Not another GM post...

Sorry I'm late this morning, folks -- internet was down at home. But I'm in the office now. So on with the show:

Yeah, the Cranky Economist knows. You're all tired of reading about it. But I'm not quite tired of writing about it yet. So we'll start this, the second week of TCE, with General Motors (and no, I don't have a short position in it; for the record, as a struggling journalist, I'm too poor to hold any position in anything right now).

Its stock price sank yet again yesterday, falling 2.98 percent. Why, you ask? Here's a clue. The health-care-expense cutting is a great idea. But the third paragraph of this AP article is potentially even more disconcerting in the long run than any short-term worries about labor relations:

[GM Vice Chairman Bob] Lutz said he hoped GM wouldn't have to phase out one of its weaker brands, such as Buick and Pontiac, at a time when competitors like Toyota Motor Co. are adding brands. But he said he and GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner are determined to spend resources wisely.

Sure, Pontiac and Buick could use some major brand re-tooling; the former is struggling to compete with svelter sports cars, and, well, my grandpa drove the latter for years before he gave up the car keys. But for better or worse it has already shed Oldsmobile. Does GM really want to jettison yet another recognizable brand name? Are they really so sure that either of these two would be beyond rehabilitation?

Especially since, later on in the article, we discover that the real growth stock at GM these days is in Cadillac, GMC and Hummer. So that's (old-man) niche luxury cars, SUVs (in this era of rising gas prices) and niche luxury SUVs, respectively. That doesn't exactly spell lasting market share to me, although if I knew anything about anything I wouldn't be writing this blog.