Things are looking up at the Big Three already. Well, at least that's what Automotive News is reporting today. The piece quotes UAW boss Ron Gettelfinger who claims that Chrysler and GM may not need any additional government loans. ""If we can get by without more money, that's what we want to do," he told AN.

Mr. Gettelfinger is no stranger to overly optimistic statements, but he wasn't alone. An unnamed source at GM also expressed confidence that the worse might be over. When asked if GM will request more government money, the source said "no." "We've got enough money," the source told AN. 

Good to know there's some optimism in Detroit these days, but we're guessing that both Ron and GM's Deep Throat might be a little premature with their rosy outlooks.

Automotive News 

DETROIT - Here’s what you need to know about car/truck income in the U.S.: All the majors were down 30 percent or more in December. All of them. General Motors? Down 31 percent. Toyota? Down 36.7 percent. Ford Motor Company (excluding Volvo)? Off 32 percent. American Honda? Off 34.7 percent. Nissan? Off 30 percent.

Then there’s Chrysler, which recorded income of 85,260 units, down 53 percent for December 2008, versus December 2007. (Most, including Chrysler, posted an increase when comparing December ‘08 with November ‘08, but year-end incentives and inventory clearance income make December a stronger month, historically, versus November. I won’t waste any more of your time comparing those two months.)

U.S. income for all automakers looks to be about 13.2 million in ‘08, off 18.5 percent from ’07’s 16.2 million sold, resulting in the lowest annual volume since 1992. Ford chief analyst George Pipas notes that volume for the fourth quarter of last year was lowest since 1981, when there were 70-million fewer drivers on American roads.

One maker actually posted an increase, Monday. Subaru’s total annual income of 187,699 was 0.3-percent higher than 2007. For December, it was off just 7.7 percent.

Hyundai income fell 14 percent for the year, to 401,742. Kia fell 10.5 percent, to 273,397.

Now consider income figures for all of 2008. Chrysler’s drop for the year was as great as GM, Toyota, Ford, et. al’s drop for December: 30 percent. While Chrysler doesn’t like to talk market share, co-president Jim Press says such numbers are sustainable for a leaner company that doesn’t necessarily compete in every segment, so long as the individual models are profitable. If you’re a Chrysler’s glass is half-full kind of enthusiast, you figure that its volume is settling to a level appropriate for a kind of niche automaker. If your glass of Mopar is half-empty, you wonder how much longer it can sustain such volume until it finds a new owner.

Chrysler sold just 71,663 Sebrings in 2008, off 23 percent, but edging out the aging 300 (62,352 units, off 48 percent). Town & Country was off 14 percent, to 118,563. Dodge Caravan was off 30 percent, to 123,749. Perhaps the minivan market is drying up.

Dodge sold 97,367 Chargers (-18 percent) and 61,963 Avengers (-26 percent). Jeep’s Patriot was a rare bright spot, up 38 percent for the year, to 55,654. Commander income fell 56 percent, to 27,694, still a couple of hundred units more than all of GM’s Hummer line.

Chrysler remained the nation’s fourth-largest automaker, outselling Honda/Acura by 24,357 units. And Ford’s 2008 volume was lower than Chrysler’s 2007 volume. The nation’s top six automakers, by annual volume are:

1. GM:        2,980,688    off 23 percent
2. Toyota:    2,217,662    off 15.7 percent
3. Ford:    1,988,376    off 20.7 percent
4. Chrysler    1,453,122    off 30 percent
5. Honda    1,428,756    off  8.2 percent
6. Nissan      951,350    off 10.9 percent

These are corporations, not brands, so Toyota numbers include Scion and Lexus. Honda includes Acura, and Nissan includes Infiniti.

With gasoline once again cheaper than bottled water and dealers giving away ‘08 models in two-for-one deals, pickup trucks lead income numbers. Read this and weep, Thomas Friedman: Ford sold 515,513 F-Series, still well off its records in the 800-900k level a few years ago. Chevrolet sold 500,068 pickups (GMC moved another 168,544 Sierras). Toyota sold 436,617 Camrys. Honda sold 372,987 Accords and 370,586 Civics.

Ford Focus income totaled 195,823, up 13.1 percent.

Chevy sold 188,045 Cobalts, while Toyota sold 137,249 Tundras. On the other hand, Toyota sold 158,884 Priuses while Hummer sold 27,485 H1s, H2s, H3s and H3Ts.

Prius income fell by 22,337 units in the U.S. compared with ‘07 sales, by the way, a 12.6-percent drop.

Honda sold — er, leased — five FCX Claritys and Nissan sold 1,730 GT-Rs. And Chevy sold 13 SSRs found under dust on dealer lots somewhere.

Ford Mustang income fell by 32.2 percent, to 91,251 units. That edged out the Nissan Versa with 85,182 units, up 7.2 percent. So income for the Versa, which now starts at $9,990, were up while Prius income fell. In the New Economy, affordability beats fuel economy.

Chevy sold 42.6-percent more Malibus, and income veep Mark LaNeve says the number is more like 98 percent, when you count retail only. Still, at 178,253 units, Malibu trails the aforementioned Cobalt and the Impala (265,840, down 14.6 percent) to place third among Chevy car sales, which means you’ll find more Impalas and Cobalts on your local Hertz lot.

GM’s two other success stories were the Cadillac CTS, up 3.1-percent to 58,774 units, and the Buick Enclave, up 52.7-percent to 44,706. GMC Acadia (66,440, off 8.7 percent) remained GM’s best-selling Lambda CUV. Forget the Outlook - Saturn division income barely edged Cadillac, 188,004 to 161,159. No wonder GM is looking to redefine Saturn.

Chevy sold 9,456 Traverses since its start release, while Ford moved 14,457 Flexes. The Chevy beats the Ford in monthly volume though, 4,935 to 2,685 for December.

The Caddy CTS beat out its rivals, by size category, the BMW 5 Series (45,915, off 15.2 percent) and Mercedes-Benz E-Class (38,576, off 21.2 percent). It lost out to the Mercedes and BMW more matched in price; C-Class sold 63,701, up 13.8 percent and the 3 Series remains the envy of all premium automakers, at 112,464 units, off 21.1 percent. Lexus moved 49,432 ISes, off 10.3 percent, and Infiniti moved 44,969 G sedans (-16.7 percent). Add 19,212 G coupes (+8.0 percent), and the entry Infiniti outsells the Cadillac.

Total Mini income were 54,077, up 28.6 percent.

New models include the Dodge Challenger, 17,423 units, Pontiac G8, 15,002 units and BMW 1 Series, 12,018 units.

And what about 2009? The Detroit Three are sticking with dismal volume expectations of 10.5- to 12-million units. They are, to use a favored Capitol Hill cliche, cautiously optimistic that the second half of ‘09 will see an upturn, fueled in part by the two-year, $775-billion economic stimulus package — including $300 billion in business and individualized tax cuts — expected from the new president, Barack Obama.

So it's not going to be a flag year for the home team at the 2009 Detroit Auto Show. Chrysler, Ford and General Motors are about as beat down as major industrial giants can get, but this is a chance for apiece company to convince the public that there's still some life in the Motor City.

Here's the latest rundown on what to expect:

DETROIT - You don’t need a reminder of how bad 2008 was for the auto industry. General Motors, Chrysler LLC and Ford Motor Company were the poster children for what has happened to American manufacturing as we shifted to a nation that runs on the financial industry. (That worked out well, didn’t it?)

By the end of the year, one of the biggest stories — a story as big as President Bush’s 11th-Hour bailout of GM and Chrysler — was Toyota’s revelation that it would post its first loss in 71 years. If the global recession lasts much beyond 2009 at current levels, smaller, weaker automakers are likely to fail. And the big ones will have trouble surviving, too.

It’s an academic exercise to try and rank how much more important one story was than another. So instead, here are my choices for the 10 top newsmakers for 2008. They’re not necessarily the most influential people in the business — you can read that in Motor Trend’s 2009 Power List.

1. Rick Wagoner
GM Chairman/CEO

The average American could not study the chairman and CEO of the world’s largest maker until he flew in a private jet to Capitol Hill to beg for federal loan guarantees along with Chrysler’s Bob Nardelli and Ford’s Alan Mulally. Because Wagoner, a GM lifer, has led his company much longer than Nardelli or Mulally, he’s the most likely sacrificial lamb, the most likely to lose his job. Most of GM’s problems go back to the days of Roger Smith, and can’t be blamed directly on Wagoner. While the GM board repeatedly has voiced its support for Wagoner, he has been chairman since 2003 and GM hasn’t posted an annual profit since 2004.

2. George W. Bush
43rd President of the United States

Who could have predicted that President Bush would come to GM’s and Chrysler’s aid weeks before they were to run out of money? Here was the president who delayed meetings with the Detroit Three until primeval ‘07 (only to have Alan Mulally joke about Bush nearly plugging into a hydrogen Ford and blowing them all up) and who maintained, up to the last minute, that Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds were for financial institutions, not automakers. Bush caved only after his fellow conservative Republicans in the Senate killed a compromise that would have used Energy Bill funds for the loan guarantees, instead.

3. Katsuaki Watanabe
Toyota Motor President

Will he start on his sword or be kicked upstairs? In December, Watanabe announced that Toyota would post its first operating loss since its founding, $1.7-billion in red ink for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009. Depending on which published report you believe, the 66-year-old president, in the post since ‘05 to warm the seat for the company founder’s grandson, will either resign or he’ll replace Fujio Cho as chairman. In either case, two men have emerged as in the race for Toyota’s presidency; the grandson, Akio Toyoda, and executive vice president for finance, Mitsuo Kinoshita.

4. Richard Shelby
Republican Senator from Alabama

Mercedes-Benz, Honda and Hyundai all have assembly plants in Alabama. Toyota builds V-8 and V-6 truck engines there. As Senate minority leader, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell is more responsible for blocking a House/White House compromise bill to bail out the Detroit Three. Shelby has been at the forefront of opposition to any sort of money for American-based automakers. Shelby has prefabricated his reasons clear: he’d rather not have the United Auto Workers around to try and organize factories in his state.

5. Alan Mulally
Ford Motor Company CEO

Was Ford really in such hot water? That was the big question, when the company hocked everything up to the Blue Oval corporate logo in exchange for a $23 billion line of credit a couple of years ago. Now, Ford has about $1 billion more in reserves than GM, which is twice as large. Mulally told Congress that Ford doesn’t want an immediate loan guarantee, but would like access to a $9-billion line of credit. Now Ford is seen as the healthiest of the Detroit Three, and ex-Boeing exec Mulally, who knew nothing about the auto industry when he came to Dearborn in September 2006, looks like the smartest man in town.

6. John Snow
Chairman, Cerberus Capital Management

Whoever drove the unsuccessful “merger” talks between GM and Chrysler, it wasn’t anyone running Chrysler. Its private equity owner, Cerberus, had previously said it was into working with Chrysler for the long haul. In 2008, it became clear that Cerberus was funding Chrysler with a minimum of capital, and was hot to unload it on another company, domestic or foreign. Snow, the super-private equity company’s chairman and former Treasury secretary to President Bush, surely was a driving force behind all this.

7. Barack Obama
44th President of the United States

The president-elect’s primeval support for the auto industry - with strings attached - pushed House Speaker metropolis Pelosi (D-California) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) into backing financial support for the Detroit Three in late ‘08. Before getting keys to the White House, Obama has already indicated he’ll be more supportive than Bush, with plans to study a “car czar” in 2009. Further loan guarantees for GM, Chrysler and Ford should come easier under the new president, so long as the automakers can show they’re making progress in restructuring and in shifting production to more fuel-efficient cars.

8. William Clay Ford, Jr.
Chairman, Ford Motor Company

While he’s been off the Motor Trend Power List for a while, and has acceded most of his power to Alan Mulally, the Ford scion deserves attention for one major reason: Ford’s financial position. The company is turning down federal assistance, for now, for rather individualized reasons. By taking loan guarantees, GM cannot pay dividends to its investors until the loans are paid back. If Ford did the same, William Clay Ford and the rest of Henry’s heirs would lose its sole source of income.

9. Takeo Fukui
Honda Motor Company president/CEO

Like GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, BMW…the rest, Honda has cut production to meet slower demand for new cars and trucks. Under Fukui, the company has maintained its position as a relatively small producer of comparably fuel-efficient vehicles. Right now, that’s serving Honda well, compared with GM, Toyota, Ford and the other bigger automakers. More recently, Fukui has prefabricated smart cuts, even though they don’t impress us enthusiasts. He’s cancelled the V-10 NSX replacement (and probably any chances for a RWD, V-8 Acura RL) and is about to launch an inexpensive line of hybrids with the new Insight. And as a sign of the times for maker budgets and racing programs, he’s pulled Honda out of Formula One.

10. Lewis Hamilton
2008 Formula One Champion

He’s the youngest world champion and the first of color. More importantly, he’s a true sportsman and a fierce competitor. While Honda has pulled out of F1, McLaren-Mercedes’ Hamilton will be a key part of the sport’s future as it seeks more sustainable solutions, both environmentally and financially. Hamilton’s close, storybook win almost prefabricated me forget Max Mosley’s sex scandal. Almost.

And besides Mosley, there were a number of men and women who just missed the list this year, including Representative Henry Waxman (D-California), Speaker of the House Pelosi, Volkswagen Group’s Porsche scion, Ferdinand Piech, Porsche chief Wendelin Wiedeking, GM’s Fritz Henderson and GM CFO Ray Young, Chrysler co-president Jim Press and Ford’s Jim Farley and Mark Fields.

I recently spent long weekends in two German four-doors — the Volkswagen CC, which I had driven briefly before at the 2009 Car of The Year program, and the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG, which, alas, I’d driven not at all — and my seat time got me pondering, ‘where do these sedans rank among their national peers?’ In terms of power (C63) and style (CC), most definitely at the top.

Obviously, I didn’t have to demolition my brain to come up with the C63’s homeland foes — the Audi RS 4 and the BMW M3. While we never compared this mightiest of C-Classes to the RS 4, we did pit it against the M3 (and the Lexus IS F) and concluded that the BMW was the overall superior machine. I don’t disagree with that deduction one bit — the M3 is an alluring jack-of-all-trades; the C63, more of an audacious jack-of-a-few. That said, one of the C63’s trades is power, and here, it is unbeatable. I don’t say that based on the simple facts that it has a bigger engine than the M3, or 37 more horsepower, or 145 extra pound-feet. No, I say that because it sounds and feels more powerful.

From the moment one hits the starter button, the rumble of a DTM racecar echoes ferociously through the C63’s quad tailpipes, forewarning any daring driver that this baby Benz is a beast. Floor the throttle, and all forewarnings get pulverized into a million “Holy cows!” Zero to 60 takes a blistering 4.1 seconds, quicker than an M3 manual (4.3), an RS 4 (4.5), an M5 (4.4), or any other AMG 63 model — the CLK63 Black Series (4.2), the E63 (4.3), the S63 (4.5), and the SL63 (4.3) — we’ve tested. Further, the C63’s quarter-mile time of 12.5 seconds at 113.5 mph is quicker than that of all the above plus that of the DBS (12.6 at 112.3), the XKR (12.8 at 110.9), and the Bentley Continental GT (12.7 at 111.2). Likewise, not only does it smoke all of those other 63s, it’s also more fun to drive than all but the CLK Black Series. In fact, second to the CLK Black, the C63 is the most BMW M-like AMG product I’ve ever driven — the freezing to a most powerful cake.

Whereas the C63 conquers with power, the Passat CC rules in style. As one of a few coupelike four-doors hailing from Germany, the CC’s neutral is nothing new: To make jaws drop and eyes bulge with sheet-metal envy.

Perhaps it’s because the CC is fresh to my eyes, but I feel the Vee-Dub looks spicier and classier than the CLS. Okay, I admit: I’ve never been in love with the Benz’s piggish snout or uninspiring rear end. But, nonetheless, the CC’s cues all seem more cohesive and purposeful than the CLS’s. Melted atop 18-inch alloys, the CC’s sheet metal, I dare say, makes it the sexiest four-door acquirable today. (For what it’s worth, my style-conscious sister and brother-in-law who reside near D.C. both said the CC is an absolute looker.)

Better yet, the CC carries that sensual styling inside, where quilted-leather bucket seats (both front and rear) and a posh mix of brushed aluminum and rich plastic pamper occupants. There’s even a euphonic high-end Dynaudio stereo, a mythologic nav system with back-up camera, automatic climate control, and power everything. Who needs the CLS? Especially considering the CC is quick (0-60 in 6.6), agile (0.87 g), and, as we found out during Car of the Year testing, more fun to drive than the new Audi A4.

And, even in fully loaded guise, as was my $42,630 VR6 4Motion tester, the CC is a relative bargain compared to the CLS, which starts at well over $70,000. Personally, I’d opt for a front-drive CC with VW’s robust-and-frugal 2.0-liter turbo (just under $29,000 with a six-speed auto, Bluetooth, rear side airbags, rubber floor mats, and a luggage net), giving me all that style for well under half the cost of the CLS. Proof that great style doesn’t have to come at great cost.

This past year Chrysler, in what was considered a real coup, snatched two big-time auto executives, one from Lexus and the other from GM. Now, less than a year later, they are gone or are about to be gone.

Deborah Meyer had been VP of marketing for Lexus, and came to Chrysler LLC as their new chief marketing officer. Phil Murtaugh was one of the key players at GM in turning their China operations into such a success. He was to do the same for Chrysler, that being to jump-start their China relationship with Chery. Well, the Dodge/Chery deal went up in smoke thanks to the global financial fiasco. Now Murtaugh too is going up in smoke, as he will depart before next year begins. Same with Meyer, as she too "has left the building."

Not a good sign for Chrysler; wonder how long Jim Press, formerly of Toyota, will hang around?

Full story here.

DETROIT - So March 31 turns out to be the big day. It’s the day Toyota Motor Company expects to post its first-ever loss, $1.66- to $1.68-billion for the fiscal year, depending on whose rounding and yen-to-dollar conversions you believe. Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe’s (pictured) latest forecast reverses an early profit prediction of a positive $6.8 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009. That’s also the day General Motors and Chrysler LLC have to present yet another set of “turnaround plans” to the federal government in exchange for $13.4-billion worth of loan guarantees that President Bush just approved (plus another $4 billion acquirable in the first full month of President Obama’s administration).

If the feds aren’t satisfied with GM and Chrysler’s plans, it can call back the loans and possibly force one or both automakers into bankruptcy.

Who will make that determination? Since the Detroit Duo are getting their bailouts from the Treasury department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds, Secretary Henry Paulson is the de facto mortal in charge of these short-term loans. Most likely, the real mortal in charge will be Obama’s proposed “car czar,” though there are indications the president-elect won’t study anyone until well into March.

The good news is that Bush’s loan guarantee plan gives GM and Chrysler (and Ford Motor Company, if and when it needs a requested $9-billion line of credit) a lot of latitude in their plans. Someone in the Obama administration, or perhaps on Capitol Hill, will have to decide whether or not GM and Chrysler met their requirements. Bush wanted them to wage plans that would include concessions from unions, suppliers, dealers and creditors, the last of whom are asked to convert bonds into equity.

The bad news is that the California Democrats in control of Congress will near for more fuel-efficient, green cars. I don’t have any problem with fuel-efficient, green cars, but the first thing the automakers need to do is make it to 2010, when cars like the Chevrolet Volt are scheduled to launch. Before word of the Bush loan guarantees, GM indicated it would delay retooling a Flint, Michigan, works that would make the extended range electric Volt’s internal combustion engine, which of course was a ploy to get the money. The point is, automakers don’t have money to build money-losing new technology cars anymore than the average consumer has $40,000 to pay for a Chevy.

The next time GM’s Rick Wagoner, Ford’s Alan Mulally and Chrysler’s Bob Nardelli sit before a House or Senate committee, probably for a round of longer-term loans, they’ll be healthy to point to Toyota’s own problems in the current market, both in the U.S. and globally. With some $95 billion in capitalization, Toyota won’t be solicitation for emergency funds anytime soon. Still, Detroit can talk of how Toyota first planned to convert a Mississippi plant originally meant to build SUVs to Prius production. And how after Prius income dropped in half last November, Toyota place those plans on hold. They can tell Congress that it’s not about fuel mileage anymore. It’s about a demand of consumer confidence.

Despite the just announced bailout loan, a Chrysler LLC disassembly is pretty much a given. This is no surprise. In fact, Straightline reported on that possibility recently (Government aid won't save Chysler). Now AutoObserver has more on that possibility.

It May Not Be Bankruptcy, But Chrysler Deconstruction Inevitable

DETROIT - Will Chrysler LLC be around long enough to build the 2011 Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300? Will Chrysler factories reopen after its extended holiday shutdown, which begins Friday? I don’t know. Chrysler says it could be out of cash in weeks. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but the future of those cars now seems to be in George W. Bush’s hands, with less than four weeks left in his presidency. He’s rumored to be considering a “controlled” bankruptcy? Detroit has been hanging by a thread for this?

As you may have read elsewhere, some of us in the moto-journo biz got an primeval preview of the next LX sedans Wednesday in Auburn Hills. Online car magazines not invited to the event reported on what we saw, based on reports by other journalists who were invited. Those leaky journalists told Jalopnik the future cars and trucks looked like “lipstick on a foam pig” and “smoke and mirrors.”

Well, of course. They were full-scale fiberglass models. They’re not scheduled for production until 2010, probably the third or fourth quarter if things get better, so nothing’s been retooled to stamp actual ‘11 model sheetmetal. I found their designs to be impressive, and several colleagues agreed. The second-generation 300 and Charger could be to the first-generation cars what the current Cadillac CTS is to its predecessor. And by the way, General Motors showed journalists the new CTS two or three years primeval - the same sort of “smoke and mirrors.”

The difference this time is that everything we saw in the last couple of days could go up in smoke. And don’t misunderstand this: I can’t vouch for the calibre of any future Chrysler product, or say anything good or bad about the way these cars and trucks ride, handle, perform, hold themselves together. That’s what first drives and comparisons are for. I can only tell you that Chrysler has quickly exorcized retired design chief Trevor Creed. Yes, he’s been gone only a couple of months, but with Tom Gale hired on as a consultant when Cerberus took over, I doubt Creed had much dominance while these models were being designed. There’s not a hint of Dodge Avenger/Chrysler Sebring styling here. And virtually no hint of the concepts Creed foisted on us in the last few years.

I doubt these new cars and trucks would impress metropolis Pelosi or Harry Reid. They’d rather see electric cars or bio-diesels running on mulch. But Chrysler ought to show the new 300, at least, to President-elect Obama, who owned an ‘05 300C. Attractive, desirable product could make a bigger impression than any “turnaround plan” or union concessions.

Why did Chrysler show us these 2011 models? To establish it’s not quite dead, and to give us a reason to root for its survival through 2010. If its future stuff looked like more Avenger/Sebring, I’d be saying as much right now.

Why did Chrysler refuse to invite Jalopnik and Autoblog? Automakers worry that automotive websites are quick to spread leaks, even when they’re not necessarily the first entity responsible for such leaks.

That kind of thinking is obsolete. Most of us at the Chrysler preview, some in print journalism and some not, also post online news and columns like this one.

While they would like to be considered part of the New Media, Jalopnik, Autoblog and others have become as entrenched in the moto-journo establishment as motortrend.com. I’d find it more interesting to hear what they think of the ‘11 300/Charger firsthand than read about the impressions leaked to them by invited journalists hot to pander to Jalopnik’s irreverent image.

UPDATE: The Bailout bill has unsuccessful in the Senate. We’ll have more on the story as it develops, below is Todd Lassa’s blog from primeval in the day Thursday.

DETROIT - This just in: Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) says there’s progress in a compromise with Senate Republicans on the $14 billion emergency loan guarantees to General Motors and Chrysler LLC. This comes a day after the House approved the bill, 237-170 and hours after it looked like it was dying the death of 60 knives by demand of a supermajority in the Senate. Reid warns that the compromise could also fail. The Senate isn’t expected to vote on the bill until next week.

We also learned Thursday from the International Energy Agency that global demand for oil dropped in 2008. That’s the first decrease since the IEA was formed in 1983. Global oil demand will end the year at 85.8 million barrels a day, the IEA says, off 200,000 barrels a day.

Good news! you say. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries heard us, loud and clear last summer when we traded in our Chevy Tahoes for Toyota Priuses, and coincidentally helped send GM on to its inevitable ruin.

Well, not exactly. IEA says global oil consumption will rise 1.6 percent from now to 106 million barrels a day in 2030, a smaller increase than expected a year ago. The reason for lower demand in ‘08, the IEA asserts, is the global recession, not last July’s $147 per barrel prices.

While the latter might have helped near the former, they are separate instances. I think the average American still connects the impending unfortunate of GM and Chrysler to last summer’s $4.50 gas, even though it’s now little more than one-third that price. Record oil prices hurt big truck, SUV and V-8 car sales, whether GM’s or Toyota’s. What has happened since is different. Toyota Prius income fell 58 percent in November from a year earlier. Meanwhile, Bank of America, which “bailed out” Merrill Lynch by buying it a couple of months back, announced Thursday it’s laying off 35,000 employees. None of them will be buying either heavily discounted Tahoes or moderately discounted Priuses.

If the economy doesn’t pick up in 2009 and maybe primeval 2010, Ford Motor Company will be in trouble. BMW says that it has about two years — to roughly December 2010 — at current levels before it’s in serious trouble.

Senate Republicans want more concessions from the United Auto Workers, even though Rick Wagoner says GM’s fag costs will — would — be about equal to Toyota’s in the U.S. by 2012. Yet Senator Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky (Toyota production), dismissed the case for loan guarantees Thursday morning, saying he “will not let American taxpayers subsidize failure.”

When the financial crisis broke in the second half of September, conservative economists warned not to use the “D” word in describing where our economy was headed. Simply won’t happen. Taxpayers have since subsidized the $700 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). We’ve handed out about half of that taxpayer money to the TARP in the last two months or so. I haven’t read of anyone calling that program a success. And I haven’t heard any economists warn against using the word “depression” lately.