: in this category the complaining country has to show that the subsidy has an adverse effect on its interests. Otherwise the subsidy is permitted."

You pretend that it is a foregone conclusion that any subsidy to domestic industry is actionable, when

a) our trading partners all maintain high tariffs on US cars; and
b) not a single one of our trading partners has offered a subsidy to purchase US made goods

In short, you have not even begun to make your case, and, judging from your previous inexpert attempts at statutory construction, you will not be able to do so in this case, either. :hi:

"a) our trading partners all maintain high tariffs on US cars; and
b) not a single one of our trading partners has offered a subsidy to purchase US made goods"

Do you even bother checking your facts?

Quelle surprise! :rofl:

You've posted a blatant lie -- I'm shocked! Shocked! You would do such a thing.

Do you have any evidence that none of Canada's subsidies have gone to American producers?

No?

Why am I not surprised.

If we only allowed CFC for American made cars only, the Japanese, Koreans, Germans, et.al. would have to prove that they were adversely affected by not being included in the CFC subsidy. If couldn't prove that, then they would lose the case. If they could prove that subsidizing American made cars, but not imported ones, hurt them, then they would win the case.

a) If our trading partners maintain illegal high tariffs on US cars (something you assert, but do not prove), the US should file appeal to the WTO tribunal just as we have with intellectual property rights in China.

b) If our trading partners have CFC programs that subsidize domestic but not imported cars, we should be complaining to the WTO. At least in Germany, that was not the case. They subsidized all vehicle purchases without respect to origin. Only 24% of their CFC money was spent on German made cars.

"Germany's 'cash-for-clunkers' scheme fuels sales of foreign-made cars"

"Ever since the government launched the program in January, more Germans are bypassing the BMW and Mercedes dealers in favor of using their subsidies on Skodas, Hyundais and other fuel-efficient rides."

"Although car dealers across Germany are thrilled to have their showrooms buzzing with customers again, manufacturers of German cars are a little less excited.

"As of the end of March, only 24% of the bonus money had been spent on German-made automobiles, mostly by Volkswagen and Opel. The lion's share of buyers took their taxpayer-funded vouchers to dealers for Hyundais, Renaults and other foreign brands."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/16/business/fi-czech-cars16

Not giving trading partners a reason to file a complaint in the first place is politic.

Canada's tariff on imported cars is ~6%. On imported cars from the Us it was actually 0% until 2000, when they were ruled against by the WTO which invalidated the 35 year old US-Canada auto pact.

As for subsidies to buy US made goods...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/global/01refunds.html
"Even in Germany, where brands like BMW and Mercedes command the kind of loyalty reserved for sports teams elsewhere, the local subsidiaries of Ford and General Motors have turned out to be big beneficiaries. Sales of G.M.’s Opel Corsa have tripled in Germany, leading workers in Germany and Spain to return to full production schedules."

Of course those cars are made by American companies in Europe...just like many (most?) Japanese cars are actually made in American factories.

See? Not even that socialistical "Cash for Clunkers" program crammed down our throats by the Commie-crat party could hold down General Motors.

See?

7 million to go.

Thank God for John Maynard Keynes. In the biggest experiment since the New Deal, all of his theories and prescriptions were put to the test and they succeeded.

I know OMC got a lot of grief for that subject line, but basically, the bailouts, the auto restructuring, the stimulus package, the extension of unemployment, the salvaging of public employee payrolls, cash for clunkers -- all these measures were texbook liberal Keynesian economics and they prevented us from going through Great Depression II. Things are not going to be great, but this us much better than Great Depression II.

This is good news from GM.

you could've warned everyone of the current economic collapse before it occurred.

But despite your lack of any track record of proven predictions, I, for one, am willing to take your every utterance as gospel! :silly:

You were one of the morons screaming, "let it fail!" Looks like every single prediction, analysis, theory, and prescription you've ever posted has been dead wrong.

Sorry that upsets you. We Keynesians were right. You were wrong.

You (and Jim Cramer!) were the one who was screaming "double, double, toil and trouble!" if we didn't hand over billions in taxpayer money (borrowed from the Chinese, naturally!) to AIG and its foreign counter-parties. :eyes:



Turns out the radical free trade you espouse simply doesn't work unless it's propped up by trillions of dollars of taxpayer money borrowed from the Chinese! This system of deregulation, private profit and socialized risk you advocate resembles nothing so much as that vampire Reagan's "trickle up economics"--what George HW Bush called voodoo economics in 1979.

"We Keynesians were right."

You're nothing more than a corporatist looking for new cover. Funneling trillions to corporations and leaving crumbs for the regular people isn't Keynesian; it's business as usual under the last 5 administrations. :hi: