brettsomers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,993
Will a loan help in the long term, or simply delay the inevitable?
Discuss
Discuss
OT: Will a loan be enough to turn GM around?
- Thread starter brettsomers
- Start date
Help Support :
jamman_98
Well-known member
double edged sword
On the one hand, I have no simpathy for the auto industry especially GM after watching "Who Killed the Electric Car?" They made their bed now they need to lie in it. On the other hand, I feel for the workers and related jobs lost if they go under. The auto industry and UAW should come up with a solution before we all bail them out.
Joe
jamman_98
On the one hand, I have no simpathy for the auto industry especially GM after watching "Who Killed the Electric Car?" They made their bed now they need to lie in it. On the other hand, I feel for the workers and related jobs lost if they go under. The auto industry and UAW should come up with a solution before we all bail them out.
Joe
jamman_98
neptunebob
Well-known member
I may be in the minority here...
I think America is simply too car dependent - most of us are forced to buy cars because we have no other way to get around because there is no public transportation and many communities are not designed for walking.
The question that must be asked is: What have the automakers done that is good for humanity? Let's see: They sell us machines that (despite safety features)kill and injure people, pollute the air, make the government pave over the Earth, keep us dependent on foreign oil, cause constant aggravation, cost people lots of money, take up people's time with car care (do you really enjoy spending time at your Chevrolet dealer), isolate people, create eyesores, and really, I don't find driving to be much fun anymore and I am just so fed up!
My opinion is DO NOT bail out the automakers!. In fact the only reason they say we should is because of all the jobs. So are all the autoworkers going to go to the bar and get drunk if they are not working? It sounds like the only reason for the bailout is to keep people busy making a product no one wants!
I think America is simply too car dependent - most of us are forced to buy cars because we have no other way to get around because there is no public transportation and many communities are not designed for walking.
The question that must be asked is: What have the automakers done that is good for humanity? Let's see: They sell us machines that (despite safety features)kill and injure people, pollute the air, make the government pave over the Earth, keep us dependent on foreign oil, cause constant aggravation, cost people lots of money, take up people's time with car care (do you really enjoy spending time at your Chevrolet dealer), isolate people, create eyesores, and really, I don't find driving to be much fun anymore and I am just so fed up!
My opinion is DO NOT bail out the automakers!. In fact the only reason they say we should is because of all the jobs. So are all the autoworkers going to go to the bar and get drunk if they are not working? It sounds like the only reason for the bailout is to keep people busy making a product no one wants!
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Abaolutely Not.
Detroit's Big Three have been so abusive of this nation, their customers, and their employees for so long, that a bailout alone will accomplish nothing beyond permitting some corporate honchos to maintain their lavish lifestyles past their expiration date. The message that Congress is hearing is that Americans are fed up to the teeth with the way Detroit does business, and I hope Congress listens.
Some of the abuses are of the government itself. Washington has long tried to pass laws mandating greater safety, lower emissions and better fuel economy. For all the chest-thumping in ads and brochures, Detroit has fought every bit of regulation Washington has tried to impose, for decades. PCV valves, as a first step in lowering emissions, were fought tooth and toenail. So were seatbelts, side marker lights, head restraints, and more. Detroit actually succeeded in getting a seatbelt interlock first required on all 1974 models rescinded; you couldn't start a '74 until you'd buckled up. Fuel economy regs passed in the '70s became a mockery once Detroit found the loophole - truck-based vehicles were exempt to a large extent. This began resulting in nicer trucks, then in SUV's.
Detroit's relationship with consumers has been nightmarish for those Americans purchasing the product. Today's cars are largely designed by temporary and outsourced employees, using computer simulations that say a particular system should work. Very often, it doesn't, and if the stated warranty on the car has expired, automakers do nothing. Even in instances where problems surface quickly, automakers often bend over backwards to limit their costs on repairs, at the expense of consumers.
I personally owned a '96 Taurus purchased as a one-year-old "cream puff" with plenty of factory warranty left. Before closing the deal, I called Ford, and asked about outstanding recalls on the car. I was told there were none. Within a year, my car began exhibiting symptoms of a "brown coolant" problem epidemic among Tauruses of this year. It turned out that the problem was due to a design fault that permitted stray electrolysis current to get in the coolant. I called Ford, to be told that there had been a "customer satisfaction" campaign about the issue, but that it was over, that I would get absolutely nothing from Ford. Calling the Feds elicited the shocking information that Ford's terming this a customer satisfaction issue to avoid a recall was perfectly legal. I had all the Ford-recommended repairs and modifications done to the car at my own expense, to no avail: the mods didn't work, and the car went to the junkyard at 66,000 immaculately maintained miles, due to failure of its water pump, freeze plugs, heater core, and radiator. Cost to repair was in the thousands. And this was my second Ford product failure in a row - my previous car, a Sable wagon, had blown its engine due to a head gasket failure traceable to design flaws. Again, it was an epidemic problem that owners were expected to bear the cost of.
I wasn't alone. Dodge Intrepid owners who had the 2.7l engine commonly experienced engine sludging and failure at just over 60,000 miles. Attempts to get Chrysler to do anything about it were met with the claim that owners had not maintained their vehicles properly. Claims were denied even when owners displayed absolute proof of maintenance, even when every speck of maintenance had been done at a Chrysler dealer. Chrysler products are also notorious for steering rack failure, often at mileages in the low 20 thousands.
But, as the Ginsu knife people say, that's not all. Employees are abused, too, particularly at the dealership level. Mechanics who work on your car under warranty are paid on what is called a "flat rate" basis, meaning that the manufacturer has determined that each type of repair should take "X" amount of time, and therefore that's all they will pay, regardless of circumstances. Manufacturers themselves set the times, and complaints by service techs are long and loud, saying that times are impossible, completely unachievable and unrealistic. Too bad - they're paid only what the flat rate schedule says they'll be paid. Turnover at dealerships is high nowadays, a dramatic departure from the days when a job as a dealership tech was one of the most desirable blue-collar jobs around.
Assembly-line workers have a negative public image as highly-paid, low-performing union obstructionists. The fact is, automakers close plants, lay off workers, schedule plant down time, and create many other factors that lowers the effective rate of pay for UAW workers.
Manufacturers engage in practices like selling new dealership franchises too close to existing ones. They have, in the past, engaged in shipping unordered cars to dealers, telling them in effect, "This is what we're going to sell you."
If there is to be any bailout, Detroit is going to have to be cleaned up from the bottom up, with sweeping changes to the way it does business and handles relationships with its dealer body, its customers, and Uncle Sam himself. I personally think the entitlement mentality among Detroit execs is so firmly entrenched that Congress would do very well to let one of the Big Three go belly-up before helping the remaining two - it's the only way to get the attention of people who have written the rules as they've seen fit for a century. While letting one manufacturer go under would have unpleasant results for its employees, the other two could then be made to reform in ways that would give them a better chance for survival. If we just throw money at Detroit and let its execs continue on their present path, the industry will burn through the $25 billion requested by Spring, and will still go under in the end.
Anyone who wants to know more about some of the things I've asserted here, try these links:
www.flatratetech.com - A site I occasionally write for, where Ford dealer techs have a forum for what's wrong at their company.
www.intrepidhorrorstories.blogspot.com - The title says it all.
Detroit's Big Three have been so abusive of this nation, their customers, and their employees for so long, that a bailout alone will accomplish nothing beyond permitting some corporate honchos to maintain their lavish lifestyles past their expiration date. The message that Congress is hearing is that Americans are fed up to the teeth with the way Detroit does business, and I hope Congress listens.
Some of the abuses are of the government itself. Washington has long tried to pass laws mandating greater safety, lower emissions and better fuel economy. For all the chest-thumping in ads and brochures, Detroit has fought every bit of regulation Washington has tried to impose, for decades. PCV valves, as a first step in lowering emissions, were fought tooth and toenail. So were seatbelts, side marker lights, head restraints, and more. Detroit actually succeeded in getting a seatbelt interlock first required on all 1974 models rescinded; you couldn't start a '74 until you'd buckled up. Fuel economy regs passed in the '70s became a mockery once Detroit found the loophole - truck-based vehicles were exempt to a large extent. This began resulting in nicer trucks, then in SUV's.
Detroit's relationship with consumers has been nightmarish for those Americans purchasing the product. Today's cars are largely designed by temporary and outsourced employees, using computer simulations that say a particular system should work. Very often, it doesn't, and if the stated warranty on the car has expired, automakers do nothing. Even in instances where problems surface quickly, automakers often bend over backwards to limit their costs on repairs, at the expense of consumers.
I personally owned a '96 Taurus purchased as a one-year-old "cream puff" with plenty of factory warranty left. Before closing the deal, I called Ford, and asked about outstanding recalls on the car. I was told there were none. Within a year, my car began exhibiting symptoms of a "brown coolant" problem epidemic among Tauruses of this year. It turned out that the problem was due to a design fault that permitted stray electrolysis current to get in the coolant. I called Ford, to be told that there had been a "customer satisfaction" campaign about the issue, but that it was over, that I would get absolutely nothing from Ford. Calling the Feds elicited the shocking information that Ford's terming this a customer satisfaction issue to avoid a recall was perfectly legal. I had all the Ford-recommended repairs and modifications done to the car at my own expense, to no avail: the mods didn't work, and the car went to the junkyard at 66,000 immaculately maintained miles, due to failure of its water pump, freeze plugs, heater core, and radiator. Cost to repair was in the thousands. And this was my second Ford product failure in a row - my previous car, a Sable wagon, had blown its engine due to a head gasket failure traceable to design flaws. Again, it was an epidemic problem that owners were expected to bear the cost of.
I wasn't alone. Dodge Intrepid owners who had the 2.7l engine commonly experienced engine sludging and failure at just over 60,000 miles. Attempts to get Chrysler to do anything about it were met with the claim that owners had not maintained their vehicles properly. Claims were denied even when owners displayed absolute proof of maintenance, even when every speck of maintenance had been done at a Chrysler dealer. Chrysler products are also notorious for steering rack failure, often at mileages in the low 20 thousands.
But, as the Ginsu knife people say, that's not all. Employees are abused, too, particularly at the dealership level. Mechanics who work on your car under warranty are paid on what is called a "flat rate" basis, meaning that the manufacturer has determined that each type of repair should take "X" amount of time, and therefore that's all they will pay, regardless of circumstances. Manufacturers themselves set the times, and complaints by service techs are long and loud, saying that times are impossible, completely unachievable and unrealistic. Too bad - they're paid only what the flat rate schedule says they'll be paid. Turnover at dealerships is high nowadays, a dramatic departure from the days when a job as a dealership tech was one of the most desirable blue-collar jobs around.
Assembly-line workers have a negative public image as highly-paid, low-performing union obstructionists. The fact is, automakers close plants, lay off workers, schedule plant down time, and create many other factors that lowers the effective rate of pay for UAW workers.
Manufacturers engage in practices like selling new dealership franchises too close to existing ones. They have, in the past, engaged in shipping unordered cars to dealers, telling them in effect, "This is what we're going to sell you."
If there is to be any bailout, Detroit is going to have to be cleaned up from the bottom up, with sweeping changes to the way it does business and handles relationships with its dealer body, its customers, and Uncle Sam himself. I personally think the entitlement mentality among Detroit execs is so firmly entrenched that Congress would do very well to let one of the Big Three go belly-up before helping the remaining two - it's the only way to get the attention of people who have written the rules as they've seen fit for a century. While letting one manufacturer go under would have unpleasant results for its employees, the other two could then be made to reform in ways that would give them a better chance for survival. If we just throw money at Detroit and let its execs continue on their present path, the industry will burn through the $25 billion requested by Spring, and will still go under in the end.
Anyone who wants to know more about some of the things I've asserted here, try these links:
www.flatratetech.com - A site I occasionally write for, where Ford dealer techs have a forum for what's wrong at their company.
www.intrepidhorrorstories.blogspot.com - The title says it all.
What Congress Should Do
I would hate to see any of the Big 3 automakers go under. And frankly, Congress and President-elect Obama would be crazy to give GM, Ford and Chrysler a blank check to spend nilly-willy. Maybe it's time to take a look back at history--specifically, the 1979 bailout of Chrysler.
Congress (and then President Carter) approved a guaranteed loan package for Chrysler, but it came with significant strings. And those strings made all the difference. Chrysler's chairman at the time, John Ricardo, resigned from the company so that Lee Iacocca could take his place--effectively wiping Chrysler's slate clean as far as new blood (or more accurately, former Ford and Iacocca friends) were installed in key positions. The UAW had no choice but to grant concessions as far as pay and benefits; Chrysler was allowed to continue work on key models (the K-Car FWD compacts and the minivan, among others). Iacocca took a dollar a year salary (and bet his stock options would pay off if Chrysler became profitable). And the guaranteed loans came at a time when the American automakers were in bad shape (GM would soon bleed red ink; Ford was in nearly as bad a condition as Chrysler; and AMC was hanging on by just a finger, its Jeeps and the cash infusion from then-French partner Renault.)
Chrysler eventually recovered (and paid back the government loans with interest four years later). Of course, not all of the conditions would apply to today's situation, but America benefited from a more competitive Chrysler (though truth to tell, as danemodsandy correctly pointed out, the company still had quality control issues and durability problems with some engines and transmissions).
Again, I don't want to see any of the Big Three take a dive. But if Congress decides to help the automakers, it needs to set some boundaries. A review of the Chrysler bailout three decades ago would be a very good start.
I would hate to see any of the Big 3 automakers go under. And frankly, Congress and President-elect Obama would be crazy to give GM, Ford and Chrysler a blank check to spend nilly-willy. Maybe it's time to take a look back at history--specifically, the 1979 bailout of Chrysler.
Congress (and then President Carter) approved a guaranteed loan package for Chrysler, but it came with significant strings. And those strings made all the difference. Chrysler's chairman at the time, John Ricardo, resigned from the company so that Lee Iacocca could take his place--effectively wiping Chrysler's slate clean as far as new blood (or more accurately, former Ford and Iacocca friends) were installed in key positions. The UAW had no choice but to grant concessions as far as pay and benefits; Chrysler was allowed to continue work on key models (the K-Car FWD compacts and the minivan, among others). Iacocca took a dollar a year salary (and bet his stock options would pay off if Chrysler became profitable). And the guaranteed loans came at a time when the American automakers were in bad shape (GM would soon bleed red ink; Ford was in nearly as bad a condition as Chrysler; and AMC was hanging on by just a finger, its Jeeps and the cash infusion from then-French partner Renault.)
Chrysler eventually recovered (and paid back the government loans with interest four years later). Of course, not all of the conditions would apply to today's situation, but America benefited from a more competitive Chrysler (though truth to tell, as danemodsandy correctly pointed out, the company still had quality control issues and durability problems with some engines and transmissions).
Again, I don't want to see any of the Big Three take a dive. But if Congress decides to help the automakers, it needs to set some boundaries. A review of the Chrysler bailout three decades ago would be a very good start.
This Bailout Business Is Getting A Bit Thin
Practically the only persons not getting any sort of government aid are the poor fools that get up in the morning, go to work and pay their bills on time.
That being said, the country is going though one of those upheavals out of which a new era is born. Question must be asked does the United States NEED three big automakers, and if bailing one or more out cures their ills, ore merely prolongs a long painful death.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy provides all the protections these companies need to restructure, without any government (ie, tax dollars)funds.
If I were in a position of decision making at any of these automakers, would think very carefully about what I wished for. Do you really want one president, a vice president, the senate and Congress running your business? Witness the hard time all banks that took federal money are getting from those above named persons, not to mention the Federal Reserve, various district attorneys, and the Treasury Department.
Practically the only persons not getting any sort of government aid are the poor fools that get up in the morning, go to work and pay their bills on time.
That being said, the country is going though one of those upheavals out of which a new era is born. Question must be asked does the United States NEED three big automakers, and if bailing one or more out cures their ills, ore merely prolongs a long painful death.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy provides all the protections these companies need to restructure, without any government (ie, tax dollars)funds.
If I were in a position of decision making at any of these automakers, would think very carefully about what I wished for. Do you really want one president, a vice president, the senate and Congress running your business? Witness the hard time all banks that took federal money are getting from those above named persons, not to mention the Federal Reserve, various district attorneys, and the Treasury Department.
classiccaprice
Well-known member
True...
1) America is too dependent on the automobile...
2) Pubic Transportation is awesome (or living in a city and can walk to whatever you need)
However,
What would Dinah Shore say? How could a companies that brought us classics like the 49 Mercury, 55 T-bird, 55 300, 57 Fury, 57 Chevy, 59 Cadillac, 61 Continental, 63 Riviera, 64 GTO, 65 Mustang, 69 442, 70 Challenger go so wrong?
I miss the days when American stood for quality, but that went out with bell bottoms and disco...
1) America is too dependent on the automobile...
2) Pubic Transportation is awesome (or living in a city and can walk to whatever you need)
However,
What would Dinah Shore say? How could a companies that brought us classics like the 49 Mercury, 55 T-bird, 55 300, 57 Fury, 57 Chevy, 59 Cadillac, 61 Continental, 63 Riviera, 64 GTO, 65 Mustang, 69 442, 70 Challenger go so wrong?
I miss the days when American stood for quality, but that went out with bell bottoms and disco...
When the big 3 pay $79/hr while foreign manufacturers with plants here are paying $46/hr, giving them a loan will only delay the inevitable. It's not like the unions are going to give up anything...
vulcanchef
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 66
GM is evil and deserves what it gets but I fell for the people who work for them
The Conspiracy to Destroy America's Trolley Systems
Destruction of trolley systems,car culture,
www.verdant.net
neptunebob
Well-known member
Vulcanchef, that is actually what I meant, there was a plot by GM to destroy the electric trolleys most cities had in the 20-30s. Meanwhile, it will cost taxpayers billions to have this rebuilt today. In Pittsburgh, it took nearly 3 billion dollars to rebuilt a trolley (now called light rail) route. That is why I saw America is too dependent on cars - it should be a product that some people might want to buy, not one we are Forced To Buy, which is how the automakers want it. Now the threat is that all these people will be out of work - so is the auto industry just a make-work program to keep people busy so they don't all go out and get drunk?
Collectors are only a small part of auto industry consumers, the rest of us are forced to buy them. So, my opinion is still NO BAILOUT!! LET THEM GO UNDER!!
As for Chrysler, really, the same question is asked then as today - What has the company done for humanity besides build gas-guzzling, unreliable vehicles that make us spend lots of time at a Chrysler dealer - oh, how entertaining!
Collectors are only a small part of auto industry consumers, the rest of us are forced to buy them. So, my opinion is still NO BAILOUT!! LET THEM GO UNDER!!
As for Chrysler, really, the same question is asked then as today - What has the company done for humanity besides build gas-guzzling, unreliable vehicles that make us spend lots of time at a Chrysler dealer - oh, how entertaining!
Ask your Buddies for the $
The OIL companies have plenty of $$$ money, maybe they could help Detroit out. Ashton Kutcher mentioned this very idea on Bill Maher last Friday. That way Detroit and Oil, can enable each other. alr2903
The OIL companies have plenty of $$$ money, maybe they could help Detroit out. Ashton Kutcher mentioned this very idea on Bill Maher last Friday. That way Detroit and Oil, can enable each other. alr2903
athanasius80
Well-known member
GM didn't systematically destroy the trolleys everywhere
In Spokane WA, there were two competing street car lines in 1910. Between them, downtown Spokane had 290 miles of street car track and you were never more than two blocks from a trolley stop. Everything torn out by 1937 due to lack of ridership and interest.
In Los Angeles, the famous (and now legendary) Red Car system started up in the late 1880s as a number of small individual street car lines. Then Henry Huntington got involved in 1895, the system got bigger and bigger and bigger, til by the 1920s you could board in Santa Monica, hit up Pasadena, swing downtown, or go down the coast to Newport Beach. It was simply enormous. But it only paid for itself in one year, 1924. People got fed up with right of ways in the center of major streets. WW2 bought the system more time, but "Progress," car ownership, and no capital improvements to an old infrastructure wiped it out by the mid 1960s. I've looked for a massive "Big 3 Conspiracy" and can't find any harder evidence than GM selling diesel busses.
Public transport is a lovely idea and rather fun. But it can suck a&$ when you can't get to half the places you need to go because there's no bus or train within 5 miles.
In Spokane WA, there were two competing street car lines in 1910. Between them, downtown Spokane had 290 miles of street car track and you were never more than two blocks from a trolley stop. Everything torn out by 1937 due to lack of ridership and interest.
In Los Angeles, the famous (and now legendary) Red Car system started up in the late 1880s as a number of small individual street car lines. Then Henry Huntington got involved in 1895, the system got bigger and bigger and bigger, til by the 1920s you could board in Santa Monica, hit up Pasadena, swing downtown, or go down the coast to Newport Beach. It was simply enormous. But it only paid for itself in one year, 1924. People got fed up with right of ways in the center of major streets. WW2 bought the system more time, but "Progress," car ownership, and no capital improvements to an old infrastructure wiped it out by the mid 1960s. I've looked for a massive "Big 3 Conspiracy" and can't find any harder evidence than GM selling diesel busses.
Public transport is a lovely idea and rather fun. But it can suck a&$ when you can't get to half the places you need to go because there's no bus or train within 5 miles.
The only thing I am going to ad to the subject was a tiny factoid I read on CNN.com earlier today. If the worst possible scenario were to play out, the US Government alone would loose out on 100 Billion on tax revenue from the failure of the Big Three within the next few years. On top of the hundreds of thousands of job losses that are yet to come - direct and supply-chain related. Tough times are ahead, indeed.
Ben
Ben
pturo
New member
Finance and Business are a lot like natural selection, the weak die out becasue they lack survival skills to adapt to the environment and stronger species survive because they do adapt and thrive.
Archaic busniess models need to be buried.
I feel for the workers, but those same workers shop at Walmart and get a window air conditioner for 99 bucks made in China, and Carrier Air Conditioning is all but out of business and was founded in this very city, becasue they would have to charge 300 dollars for the same unit made here.
We are not a manufacturing country any more, technology has globalized markets and the least expensive markets to manufacture will be the emerging nations.
GM has never made a good, reliable small car, nor has Ford or Chrysler and they have had decades to do it in.
Perhaps we should ask the oil companies to bail out the automobile industry? We taxpayers pay for the roads that the cars drive on and burn gas on, we create the forum on which their products are used.
Archaic busniess models need to be buried.
I feel for the workers, but those same workers shop at Walmart and get a window air conditioner for 99 bucks made in China, and Carrier Air Conditioning is all but out of business and was founded in this very city, becasue they would have to charge 300 dollars for the same unit made here.
We are not a manufacturing country any more, technology has globalized markets and the least expensive markets to manufacture will be the emerging nations.
GM has never made a good, reliable small car, nor has Ford or Chrysler and they have had decades to do it in.
Perhaps we should ask the oil companies to bail out the automobile industry? We taxpayers pay for the roads that the cars drive on and burn gas on, we create the forum on which their products are used.
Wow -- Such hate!
You know, living in Michigan and a GM town I can say about half the hate dumped here so far is true, the rest is just word of mouth crap. Up front I will say that I have never worked for any of the auto companies but most of my family has and does.
First off you are talking about MILLIONS of people loosing their jobs, that's right MILLIONS. GM, Ford and Chrysler do not employ anywhere near that amount but factor in all the suppliers, vendors and ancillary people, not to mention Stores and Restaurants that serve the workers you are talking about massive devastation. Go ahead and spout your "Let'm fail" and see what this country looks like then. It's OK for Washington to give their Wall Street cronies hundreds of billions with NO STRINGS attached, but everyone wants to beat up on Detroit? Why?
Had the auto industry not made efforts over the last decade to trim costs, shut plants, and streamline operations I too would say let them fail. But if you look at the cuts all these manufacturers have done you'll see a very different story. If you look at the latest union contract you will see a two tiered wage scale, starting employees get about $14.00/hr, can you raise a family on that? Yes, but you'd be close to poverty level.
Detroit has made a lot of crap vehicles in the past, and the attitude engendered in many of the posters here is a result of decisions made decades ago. It simply isn't true any more. Detroit makes cars as good as if not better than their competitors, it's just people's perceptions are rooted in the 80's. while you may dislike some of the decisions Detroit has made, killing an entire industry out of spite is stupid.
Feel free to read this link:
You know, living in Michigan and a GM town I can say about half the hate dumped here so far is true, the rest is just word of mouth crap. Up front I will say that I have never worked for any of the auto companies but most of my family has and does.
First off you are talking about MILLIONS of people loosing their jobs, that's right MILLIONS. GM, Ford and Chrysler do not employ anywhere near that amount but factor in all the suppliers, vendors and ancillary people, not to mention Stores and Restaurants that serve the workers you are talking about massive devastation. Go ahead and spout your "Let'm fail" and see what this country looks like then. It's OK for Washington to give their Wall Street cronies hundreds of billions with NO STRINGS attached, but everyone wants to beat up on Detroit? Why?
Had the auto industry not made efforts over the last decade to trim costs, shut plants, and streamline operations I too would say let them fail. But if you look at the cuts all these manufacturers have done you'll see a very different story. If you look at the latest union contract you will see a two tiered wage scale, starting employees get about $14.00/hr, can you raise a family on that? Yes, but you'd be close to poverty level.
Detroit has made a lot of crap vehicles in the past, and the attitude engendered in many of the posters here is a result of decisions made decades ago. It simply isn't true any more. Detroit makes cars as good as if not better than their competitors, it's just people's perceptions are rooted in the 80's. while you may dislike some of the decisions Detroit has made, killing an entire industry out of spite is stupid.
Feel free to read this link:
For those who wont click:
6 myths about the Detroit 3
BY MARK PHELAN • FREE PRESS COLUMNIST • November 17, 2008
The debate over aid to the Detroit-based automakers is awash with half-truths and misrepresentations that are endlessly repeated by everyone from members of Congress to journalists. Here are six myths about the companies and their vehicles, and the reality in each case.
Myth No. 1
Nobody buys their vehicles.
Reality
General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far this year. Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota.
Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year.
Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year.
Myth No. 2
They build unreliable junk.
Reality
The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone. Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers." The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo.
Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.
Myth No. 3
They build gas-guzzlers.
Reality
All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as the most efficient Toyota Corolla. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient non-hybrid Honda Civic. A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact is the least expensive car to buy and operate.
Myth No. 4
They already got a $25-billion bailout.
Reality
None of that money has been lent out and may not be for more than a year. In addition, it can, by law, be used only to invest in future vehicles and technology, so it has no effect on the shortage of operating cash the companies face because of the economic slowdown that's killing them now.
Myth No. 5
GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.
Reality
The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.
Myth No. 6
They don't build hybrids.
Reality
The Detroit Three got into the hybrid business late, but Ford and GM each now offers more hybrid models than Honda or Nissan, with several more due to hit the road in early 2009.
6 myths about the Detroit 3
BY MARK PHELAN • FREE PRESS COLUMNIST • November 17, 2008
The debate over aid to the Detroit-based automakers is awash with half-truths and misrepresentations that are endlessly repeated by everyone from members of Congress to journalists. Here are six myths about the companies and their vehicles, and the reality in each case.
Myth No. 1
Nobody buys their vehicles.
Reality
General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far this year. Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota.
Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year.
Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year.
Myth No. 2
They build unreliable junk.
Reality
The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone. Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers." The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo.
Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.
Myth No. 3
They build gas-guzzlers.
Reality
All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as the most efficient Toyota Corolla. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient non-hybrid Honda Civic. A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact is the least expensive car to buy and operate.
Myth No. 4
They already got a $25-billion bailout.
Reality
None of that money has been lent out and may not be for more than a year. In addition, it can, by law, be used only to invest in future vehicles and technology, so it has no effect on the shortage of operating cash the companies face because of the economic slowdown that's killing them now.
Myth No. 5
GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.
Reality
The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.
Myth No. 6
They don't build hybrids.
Reality
The Detroit Three got into the hybrid business late, but Ford and GM each now offers more hybrid models than Honda or Nissan, with several more due to hit the road in early 2009.
There's nothing wrong with America's economy that can't be fixed with sane fiscal policy. E.g. we're the only industrialized country on Earth who rewards its corporations for exporting domestic jobs, and corporations have been doing exactly that since Reagan was president.
Step One: stiff tariffs on most imported goods.
Step Two: revision of our tax policy, to create economic incentives for U.S. corporations to create American jobs and eliminate incentives to outsource said jobs.
Step Three: a trade embargo on China, until they agree to play by the same rules everyone else does (currency valuation, labor laws etc).
Step One: stiff tariffs on most imported goods.
Step Two: revision of our tax policy, to create economic incentives for U.S. corporations to create American jobs and eliminate incentives to outsource said jobs.
Step Three: a trade embargo on China, until they agree to play by the same rules everyone else does (currency valuation, labor laws etc).
