GM and Chrysler bailouts

[Jae Onasi]

OK, I was listening to Obama on the radio yesterday. I thought it took a lot of guts to say 'your restructuring plans aren't good enough for us to continue investing taxpayer dollars--you've got 30/60 days to fix the plans or we'll have to talk bankruptcy'.

 

Thoughts? Comments?

[jrrtoken]

They should go belly up.

 

Sure, it will mean the loss of thousands of jobs throughout the world, but they doomed themselves by complete dysfunction in almost every aspect in management. GM, Chrysler, and Ford should go bankrupt to end a trend old-timey business practices that has resulted in a catastrophe, whereas they could have taken a page from Honda, Toyota, and others who have conducted business in a modern, functional way.

[Web Rider]

They should go belly up.

 

Sure, it will mean the loss of thousands of jobs throughout the world, but they doomed themselves by complete dysfunction in almost every aspect in management. GM, Chrysler, and Ford should go bankrupt to end a trend old-timey business practices that has resulted in a catastrophe, whereas they could have taken a page from Honda, Toyota, and others who have conducted business in a modern, functional way.

 

And aside from one being "old" and "bad" and the other being "new" and "shiny", what are those ways, in particular.

[jrrtoken]

The first thing that comes to mind, is... making crappy cars. Especially the SUV craze that developed in the early 00's, and how lower fuel economy backfired on them when the petrol prices skyrocketed in the US. There's also the fact that they outsourced most of their manufacturing divisions to developing countries, whilst foreign auto comps put more plants in the US.

[mur'phon]

Let them rot, don't see why taxpayers should subsidize uncompetetive companies.

[mimartin]

In GM's case, I don’t think the problem is with the quality of their product. Not saying they are good, but GM has had terrible quality since the 70s and people still purchase their vehicles. No GM could produce the best valued and most reliable cars in the world and they would still be in this mess. Their problem is they want to file bankruptcy to rid themselves of the huge financial burden know as the pension fund and medical care for retirees. Without getting that burden off their backs they we never be a viable company again. This is one example where I do see that evil socialist program know a universal health care could be a benefit to the economy and employment, not to mention saving those that were promised this coverage by corporate America, the same corporate America trying everything possible to break that promise today.

 

So yea, let them go down the drain if you wish, but don’t let them do it in the way they want. Don’t let them break their promise to retired employees without consequences. No matter what is decided, the tax payer will foot the bill. It is a lose, lose situation.

[Jae Onasi]

The first thing that comes to mind, is... making crappy cars. Especially the SUV craze that developed in the early 00's, and how lower fuel economy backfired on them when the petrol prices skyrocketed in the US.

 

Isn't it good business practice to make what your customer wants and what they're going to buy? The truth is Americans wanted bigger cars, and American car companies accommodated them and sold a ton of cars. What the car companies failed to do was foresee just how much the oil companies were going to screw over the world by jacking up the price per barrel to ridiculous levels on top of a mortgage collapse.

 

Executives wanted outrageous salaries, union workers wanted outrageous salaries, and no one wanted to take a good hard look at the balance sheet and tell anyone that they couldn't afford to do that and tell everyone to live within the means of the company.

[jrrtoken]

Isn't it good business practice to make what your customer wants and what they're going to buy? The truth is Americans wanted bigger cars, and American car companies accommodated them and sold a ton of cars.

So? The companies could have designed them to be safer, more energy efficient, and overall, more reliable. They did not need to make behemoths like the Escalade, Explorer, or Tahoe; vehicles that are meant for off-road terrain but are always, always, always targeted towards the high-middle-class, suburban crowd.

[Jae Onasi]

I would argue they did need to--if they didn't make products that people wanted to buy, particularly after 2001, then they would have gone out of business 8 years ago instead of today.

[Tommycat]

So? The companies could have designed them to be safer, more energy efficient, and overall, more reliable. They did not need to make behemoths like the Escalade, Explorer, or Tahoe; vehicles that are meant for off-road terrain but are always, always, always targeted towards the high-middle-class, suburban crowd.

First off, WHO THE HECK ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT TO BUY!!! Are you buying it for me? NO! So I'll buy what vehicle I want. You do realize that there are a lot of dirt roads here still. And if you think that off road suspension has no use in the city, you really haven't driven on some of the rougher roads. I happen to have a Tahoe. It is smaller than a Suburban. A vehicle that has been in GM's lineup since the 50's. Ya know what, those Japanese name plates were pushing out their versions of the large vehicles too. Armada? the new FJ? I bet those fuel efficient cars can really haul my full bass rig around like my Tahoe can. I mean it's only 3 bass guitars, and 2 big cabinets... oh but that's ok, I stick it in the trailer with the rest of the band's gear.. I mean that's only about 3500 lbs of stuff. How about the trailers... How well can those fuel efficient cars pull a trailer.

 

I'll tell ya this, I'd rather drive my 2000 miles in my Tahoe than a Toyota Prius. Oh and just so you know those hybrids... they don't get even the same fuel efficiency as a V6 at highway speeds(aka 75+MPH).

 

And ya know what, GM did release more efficient versions of those vehicles. They were(and are) developing more fuel efficient vehicles, and even have the Volt.

 

But you eco-whack jobs can play your high and mighty card thinking that it's only soccer moms that drive the SUV's. I'm not denying that many of them are driven by them. But you don't know their situation any better than you knew mine. They might have very valid reasons. Heck if they have a boat, camping trailer, whatnot that has to be pulled, there is a recommended vehicle length. They may be on occasion caring for several kids. There are many reasons to have an SUV. That's why they're so popular.

[Jae Onasi]

WI is a very agriculture-oriented state. You can't haul hay bales and thousands of pounds of animal feed or harvested crops in a Prius. You can't drive a Civic across farmland, at least not without destroying it fairly quickly. Even states with major cities like IL, NY, CA, and TX have large rural areas where pick-ups and SUVs are a necessary part of life. Some of my friends live out in the country and you have to drive miles on gravel to get there. Small cars won't take that abuse as well as bigger cars and trucks.

 

We can't get rid of these larger vehicles, nor do we want the government interfering in our lives to tell us what to drive.

[jrrtoken]

I said nothing about banning SUVs entirely, I do, however, believe that there is absolutely little to no regulation when it comes to the overall reliability and security of SUVs. Rollovers are still a concern with truck-based chassis SUVs, and there is still the piss-poor fuel economy, that although is better than several years ago, is still pathetic. Furthermore, larger SUVs an trucks are essentially military-grade vehicles, and as such, they can be extremely dangerous towards pedestrians and other drivers when in an auto wreck, further increasing auto fatalities

 

Simply put, the auto companies and the government had the power to regulate SUVs and classify them as commercial trucks, like many pickups. Instead, the allowed the auto companies to buy into a target market cheaply, by selling inefficient, unsafe vehicles, that could have been of higher caliber, without a complete prohibition.

[RoxStar]

whereas they could have taken a page from Honda, Toyota, and others who have conducted business in a modern, functional way.

 

 

Well, not having to pay health insurance and pension plans to workers in Asian countries (Japan, in Honda and Toyota's case) sure has helped them a ton, so that isn't exactly fair to say.

[Web Rider]

I said nothing about banning SUVs entirely, I do, however, believe that there is absolutely little to no regulation when it comes to the overall reliability and security of SUVs. Rollovers are still a concern with truck-based chassis SUVs, and there is still the piss-poor fuel economy, that although is better than several years ago, is still pathetic. Furthermore, larger SUVs an trucks are essentially military-grade vehicles, and as such, they can be extremely dangerous towards pedestrians and other drivers when in an auto wreck, further increasing auto fatalities.

You have clearly never needed to use a large vehicle to do anything.

 

Simply put, the auto companies and the government had the power to regulate SUVs and classify them as commercial trucks, like many pickups. Instead, the allowed the auto companies to buy into a target market cheaply, by selling inefficient, unsafe vehicles, that could have been of higher caliber, without a complete prohibition.

yeah that's pretty under handed, but, surprise, they clearly aren't bad enough to make enough people stop buying them. As long as people still wanted them, the companies made them.

 

Well, not having to pay health insurance and pension plans to workers in Asian countries (Japan, in Honda and Toyota's case) sure has helped them a ton, so that isn't exactly fair to say.

 

Doesn't the government of Japan subsidize a lot of Japanese automakers costs?

[Jae Onasi]

I think I'm missing your point here--how would reclassifying an SUV as a truck make a difference on sales or encourage people to buy something smaller or more fuel efficient? What kind of regulations do you think the gov't should have on SUVs and other large vehicles?

 

Also, people had the rollover data easily available from the gov't and other sources like Consumer Reports. I don't think it changed many people's minds about buying one. Most people assume the rollovers will happen to 'the other guy' rather than them.

[jrrtoken]

I think I'm missing your point here--how would reclassifying an SUV as a truck make a difference on sales or encourage people to buy something smaller or more fuel efficient?

It has nothing to do with sales, but simply the weight rating on several SUVs are equal to commercial trucks, however, most state regulations most likely regard them as passenger vehicles.

What kind of regulations do you think the gov't should have on SUVs and other large vehicles?

Stricter fuel economy standards; stronger and more aerodynamic construction to decrease pedestrian and other driver fatalities in an auto wreck, and to also decrease wind resistance to boost fuel economy, etc.

 

Of course, it's an impossibility for the Big 3 to do any of the above now, but had the government and the companies realized this ten, fifteen years ago, there wouldn't be as many people trading in their SUVs for compacts.

[mimartin]

It has nothing to do with sales, but simply the weight rating on several SUVs are equal to commercial trucks, however, most state regulations most likely regard them as passenger vehicles.

Can't speak for every state, but Texas regards any vehicle over 1 ton a commercial vehicle.

 

Although I'm really unsure if the classification means much beyond commercial vehicles being more expensive to insure. We purchased a old school bus for tail gate parties and the tag cost was comparable to private passenger vehicles. The only real extra cost was insurance (commercial insurance and high limits to comply with the state rail road commission regulations) and having to get a commercial endorsement on our driver’s licenses.

[Q]

Over 1 ton? Isn't that just about every car in existence?

[Web Rider]

Over 1 ton? Isn't that just about every car in existence?

 

Yes, it is. My car is 1.8 tons. My mom's is 1.7, and both of ours are sports cars, mine's by GM btw, hers by Mazda. I would be highly surprised if any car on the road short of the Golf weighed less than 2000lbs.

[Tommycat]

That's 1 Ton maximum payload rating(the maximum that is allowed to be hauled in the vehicle, rather than in a trailer), not GVWR. And if you treat them more like commercial vehicles, you'll actually increase the pollution they are allowed to emit.

 

If you are talking treating SUV's more like Pickup Trucks. I got news for you... they already do.

[mur'phon]

Stricter fuel economy standards

 

Standards are a pain to monitor, if you want less polution, a decent carbon tax seems more efficent.

[Jae Onasi]

What advantage does a carbon tax have, other than raising my taxes directly and indirectly through increased costs passed on to me by the companies that pay the carbon taxes?

[Web Rider]

Standards are a pain to monitor' date=' if you want less polution, a decent carbon tax seems more efficent.[/quote']

 

What advantage does a carbon tax have, other than raising my taxes directly and indirectly through increased costs passed on to me by the companies that pay the carbon taxes?

 

Not to mention that carbon taxes are essentially allowing anyone who can afford it to be a gross polluter and just pay more money. Which, if the government isn't using to make things LESS polluting, is entirely pointless. We need MPG standards, at least for economy cars.

[RoxStar]

Not to mention that carbon taxes are essentially allowing anyone who can afford it to be a gross polluter and just pay more money. Which, if the government isn't using to make things LESS polluting, is entirely pointless.

 

^ Perfection. We need to encourage people to live greener. If we are given the tools and it is made simple, we will do it. We don't need to be threatened into doing so.

[Q]

Agreed. Incentives work better than threats or guilt-tripping.