DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The Bailout
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 171, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/12/2008 01:36:27 PM · #76
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The solution is not, as you suggest, to cut people off and tell them, "too bad, no soup for you!"

It sounds like the question that needs answering is: Why are these kids dropping out?" Then it will be possible to address those issues. Your proposals are like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease.

As a part of the entire Federal Budget, yes, pork barrel spending is insignificant. Especially compared to the rate at which the current administration has mortgaged our future. Why is helping other people so offensive to you?


We have been down this road before. Helping is not the question. It is one of volunterism vs mandate and more specifically the generation after generation after generation that doesn't or won't rise up from its dependence. Regarding this help question, it seems to me that it is you who are bent on displacing about 3 million people next year due to a revenge against their employer.


There's no revenge involved. But to suggest that I purchase an inferior product to support a corporation is laughable. I do find it entertaining that you as someone who so warmly embraces the Republican and conservative ideals agrees wholeheartedly with the notion of aiding the Detroit Three as promoted by people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

You object to welfare for people who refuse to help themselves, but endorse welfare for major corporations that do the same. Does that mean you think companies are more important than your fellow human beings?


Your post here is patently false. I have not claimed support in this thread for the domestic auto makers bailout. You need to read my positions and stop making these false posts. I have posed as a means of illumination, the positions of yours and others that seemingly support social services for some but are willing to let millions join the ranks of the unemployed and potentially add to the mortage default problem. Further you defend spending billions on pork projects. Your inconsistency is what I am addressing. Defend the generations after generation that abuse welfare, defend the raping of the taxpayer by legislative pork abuse, but deny the factory worker who earns a living and has paid taxes and voted to support your democratic candidates - no they are to be punished. Absurd. Then you carry on with this crap about justifying support for Toyota, Honda, Nissan due to their better quality or design features. Hardly. If any american wanted to buy a domestically made vehicle, there are a plethora of choices. Instead, some choose to hold onto old histories to justify denying support for current fellow american workers. A true social hypocracy.
11/12/2008 01:48:09 PM · #77
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Flash:

. Regarding this help question, it seems to me that it is you who are bent on displacing about 3 million people next year due to a revenge against their employer.


You would seem to imply by this that without government assistance that the Big Three would fold... and that I would suggest is mere speculation on your part.

As advocated by someone else at an earlier juncture, having to go through a bankruptcy type of review, it could well be that the companies might be the better off for it in the long run.

Yes there are ramifications, but surely you can appreciate that Free Trade has probably had just as severe an impact on the prospects of jobs in the north american automotive industry as the prospect of restructuring under the current scenario.

I for one do not believe this is a "Gimme what we want or we will fold" scenario. Provide help, you bet... but only after the key players have taken a hard look at their performance measurements and have re-organized and re-structured their operations of meet current market demands.

Ray


I don't think we are that far apart. I think it is only logical for those who support social programs to help the afflicted, that they broadly define the term. I could also support denying any help whatsoever - but not in a socially permissive atmosphere as is advocated here. That in my view is hypocracy.
11/12/2008 02:45:59 PM · #78
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The solution is not, as you suggest, to cut people off and tell them, "too bad, no soup for you!"

It sounds like the question that needs answering is: Why are these kids dropping out?" Then it will be possible to address those issues. Your proposals are like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease.

As a part of the entire Federal Budget, yes, pork barrel spending is insignificant. Especially compared to the rate at which the current administration has mortgaged our future. Why is helping other people so offensive to you?


We have been down this road before. Helping is not the question. It is one of volunterism vs mandate and more specifically the generation after generation after generation that doesn't or won't rise up from its dependence. Regarding this help question, it seems to me that it is you who are bent on displacing about 3 million people next year due to a revenge against their employer.


There's no revenge involved. But to suggest that I purchase an inferior product to support a corporation is laughable. I do find it entertaining that you as someone who so warmly embraces the Republican and conservative ideals agrees wholeheartedly with the notion of aiding the Detroit Three as promoted by people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

You object to welfare for people who refuse to help themselves, but endorse welfare for major corporations that do the same. Does that mean you think companies are more important than your fellow human beings?


Your post here is patently false. I have not claimed support in this thread for the domestic auto makers bailout. You need to read my positions and stop making these false posts. I have posed as a means of illumination, the positions of yours and others that seemingly support social services for some but are willing to let millions join the ranks of the unemployed and potentially add to the mortage default problem. Further you defend spending billions on pork projects. Your inconsistency is what I am addressing. Defend the generations after generation that abuse welfare, defend the raping of the taxpayer by legislative pork abuse, but deny the factory worker who earns a living and has paid taxes and voted to support your democratic candidates - no they are to be punished. Absurd. Then you carry on with this crap about justifying support for Toyota, Honda, Nissan due to their better quality or design features. Hardly. If any american wanted to buy a domestically made vehicle, there are a plethora of choices. Instead, some choose to hold onto old histories to justify denying support for current fellow american workers. A true social hypocracy.


Then you don't support it? Or do you? Your posts in this thread promote an auto industry bailout as the be all, end all for the auto industry. Myself, I haven't said either way, so you shouldn't read what you want into things. If the government is going to be handing out corporate welfare, I'd prefer it to be for those companies that actually produce a product rather than the banks, which gamble on the markets.

My issue is mainly with your propostition that cars from the Detroit Three are the equal to those offered by foreign manufacturers. There may be a few exceptions, but it's just not so. Case in point is my recent experience with a 2008 Chrysler minivan. Chrysler invented the minivan for crissakes, they should have the best one out there, right? Wrong. Road and wind noise was apalling, much, much louder than the 2004 Honda van I drove before the Chrysler. Also disturbing was the whine emanating from the transmission and the other noises from the differential when going around a corner. Additionally, the fit and finish of the interior was quite a step below that of the 4 year old Honda. Compared to the Honda, acceleration was rough and shifting was balky too.

There are a wide variety of choices in vehicles from the Detroit Three. Unfortunately, other companies have done a better job of addressing the wants and needs of the customer with their vehicle lineups.

If it's US workers you want to support, you should look at vehicles that are designed and manufactured here in the US. In addition to a portion of the vehicles from the Detroit Three that would also include vehicles from Nissan, Honda, Toyota and soon, Volkswagen and possibly Audi. I used to drive a 1994 Nissan truck that was the product of Nissan's plant in Tennesee. It was built in America for Americans by Americans. Your idea that the Detroit Three comprise all of the US auto industry is simply antiquated.

Message edited by author 2008-11-12 15:22:58.
11/12/2008 03:27:43 PM · #79
Originally posted by RonB:

How about the Tesla Roadster?
At it's current price ( ~$110K ), it's a bit too pricey for the average family, but with mass-marketing / manufacturing / distribution agreements with the Big-3, or even infusion of cash by them for Tesla, that should be able to be dropped significantly, no?.

Tesla already has lower-priced models in their long-range (2-5 year, I think) plans, including one (family sedan?) they are targeting at about $38K, or about the same as a Volvo Wagon.

Note that Tesla was "somehow" able to locate in Northern California -- supposedly one of the most expensive places to do business.
11/12/2008 11:31:23 PM · #80
This thread is a riot and I am reminded of why I stopped posting here.

Is the US capitalist or socialist? If its capitalist, the big 3 failed and should die and the strong will survive. If its socialist then we should take account for the jobs, etc. and maybe help.

Make up your fucking minds.

P.S. The United States has been using socialist policies since the "New Deal".

P.S.S. Introduce a new concept into your minds: SUSTAINABILITY
11/15/2008 10:19:35 PM · #81
"It is all a reminder that the biggest threat to a healthy economy is not the socialists of campaign lore. It’s C.E.O.’s. It’s politically powerful crony capitalists who use their influence to create a stagnant corporate welfare state."

-David Brooks, conservative columnist for the NY Times
11/16/2008 05:50:23 AM · #82
Originally posted by posthumous:



9/11, dotcom boom, housing bust, bailout, so much can be traced back to Henry Kissinger and Ayn Rand. The virtue of selfishness, my ass.


You forgot the Savings and Loan Debacle.
A true capitalist would allow companies to fail. That's the only way to sort the wheat from the chaff. I'm sure HK's breast would swell with pride to think he carries such a big responsibility.
The US has been nothing but corporate US for over 100 years.
11/16/2008 08:39:49 AM · #83
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Supposedly the only reason the Chevy Volt isn't on the market yet is because the batteries aren't "good enough" -- OK, offer a "free upgrade" to early-adopters and get what's actually an innovative product onto the market now. I presume they've already built in the airbags and seatbelts ...

Actually, the issues are more serious than just not being "good enough". They haven't solved some serious safety concerns with the battery & electrical system such as what happens to it when it's in an accident. Can you imagine the outcry, legal mess, and hit against the an automaker's ability to sell cars if someone survived an accident in one of these things but was subsequently killed along with a rescue worker due to electrocution? I'll wait until the new systems can pass crash tests thanks :)
11/16/2008 09:08:32 AM · #84
Originally posted by GeneralE:

"It is all a reminder that the biggest threat to a healthy economy is not the socialists of campaign lore. It’s C.E.O.’s. It’s politically powerful crony capitalists who use their influence to create a stagnant corporate welfare state."

-David Brooks, conservative columnist for the NY Times

Originally posted by MadMordegon:


Is the US capitalist or socialist? If its capitalist, the big 3 failed and should die and the strong will survive. If its socialist then we should take account for the jobs, etc. and maybe help.
... [edited for length by JMart]

So, is everyone just accepting the premise that US automakers are being fairly out-competed? Have you listened to or read their position at all? US automakers have complained for a long time now that the biggest reason they lose to companies like those in Japan is because auto companies in countries like Japan are considered "strategically important, vital to the national interest, and therefore deserving of crucial assistance from their government partners. So the government of Japan, whose automakers already enjoyed the competitive advantage of nationalized health care and pensions, also gave its automakers the further advantage of R&D assistance and significant trade support, including a willingness to distort their currency" -Mark Ford to the US Chamber of Commerce

So, how in the world can we argue the US automakers are responsible for failing in a capitalist sense when their biggest competitors are beating them out, in large part, due to the socialist support they get for their industry? Free trade is not truly free when companies on either side of the boarder are playing on such a slanted playing field.
11/16/2008 09:51:20 AM · #85
Social Health and Pensions may or may not be a competitive advantage. They get paid for one way or another - if its not direct cost its then indirect in the form of higher taxes. The high gas taxes in Europe fund national health in some companies which mean that consumers drive less and buy smaller less profitable cars. Im not suggesting thats good or bad but it is a fact of the environment they operate in.

And back to the US... Toyota, Nissan and Honda are kicking the Detroit 3's asses here on a level playing field. Their high volume cars are made here in the USA. In many cases they are designed here as well (a US Honda Accord is a vehicle unique to North America for instance). The US operations here pay the same costs for Health Insurance (for active workers). The Japanese companies provide a 401K for their workers as opposed to the Detroit defined Benefit Plan

The Detroit/UAW model is a failure and has been for decades. Now they have finally run out of profitable niches (Like giant SUV's) and they are out of cash.

Let them start over in bankruptcy reorganization.
11/16/2008 10:28:02 AM · #86
Originally posted by photodude:

Social Health and Pensions may or may not be a competitive advantage. They get paid for one way or another - if its not direct cost its then indirect in the form of higher taxes.

But it's HOW they get paid for that makes the difference. If GM, Ford and Chrysler could shed just half the responsibilities that are automatically covered for their competition they would probably be profitable NOW. Yes, that means higher taxes for countries that pay for these socialist programs, but it doesn't make sense to say that those taxes are just as hard on the auto companies that are being subsidized with the tax revenue. This is NOT a level playing field.
Originally posted by photodude:


And back to the US... Toyota, Nissan and Honda are kicking the Detroit 3's asses here on a level playing field. Their high volume cars are made here in the USA. In many cases they are designed here as well (a US Honda Accord is a vehicle unique to North America for instance). The US operations here pay the same costs for Health Insurance (for active workers). The Japanese companies provide a 401K for their workers as opposed to the Detroit defined Benefit Plan

You can point to isolated instances where foreign companies are operating under US law, but do the math and you'll realize that it's a small percentage of their overall operation that is on a "level" playing field. Foreign automakers employ only about 1/4 of auto workers in the US but they have about 1/2 the US market share. Having most of their industry subsidized by their home government gives these foreign companies a sizable advantage over US automakers.
Originally posted by photodude:


The Detroit/UAW model is a failure and has been for decades. Now they have finally run out of profitable niches (Like giant SUV's) and they are out of cash.

Let them start over in bankruptcy reorganization.

This is like saying to a boxer who is being beaten by an opponent who's using bras knuckles, "We're just going to let you get knocked out this round, then we'll hire a new manager, try some new footwork & punches and see how it goes from there." I don't know what the best solution here is, but it seems to me that perhaps we either need to buy some brass knuckles or have some gloves put on our opponent. The current situation is far from a fair fight, it's been that way a long time now, and US automakers can not succeed regardless of who's at the helm if they have to keep fighting such a steep uphill battle.
11/16/2008 11:05:40 AM · #87
Can you cite an example of how the Japanese government is subsidizing the US J3 manufacturing plants?

These plants are more efficient because they do not overpay/overcompensate their workers. They don't pay retiree medical, Their workers have a 401K not an endless committment to retirees. But the wages are very similar. Detroit needs to adopt this model. They need to get the UAW labor contract voided in bankruptcy court and go forward with the J3 model.

They also need to shed needless duplicate divisions. The only way to do this without being forced to compensate disenfranchised dealers to the tune of 10's of billions of dollars is through the bankruptcy court.

An infusion of cash only prolongs the enevidable. Let's get it over with here.
11/16/2008 01:43:20 PM · #88
Originally posted by photodude:

Can you cite an example of how the Japanese government is subsidizing the US J3 manufacturing plants?

These plants are more efficient because they do not overpay/overcompensate their workers. They don't pay retiree medical, Their workers have a 401K not an endless committment to retirees. But the wages are very similar. Detroit needs to adopt this model. They need to get the UAW labor contract voided in bankruptcy court and go forward with the J3 model.

They also need to shed needless duplicate divisions. The only way to do this without being forced to compensate disenfranchised dealers to the tune of 10's of billions of dollars is through the bankruptcy court.

An infusion of cash only prolongs the enevidable. Let's get it over with here.

I agree that just infusing cash might not be the answer, but I'm not going to blithly say that this is just the "free market" at work and they should just go bankrupt. What I'm alarmed by is that there is clearly not a level playing field and most people discussing this are simply ignoring the disadvantages the US auto industry faces.

As for examples of Japanese manufacturing plants in the US, those plants are not operating in a vacuum divorced from their Japanese parent companies. If their US counterparts are so profitable, why is it that foreign automakers control about half of the US market today, but they employ only about a quarter of the auto workers – and they purchase about a quarter of the parts built here in the US. You separate the foreign owned US auto factories from their parent companies and there is no way they would survive alone.

Just to point out, I'm really not sure what the best solution at this point is, and I'm willing to concede that bankruptcy could be the best option in the end. The trouble I have with the discussion I'm reading here is how sure some of you seem to be that bankruptcy is the right thing and many of you seem to base it on the false premise that Detroit is operating on a level playing field with Japan, and if you can't see that this is a false premise then you are ignoring the facts.
11/16/2008 01:59:59 PM · #89
Originally posted by JMart:

... Japan, whose automakers already enjoyed the competitive advantage of nationalized health care and pensions ...

So, how in the world can we argue the US automakers are responsible for failing in a capitalist sense when their biggest competitors are beating them out, in large part, due to the socialist support they get for their industry? Free trade is not truly free when companies on either side of the boarder are playing on such a slanted playing field.

Captialism is failing because it isn't socialist enough ... ;-)

Those of us in favor of a national single-payer health plan have been pointing that out for about the past 20-odd years.
11/16/2008 03:04:57 PM · #90
The lack of a "single payer" health plan is not a cause Detroit's problem. The D3 and J3 all swim in the same pool in the USA. The D3 provides retiree medical to the UAW and the J3 does not. That is the difference on that issue and its a huge one from a cost perspective.

As for the J3 producing 50% of the vehicles with 25% of the workforce, I don't know the validity of those numbers but it doesnt surprise me that non union plants are considerably more efficient without all those archaic workrules designed to protect and create jobs.
11/16/2008 03:46:03 PM · #91
Originally posted by photodude:

The lack of a "single payer" health plan is not a cause Detroit's problem. The D3 and J3 all swim in the same pool in the USA. The D3 provides retiree medical to the UAW and the J3 does not. That is the difference on that issue and its a huge one from a cost perspective.

As for the J3 producing 50% of the vehicles with 25% of the workforce, I don't know the validity of those numbers but it doesnt surprise me that non union plants are considerably more efficient without all those archaic workrules designed to protect and create jobs.

If the US is the "same pool" then you might say the Japanese plants are swimming with a rope to pull them along. Japanese factories in the US are not operating in a vacuum. Where do their parts come from? Many parts come from Japan. Where does their R&D come from? Japanese government funding. What is the overhead for the entire corporation compared to US manufacturers? Less to a significant degree due to the fact that most of the parent company's workforce is benefiting from Japanese government sponsored benefits. Do you seriously believe these Japanese plants can operate in isolation from the home Japanese company? Those factories are not creating new models of cars, they are just putting the pieces together as directed from across the Pacific.

I don't know the details of how efficiently they run and perhaps there are good lessons in efficiency US automakers can learn. Still, if the playing field is not level they are still less likely to succeed against their foreign government supported competition. So, is the solution for US automakers just to stop paying people's pensions, stop paying for health care, and slice wages more than the UAW has already conceded to? Do that and it's not hard to imagine the social costs far exceeding any of the proposed bailout plans.

If we don't address the inequities that exists between US and Foreign manufacturing then it won't matter if US automakers get a bailout or declare bankruptcy. They will be likely to fail because the competitive field is slanted against them no matter what management does.
11/16/2008 04:00:19 PM · #92
Originally posted by JMart:

Originally posted by photodude:

The lack of a "single payer" health plan is not a cause Detroit's problem. The D3 and J3 all swim in the same pool in the USA. The D3 provides retiree medical to the UAW and the J3 does not. That is the difference on that issue and its a huge one from a cost perspective.

As for the J3 producing 50% of the vehicles with 25% of the workforce, I don't know the validity of those numbers but it doesnt surprise me that non union plants are considerably more efficient without all those archaic workrules designed to protect and create jobs.

If the US is the "same pool" then you might say the Japanese plants are swimming with a rope to pull them along. Japanese factories in the US are not operating in a vacuum. Where do their parts come from? Many parts come from Japan. Where does their R&D come from? Japanese government funding. What is the overhead for the entire corporation compared to US manufacturers? Less to a significant degree due to the fact that most of the parent company's workforce is benefiting from Japanese government sponsored benefits. Do you seriously believe these Japanese plants can operate in isolation from the home Japanese company? Those factories are not creating new models of cars, they are just putting the pieces together as directed from across the Pacific.

I don't know the details of how efficiently they run and perhaps there are good lessons in efficiency US automakers can learn. Still, if the playing field is not level they are still less likely to succeed against their foreign government supported competition. So, is the solution for US automakers just to stop paying people's pensions, stop paying for health care, and slice wages more than the UAW has already conceded to? Do that and it's not hard to imagine the social costs far exceeding any of the proposed bailout plans.

If we don't address the inequities that exists between US and Foreign manufacturing then it won't matter if US automakers get a bailout or declare bankruptcy. They will be likely to fail because the competitive field is slanted against them no matter what management does.


And the Detroit 3 get their parts from where? Oh yes, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, China and the US. They've also outsourced tech jobs to India.

The J3 plants here in the US also source globally. It's not like Toyota ships over all of the parts for a Camry from Japan and they just assemble the car here. Many parts are made in the US.

Message edited by author 2008-11-16 16:02:23.
11/16/2008 04:42:44 PM · #93
Originally posted by Spazmo99:


And the Detroit 3 get their parts from where? Oh yes, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, China and the US. They've also outsourced tech jobs to India.

The J3 plants here in the US also source globally. It's not like Toyota ships over all of the parts for a Camry from Japan and they just assemble the car here. Many parts are made in the US.

Granted, the "free trade" agreements have created this outsourcing phenomenon, and yes, many parts for Japanese cars are made here, but not as high a percentage as with the US automakers. My point still stands that just because a Japanese company has a small percentage of its operations in the US does not mean that they are "swimming in the same pool" or on an even footing with US manufacturers. You have to consider where the bulk of the company is operating, you have to consider the subsidized R&D advantage, and you have to consider the advantage a company has when the bulk of its employees are benefiting from socialized health care and retirement programs (oh yea, we have social security).

The fact that the US companies have moved some factories to places like Mexico is a testament to the foresight of Ross Perot who predicted the migration of jobs that in fact happened. Still, most US auto operations are US based. I suspect that most Japanese auto operations are Japan based, and most South Korean auto operations are Korea based, and most German auto operations are Germany based. The social, trade & R&D policies of each of these respective governments gives their companies a comparative advantage or disadvantage regardless of what other parts of the world they happen to open a factory.
11/16/2008 05:47:46 PM · #94
Originally posted by JMart:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:


And the Detroit 3 get their parts from where? Oh yes, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, China and the US. They've also outsourced tech jobs to India.

The J3 plants here in the US also source globally. It's not like Toyota ships over all of the parts for a Camry from Japan and they just assemble the car here. Many parts are made in the US.

Granted, the "free trade" agreements have created this outsourcing phenomenon, and yes, many parts for Japanese cars are made here, but not as high a percentage as with the US automakers. My point still stands that just because a Japanese company has a small percentage of its operations in the US does not mean that they are "swimming in the same pool" or on an even footing with US manufacturers. You have to consider where the bulk of the company is operating, you have to consider the subsidized R&D advantage, and you have to consider the advantage a company has when the bulk of its employees are benefiting from socialized health care and retirement programs (oh yea, we have social security).

The fact that the US companies have moved some factories to places like Mexico is a testament to the foresight of Ross Perot who predicted the migration of jobs that in fact happened. Still, most US auto operations are US based. I suspect that most Japanese auto operations are Japan based, and most South Korean auto operations are Korea based, and most German auto operations are Germany based. The social, trade & R&D policies of each of these respective governments gives their companies a comparative advantage or disadvantage regardless of what other parts of the world they happen to open a factory.


Toyota has two of the ten highest domestic parts contents vehicles (Tundra and Sienna, 80 and 85% domestic respectively) for 2008. The Camry was on the list until the advent of the 2 door version, but it still has about 68% US made parts. Notably absent is Chrysler.

If you look here, you'll see that almost ALL manufacturers are decreasing the percentage of parts produced in the US.

Message edited by author 2008-11-16 18:26:04.
11/17/2008 10:50:12 AM · #95
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

If you look here, you'll see that almost ALL manufacturers are decreasing the percentage of parts produced in the US.


Form your link…
"Still, it's hard to deny that among the most popular U.S.-built cars and trucks, the models with the highest domestic content ratings come from Detroit automakers. Of the 35 most popular U.S.-built 2008 and 2009 models — based on sales through May 31, 2008 — 43 percent of GM, Ford and Chrysler contenders had domestic content ratings of 75 percent or higher. In comparison, just 25 percent of the Nissan, Honda, Hyundai and Toyota models on the list achieved that."

So we have 25% vs 75%. Add to that the difference in domestic workers supported. Toyota has 38,000 employees vs GM's nearly 1 million. GM alone, employs more US workers that Toyota, Nissan and Honda combined.

Then we have this link which demonstrates that as of 2005, the 3 year data from JD Powers and Associates has the premium brands of Honda and Nissan (Acura and Infinity) BELOW the rankings of Lincoln, Buick and Cadillac. Even Lexus with its top ranking still had 131 problems per 100 vehicles - so to claim that the foreign competition on quality is way out front is simply wrong.

Then we have this article on the 2008 Malibu with associated comments.

Buy whatever vehicle you want from whomever you want. But don't claim that the domestic automakers can't compete with design, fuel economy or quality. It simply isn't true. There are some wrong perceptions and some folks are mislead on the total costs of buying a non-domestic corporate product. A couple in our social circle are dues paying union members supported by taxpayer dollars (public education). They don't get it than when they buy a Honda, thay are not only not supporting fellow union members but when those folks lose their jobs (GM loses 38,000 jobs for every 1 point of lost market share) they are not paying taxes into the public coffers to pay public education wages. Granted they can buy whatever they want - but don't complain because the economy is in the dumps, the school system doesn't have enough money, and your home equity tanked because your neighbors are filing bankruptcy due to job losses because of low sales due to people buying a Honda, Nissan or Toyota when the defects per 100 vehicles are no better than the domestics and in many cases worse.

Buying domestic is not the only answer - but I do tire of reading and hearing about how misguided GM is when the facts are way more complicated than that. Facts about how level the playing field is or isn't.
11/17/2008 12:34:02 PM · #96
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

If you look here, you'll see that almost ALL manufacturers are decreasing the percentage of parts produced in the US.


Form your link…
"Still, it's hard to deny that among the most popular U.S.-built cars and trucks, the models with the highest domestic content ratings come from Detroit automakers. Of the 35 most popular U.S.-built 2008 and 2009 models — based on sales through May 31, 2008 — 43 percent of GM, Ford and Chrysler contenders had domestic content ratings of 75 percent or higher. In comparison, just 25 percent of the Nissan, Honda, Hyundai and Toyota models on the list achieved that."

So we have 25% vs 75%. Add to that the difference in domestic workers supported. Toyota has 38,000 employees vs GM's nearly 1 million. GM alone, employs more US workers that Toyota, Nissan and Honda combined.

Then we have this link which demonstrates that as of 2005, the 3 year data from JD Powers and Associates has the premium brands of Honda and Nissan (Acura and Infinity) BELOW the rankings of Lincoln, Buick and Cadillac. Even Lexus with its top ranking still had 131 problems per 100 vehicles - so to claim that the foreign competition on quality is way out front is simply wrong.

Then we have this article on the 2008 Malibu with associated comments.

Buy whatever vehicle you want from whomever you want. But don't claim that the domestic automakers can't compete with design, fuel economy or quality. It simply isn't true. There are some wrong perceptions and some folks are mislead on the total costs of buying a non-domestic corporate product. A couple in our social circle are dues paying union members supported by taxpayer dollars (public education). They don't get it than when they buy a Honda, thay are not only not supporting fellow union members but when those folks lose their jobs (GM loses 38,000 jobs for every 1 point of lost market share) they are not paying taxes into the public coffers to pay public education wages. Granted they can buy whatever they want - but don't complain because the economy is in the dumps, the school system doesn't have enough money, and your home equity tanked because your neighbors are filing bankruptcy due to job losses because of low sales due to people buying a Honda, Nissan or Toyota when the defects per 100 vehicles are no better than the domestics and in many cases worse.

Buying domestic is not the only answer - but I do tire of reading and hearing about how misguided GM is when the facts are way more complicated than that. Facts about how level the playing field is or isn't.


Sorry. I have to disagree with you again. Show me the Lincoln, Buick or Cadillac that even comes close to a Honda in terms of economy and cost.

The least expensive Cadillac starts at $37K and they go up to over $100K

The least expensive Buick starts at $25K and they go up

The least expensive Lincoln starts at $33K

I'm not even sure you can spend that much on a Honda, Toyota or Nissan sedan.

You're comparing Apples and Oranges.

The D3 are certainly better than they were in the late '70's and 80's, but so are Honda, Toyota, Nissan and they had a big head start.

You've even read the numbers wrong, it's not 25% compared to 75%, it's 25% of Nissan, Honda, Hyundai and Toyota vehicles compared to 43% of Detroit 3 vehicles that have US made parts content in excess of 75%. Go back and read the article again with your mathematics hat on.
11/17/2008 12:44:01 PM · #97
6 myths of the domestic automakers.

Myth No. 1
Nobody buys their (domestic automakers) 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.


Source: Todays Free Press
11/17/2008 02:23:24 PM · #98
Originally posted by Flash:

6 myths of the domestic automakers.

Myth No. 1
Nobody buys their (domestic automakers) 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.


If their volume is that great how is it that their business plan seems to avoid making money?

Originally posted by Flash:


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.


That's "Initial" quality not long term quality. They're all going to be impressive to some degree when new.

Originally posted by Flash:



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.



My experience with the Focus is that it's mediocre on economy. I get about 27 mpg with 90% Hwy driving. That's it. My old Civic got 34 mpg on the same drive. I expected better. The most efficient Corolla is pushing 40mpg.

Have you driven a Cobalt? Yuk.

Also, you should note that Chevy buys the Aveo from Daewoo. It contains 0% US produced parts.

Now Ford Europe has some impressively efficient vehicles like the 68 mpg Fiesta. Unfortunately it's not available in the U.S. It should also be noted that the Focus is not a product of Ford US, but was designed by Ford Europe, where it is quite popular.

Originally posted by Flash:



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.


Sure, OK.

Originally posted by Flash:



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.


There's no doubt that the demand was high for oversized and overpowered Trucks and SUV's, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time that oil prices were going to go up and people were going to want smaller, economical cars again. It happened before, remember the 1970's? Gasoline rationing? That was what allowed the Japanese to penetrate the US market in the first place. The management at the D3 has been so myopic they simply weren't prepared for the coming shift.

Originally posted by Flash:

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.


Source: Todays Free Press


I don't really think vehicles like the Escalade hybrid are really "green" vehicles, they still get crappy mileage, it's just less crappy than the non-hybrids, which are really crappy.

Which D3 hybrid gets the same mileage as the Prius or the Civic hybrid for a similar cost?

It should also be noted that GM killed the EV-1 electric car in the mid 90's when they could have picked up the ball and been a real innovator, they chose to make bigger trucks and mothball their learnings from the EV-1 until they were obsolete.

As usual, Honda is way ahead in thinking beyond the gas-electric hybrid and bringing technology to market. Honda Clarity They've had fuels cell cars in the hands of consumers for years, working on developing this technology. What has the Detroit 3 given us? Bigger trucks that suck more gas? yay...

Message edited by author 2008-11-17 16:43:08.
11/18/2008 09:23:47 AM · #99
CNN article summary of pros/cons of auto bailout

I do find amusement in reading that some here who despise Bush - find themselves on the same side as his position against this bailout proposal. Perhaps all is not lost afterall.
11/18/2008 10:40:12 AM · #100
Originally posted by Flash:

CNN article summary of pros/cons of auto bailout

I do find amusement in reading that some here who despise Bush - find themselves on the same side as his position against this bailout proposal. Perhaps all is not lost afterall.


FWIW, I'm not necessarily against the bailout. I am against investing taxpayer dollars to simply allow the D3 to continue business as usual when that has clearly been a recipe for failure. I want to hear plans for substantive changes and improvements in the way they operate that justify the expense.

I also don't think there's any need to hold up the D3 as a shining example of great companies making the best vehicles, when, if that were the case, they wouldn't need bailing out.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:33:37 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:33:37 AM EDT.