downfall

Old news. The new GM is once again on the cutting edge of automotive technology and still the number one seller, year to date in the US, even with four fewer brands.

A company once held up as an example of how to compete in technology and create new industrial giants, GM has been in steep decline -- a point emphasized last year when it went bust.

Did you copy and paste that line from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's?

don?t know who wrote this but it is the biggest bunch of misinformation and BS I have seen in awhile, Probably written by someone like me sitting in front of a computer guessing what happened but not have a faintest idea. but at least I working in the industry for 35 years and seen all the changes that were made but to say gm was clueless about what was happening is false, my take there was a financial snowball coming from Japan encouraged by the us govt that American manufacturers not only the auto industry but all over look at all the industries that went out of business, they say gm should have moved to calif, LMAO Taiwan, china, Japan and Korea are eating their lunch also

No matter how much you wish it was otherwise, that is the status of GM as of this date. ;)

Probably written by someone like me sitting in

Im having a hard time trying to figure out exactly what you are saying.

Moving to California would not have helped GM, if that is what you are saying. They had that NUMMA situation that was not at all successful.

Japan has put financial pressure on companies in a lot of countries. The banking system in Japan, I am told, was very supportive to long term low interest loans for industrial expansion.

I dont think the US government had any incentive in hobbling GM. That would be ridiculously foolish.

The government has however be pro free trade and open borders. We have not been able to compete in many business areas under these conditions.

Now, did I miss what you said totally?

The unnecessarily over regulations foisted on the major American industries by the US government since 1970 has forced the automotive, steel, chemical, paint, textile, clothing, shoe, plastics, and rubber industries etc, out of business, or off shore, with the aid and assistance of the American consumers, looking for lower prices to help them pay the ever higher taxes, so the federal government can employ thousands of people to enforce those regulations.

The American consumer, in their greed, has chosen to send the jobs of their children and grand children off shore as well, along with the those automotive, steel, chemical, paint, textile, clothing, shoe, plastics, and rubber industries etc, that provided all those jobs.

Unless one can work for the government or create their own business or have a skill, the only thing your unskilled children and grand children will need to know today is how to say "Do you want fries with that?" or "Welcome to Walmart!"

You have hit the nail in the head. Indeed the Japanese government as well as the Japanese consumer support their own industries. The Japanese consumer buy Japanese products when ever possible. That fact as well as the Japanese tax rates and banking laws are what keep the Japanese corporations very profitable. The interest rate to loan money in Japan has been ZERO for more than ten years. Ever since WWII all of the income Japanese corporations earn in the US are retuned to Japan, US Federal Corporate tax free, to be redistributed under Japans capital reinvestment tax, to the Japanese corporations for R&D.

The US corporate tax rate on the other hand is 42%. As with any of the costs of doing business, that tax is totally passed on the consumer, at the corporate average profit margin, adding to the total cost to the consumer. Everyone knows all taxes paid by and business must be passed on to the consumer.

For fun I took an article about Nokia and changed just a tiny bit like they were 1990s and GM was the hit of the 1940s but the rest is pretty much the same.

Nokia is till the leader in market share but falling very rapidly not like GM who took decades to fall.

Nokia's Downfall Holds Three Lessons for Europe: Matthew Lynn

What was the most successful European company of the 1990s? Easy. The Finnish mobile phone manufacturer Nokia Oyj. And the most disappointing one of the 2000s? Easy again. Nokia.

A company once held up as an example of how Europe could still compete in technology and create new industrial giants, Nokia has been in steep decline -- a point emphasized last week by its decision to hire the first non-Finn as chief executive officer, charged with turning the business around.

And just as the company=92s rise held lessons about how Europe could succeed, its downfall tells us much about why the region so often fails. Nokia rested too comfortably on its laurels. It was never willing to re-invent its business, even if it meant completely changing its products. It was never located at the heart of the information technology industry, among competitors who might force it to keep innovating. Other European companies should study Nokia=92s fate to make sure they don=92t repeat it.

A decade ago, Nokia was the most successful business Europe had produced in a generation. It captured the emerging market for mobile phones and built the industry=92s most powerful brand.

Politicians lined up to praise the company as an example of how Europe could still prosper in the 21st century. No less a figure than Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, drew attention to the success of Nokia and its rival, Sweden=92s Ericsson AB, in a speech in

2002.

=93Their achievement in mobile telephones helped to create two vibrant clusters, around Oulu in Finland and Stockholm in Sweden, which have attracted a large number of startups as well as investment from foreign companies,=94 Prodi said. =93These examples demonstrate that European regions are capable of developing new, high-tech clusters.=94

Reversal of Fortune

It doesn=92t look so good now. In the last three years, the news out of Nokia has only been bad. Since Apple Inc. introduced its iPhone in January 2007, Nokia shares have fallen by 47 percent. The company=92s brand, once one of the coolest in the world, is battered. In a ranking of global brands by Millward Brown Optimor this year, Nokia ranked No.

43, dropping 30 places in 12 months. Its profit margins have been shrinking, along with the average price of its phones and its market share.

True, it still has more than one-third of global mobile phone sales. But it looks stranded in the middle of the market. Korean electronics manufacturers such as Samsung Electronics Co. are leading the main consumer market. Apple=92s iPhone and Research In Motion Ltd.=92s BlackBerry dominate the upscale, smartphone industry.

Importing Leadership

Last week, Nokia recognized the scale of its challenges, hiring Stephen Elop, the head of Microsoft Corp.=92s business unit, to turn the company around. Can he succeed? Everyone will wish him well. But if the guy knows so much about phones, he=92s kept it a secret. Microsoft has never made any progress in that industry.

The cruel truth is that for all its residual market share, Nokia looks like a has-been. It misread the way the mobile phone industry was merging with computing and social networking. It is probably now too late to turn that around.

There are uncomfortable lessons here for European industry.

First, never rest on your laurels. Nokia got to the top of its industry quickly. But once there, it became complacent in an industry where laziness is fatal. It worried too much about hanging onto its market share, rather than creating new products to excite customers.

Failing to Mature

Second, Nokia was unwilling to challenge itself. The company clung to the model that mobile phones were mainly about calling people. It failed to notice that they were just as much about checking your e- mail, finding a good restaurant nearby, and updating your Twitter page.

Finally, it wasn=92t located near a cluster of similar companies. Building a technology giant in Finland was a great achievement. But Nokia wasn=92t surrounded by Web companies or consumer-electronics manufacturers. That meant it wasn=92t in the mix of innovative ideas, which would have forced it to question its assumptions every day. The company should have relocated to California. Sure, that would have caused an outcry at home. But that=92s better than watching its slow decline into irrelevance.

It may be too late for Nokia to turn itself around. But Europe still has companies that dominate industries such as oil, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, automobiles and financial services.

They are all prone to similar missteps. Are the auto manufacturers doing enough to prepare for the arrival of electric cars? Are the drugs companies ready for the merging of computing and biotechnology? Are banks positioned for a decade when debt is steadily reduced, not increased? Probably not.

Politicians and business experts spent a lot of time praising Nokia and trying to learn from its rise. They should devote as much time studying the lessons of its downfall. If they don=92t, much of the rest of European industry will repeat its mistakes. And Europe can=92t afford to lose many more world leaders.

The only thing I see that most miss is the fact that after the breakup of the telephone companies the federal govt turned to Autos and GM at that time

60s were getting close to the 60% market share and there was a lot of talk of splitting Cheverlot off on its own, That didn?t go over too well with some so the govt encouraged the japanese car makers to build and sell over here. At first it wasn?t too bad but as they expanded and imported more and more at a price it was impossible to compete with the help of the japanese govt. the US companys scrambled trying everything to cut costs eventually by importing more and more parts form 3rd world companies and shipping building of cars to mexico, korea etc. This may now be the thing that saves GM there world wide market is growing every years and there costs are coming in line. From my posts you think I am a gm lover, No but I do not want them to fail after all I have lost all my health care, life insurance, long term care insurance that I have paid into for almost 50 years