The Big3 and the truth!

C

CFHockeyMom

New member
6 Myths About the Detroit 3
Detroit Free Press
By Mark Phelan
Nov. 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.
 
C

CFHockeyMom

New member
6 Myths About the Detroit 3
Detroit Free Press
By Mark Phelan
Nov. 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.
 
C

CFHockeyMom

New member
6 Myths About the Detroit 3
Detroit Free Press
By Mark Phelan
Nov. 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.
 
C

CFHockeyMom

New member
6 Myths About the Detroit 3
Detroit Free Press
By Mark Phelan
Nov. 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.
 
C

CFHockeyMom

New member
<br />
<br />6 Myths About the Detroit 3
<br />Detroit Free Press
<br />By Mark Phelan
<br />Nov. 17, 2008
<br />
<br />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.
<br />
<br />Myth No. 1: Nobody buys their vehicles.
<br />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.
<br />Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year.
<br />Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year.
<br />
<br />Myth No. 2: They build unreliable junk.
<br />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.
<br />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.
<br />
<br />Myth No. 3: They build gas-guzzlers.
<br />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.
<br />
<br />Myth No. 4: They already got a $25-billion bailout.
<br />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.
<br />
<br />Myth No. 5: GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.
<br />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.
<br />
<br />Myth No. 6: They don't build hybrids.
<br />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.
 
C

CFHockeyMom

New member
Don't Forget American Automakers' History of Goodwill
Washington Post
By Warren Brown
Nov. 16, 2008

It is easy to feel disassociated from Detroit in this city of imported products, services, celebrities and mannerisms. It is easy to laugh at the stumbling, homegrown industrial giants of the Midwest in this bastion of urbanity and sophistication that makes money the old-fashioned way -- changing it from one hand to another, often at profitable interest rates; and then running to the federal government for help when the elaborate Ponzi scheme of lending, borrowing and insuring comes crashing down.

Here is where newspaper columnists -- Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times comes to mind -- routinely dismiss the idea of federal aid to an ailing Detroit, suggesting that the city and its automobile industry be consigned to the scrap heap of history, having failed dismally in their core mission to design and develop the kinds of cars and trucks Americans really want.

It is sophist nonsense, of course, the kind of tale spun by people who haven't bothered to check the numbers, and who have paid even less regard to the history of their supposed knowledge.

The truth, all things considered, is that Detroit has done reasonably well. The American Three -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- still hold an estimated 47 percent of a home market that is wide open to competition from car companies all over the world. Until July of 2007, domestic automobile manufacturers historically held more than a 50-percent U.S.-market share. But in a country where consumers have made Wal-Mart the retail king -- that's Wal-Mart, one of America's biggest importers of foreign goods -- that was bound to change.

If you are a free-trade advocate, have no fear. This isn't a treatise in defense of protectionism. It is simply a more accurate assessment of reality, the bottom line of which is that free trade isn't free.

American consumers, in their passionate pursuit of the very best goods at the lowest possible prices, have undermined their own economic well-being. It is rather difficult to maintain high salaries and premium health and pension benefits in a business environment built on profitably moving a maximum number of high-quality products at bargain prices. Something has to give.

In the automobile industry, it was union influence and organizing. Unions failed miserably in wooing the U.S. workforces of foreign automobile manufacturers -- nearly all of which strategically have set up shop in nonunion or "pro-business" states, usually in the South and Southwest.
Those nonunion, foreign car companies have been successful because American consumers want them to be successful. Why not? If consumers can get great cars from Toyota or Honda free of the costs associated with United Auto Workers union-represented labor at General Motors, well, that is what they're going to do. They're not going to look for the union label, let alone pay more for it.

But the more American consumers make those kinds of decisions -- choosing goods and services unburdened, or less-burdened, by health-care and pension costs -- the more they reduce the protective power of UAW contracts and similar labor agreements. GM could have all of the good intentions in the world; but if Honda, aided by less-expensive labor contracts, can build a car as good as GM for less money, Honda has the clear advantage.

That is an inconvenient truth that pundits here and in similar redoubts of sophistry delight in ignoring. They'd much rather beat up Detroit for mistakes in product judgment real and imagined, as if foreign car companies have made none of the same errors. It's baloney.

The simple truth, as I've stated in this space many times, is that car companies play first to the markets in which they find themselves. Toyota, for example, got much of the money to develop its gas-electric hybrid Prius car from lucrative sales of gas-guzzling trucks and sport-utility vehicles in United States, where those big rides, before soaring fuel prices, once constituted more than 50 percent of new-vehicle sales.
Why didn't the American Three adopt the same strategy of taking profits from trucks and putting them into more fuel-efficient cars? Truth is, they did; but they did it in a way that didn't tickle the fancy of lawmakers and media pundits.

GM, for example, reasoned that gas-electric technology was an expensive, short-term approach to fuel economy heavily dependent on batteries that did not yet exist -- the kind that could deliver the driving range of a full tank of regular gasoline at an equivalent cost of about $2.50 a gallon. (Actually, rising gasoline prices helped to make a better business case for gas-electrics.) GM decided to put its money in long-range, less-glamorous, more-complicated, more-difficult-to-understand-and-explain hydrogen fuel-cell research. It was a public relations blunder.

Curiously, Toyota and Honda had made similar decisions, backing away from early electric vehicle projects -- before Toyota returned to the idea, first proffered by Porsche in the early 1900s, of creating a hybrid gas-electric.

You can blame GM and the other members of the American Three for guessing wrong on gas-electrics; but it is wrong to accuse them of deliberate malfeasance in pursuit of fuel-efficient technologies -- an alleged crime for which critics here and elsewhere wish to punish them by allowing them to sink into fiscal oblivion in the current global recession.

The truth is that the American Three have contributed much to the development of alternative fuels and alternative-propulsion technologies -- those employing the gas-electric hybrid approach, as well as those making efficient use of fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and hydrogen, as well as compressed natural gas and liquefied propane. The American companies, including small independents such as Tesla, can and will do more. But they will need a country and a government to support them in those endeavors, just as many of their foreign rivals have received and continue to receive aid from their respective governments.

Or, of course, we can go on pursuing the Wal-Mart economy -- finding cheap talent and labor elsewhere to supply the expertise, goods and services we need at the low prices we want, while relying on Wall Street to keep moving money in circles fast enough to create the whirlpool of loans we're using to move ever faster down the drainpipe of debt.
 
C

CFHockeyMom

New member
Don't Forget American Automakers' History of Goodwill
Washington Post
By Warren Brown
Nov. 16, 2008

It is easy to feel disassociated from Detroit in this city of imported products, services, celebrities and mannerisms. It is easy to laugh at the stumbling, homegrown industrial giants of the Midwest in this bastion of urbanity and sophistication that makes money the old-fashioned way -- changing it from one hand to another, often at profitable interest rates; and then running to the federal government for help when the elaborate Ponzi scheme of lending, borrowing and insuring comes crashing down.

Here is where newspaper columnists -- Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times comes to mind -- routinely dismiss the idea of federal aid to an ailing Detroit, suggesting that the city and its automobile industry be consigned to the scrap heap of history, having failed dismally in their core mission to design and develop the kinds of cars and trucks Americans really want.

It is sophist nonsense, of course, the kind of tale spun by people who haven't bothered to check the numbers, and who have paid even less regard to the history of their supposed knowledge.

The truth, all things considered, is that Detroit has done reasonably well. The American Three -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- still hold an estimated 47 percent of a home market that is wide open to competition from car companies all over the world. Until July of 2007, domestic automobile manufacturers historically held more than a 50-percent U.S.-market share. But in a country where consumers have made Wal-Mart the retail king -- that's Wal-Mart, one of America's biggest importers of foreign goods -- that was bound to change.

If you are a free-trade advocate, have no fear. This isn't a treatise in defense of protectionism. It is simply a more accurate assessment of reality, the bottom line of which is that free trade isn't free.

American consumers, in their passionate pursuit of the very best goods at the lowest possible prices, have undermined their own economic well-being. It is rather difficult to maintain high salaries and premium health and pension benefits in a business environment built on profitably moving a maximum number of high-quality products at bargain prices. Something has to give.

In the automobile industry, it was union influence and organizing. Unions failed miserably in wooing the U.S. workforces of foreign automobile manufacturers -- nearly all of which strategically have set up shop in nonunion or "pro-business" states, usually in the South and Southwest.
Those nonunion, foreign car companies have been successful because American consumers want them to be successful. Why not? If consumers can get great cars from Toyota or Honda free of the costs associated with United Auto Workers union-represented labor at General Motors, well, that is what they're going to do. They're not going to look for the union label, let alone pay more for it.

But the more American consumers make those kinds of decisions -- choosing goods and services unburdened, or less-burdened, by health-care and pension costs -- the more they reduce the protective power of UAW contracts and similar labor agreements. GM could have all of the good intentions in the world; but if Honda, aided by less-expensive labor contracts, can build a car as good as GM for less money, Honda has the clear advantage.

That is an inconvenient truth that pundits here and in similar redoubts of sophistry delight in ignoring. They'd much rather beat up Detroit for mistakes in product judgment real and imagined, as if foreign car companies have made none of the same errors. It's baloney.

The simple truth, as I've stated in this space many times, is that car companies play first to the markets in which they find themselves. Toyota, for example, got much of the money to develop its gas-electric hybrid Prius car from lucrative sales of gas-guzzling trucks and sport-utility vehicles in United States, where those big rides, before soaring fuel prices, once constituted more than 50 percent of new-vehicle sales.
Why didn't the American Three adopt the same strategy of taking profits from trucks and putting them into more fuel-efficient cars? Truth is, they did; but they did it in a way that didn't tickle the fancy of lawmakers and media pundits.

GM, for example, reasoned that gas-electric technology was an expensive, short-term approach to fuel economy heavily dependent on batteries that did not yet exist -- the kind that could deliver the driving range of a full tank of regular gasoline at an equivalent cost of about $2.50 a gallon. (Actually, rising gasoline prices helped to make a better business case for gas-electrics.) GM decided to put its money in long-range, less-glamorous, more-complicated, more-difficult-to-understand-and-explain hydrogen fuel-cell research. It was a public relations blunder.

Curiously, Toyota and Honda had made similar decisions, backing away from early electric vehicle projects -- before Toyota returned to the idea, first proffered by Porsche in the early 1900s, of creating a hybrid gas-electric.

You can blame GM and the other members of the American Three for guessing wrong on gas-electrics; but it is wrong to accuse them of deliberate malfeasance in pursuit of fuel-efficient technologies -- an alleged crime for which critics here and elsewhere wish to punish them by allowing them to sink into fiscal oblivion in the current global recession.

The truth is that the American Three have contributed much to the development of alternative fuels and alternative-propulsion technologies -- those employing the gas-electric hybrid approach, as well as those making efficient use of fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and hydrogen, as well as compressed natural gas and liquefied propane. The American companies, including small independents such as Tesla, can and will do more. But they will need a country and a government to support them in those endeavors, just as many of their foreign rivals have received and continue to receive aid from their respective governments.

Or, of course, we can go on pursuing the Wal-Mart economy -- finding cheap talent and labor elsewhere to supply the expertise, goods and services we need at the low prices we want, while relying on Wall Street to keep moving money in circles fast enough to create the whirlpool of loans we're using to move ever faster down the drainpipe of debt.
 
C

CFHockeyMom

New member
Don't Forget American Automakers' History of Goodwill
Washington Post
By Warren Brown
Nov. 16, 2008

It is easy to feel disassociated from Detroit in this city of imported products, services, celebrities and mannerisms. It is easy to laugh at the stumbling, homegrown industrial giants of the Midwest in this bastion of urbanity and sophistication that makes money the old-fashioned way -- changing it from one hand to another, often at profitable interest rates; and then running to the federal government for help when the elaborate Ponzi scheme of lending, borrowing and insuring comes crashing down.

Here is where newspaper columnists -- Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times comes to mind -- routinely dismiss the idea of federal aid to an ailing Detroit, suggesting that the city and its automobile industry be consigned to the scrap heap of history, having failed dismally in their core mission to design and develop the kinds of cars and trucks Americans really want.

It is sophist nonsense, of course, the kind of tale spun by people who haven't bothered to check the numbers, and who have paid even less regard to the history of their supposed knowledge.

The truth, all things considered, is that Detroit has done reasonably well. The American Three -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- still hold an estimated 47 percent of a home market that is wide open to competition from car companies all over the world. Until July of 2007, domestic automobile manufacturers historically held more than a 50-percent U.S.-market share. But in a country where consumers have made Wal-Mart the retail king -- that's Wal-Mart, one of America's biggest importers of foreign goods -- that was bound to change.

If you are a free-trade advocate, have no fear. This isn't a treatise in defense of protectionism. It is simply a more accurate assessment of reality, the bottom line of which is that free trade isn't free.

American consumers, in their passionate pursuit of the very best goods at the lowest possible prices, have undermined their own economic well-being. It is rather difficult to maintain high salaries and premium health and pension benefits in a business environment built on profitably moving a maximum number of high-quality products at bargain prices. Something has to give.

In the automobile industry, it was union influence and organizing. Unions failed miserably in wooing the U.S. workforces of foreign automobile manufacturers -- nearly all of which strategically have set up shop in nonunion or "pro-business" states, usually in the South and Southwest.
Those nonunion, foreign car companies have been successful because American consumers want them to be successful. Why not? If consumers can get great cars from Toyota or Honda free of the costs associated with United Auto Workers union-represented labor at General Motors, well, that is what they're going to do. They're not going to look for the union label, let alone pay more for it.

But the more American consumers make those kinds of decisions -- choosing goods and services unburdened, or less-burdened, by health-care and pension costs -- the more they reduce the protective power of UAW contracts and similar labor agreements. GM could have all of the good intentions in the world; but if Honda, aided by less-expensive labor contracts, can build a car as good as GM for less money, Honda has the clear advantage.

That is an inconvenient truth that pundits here and in similar redoubts of sophistry delight in ignoring. They'd much rather beat up Detroit for mistakes in product judgment real and imagined, as if foreign car companies have made none of the same errors. It's baloney.

The simple truth, as I've stated in this space many times, is that car companies play first to the markets in which they find themselves. Toyota, for example, got much of the money to develop its gas-electric hybrid Prius car from lucrative sales of gas-guzzling trucks and sport-utility vehicles in United States, where those big rides, before soaring fuel prices, once constituted more than 50 percent of new-vehicle sales.
Why didn't the American Three adopt the same strategy of taking profits from trucks and putting them into more fuel-efficient cars? Truth is, they did; but they did it in a way that didn't tickle the fancy of lawmakers and media pundits.

GM, for example, reasoned that gas-electric technology was an expensive, short-term approach to fuel economy heavily dependent on batteries that did not yet exist -- the kind that could deliver the driving range of a full tank of regular gasoline at an equivalent cost of about $2.50 a gallon. (Actually, rising gasoline prices helped to make a better business case for gas-electrics.) GM decided to put its money in long-range, less-glamorous, more-complicated, more-difficult-to-understand-and-explain hydrogen fuel-cell research. It was a public relations blunder.

Curiously, Toyota and Honda had made similar decisions, backing away from early electric vehicle projects -- before Toyota returned to the idea, first proffered by Porsche in the early 1900s, of creating a hybrid gas-electric.

You can blame GM and the other members of the American Three for guessing wrong on gas-electrics; but it is wrong to accuse them of deliberate malfeasance in pursuit of fuel-efficient technologies -- an alleged crime for which critics here and elsewhere wish to punish them by allowing them to sink into fiscal oblivion in the current global recession.

The truth is that the American Three have contributed much to the development of alternative fuels and alternative-propulsion technologies -- those employing the gas-electric hybrid approach, as well as those making efficient use of fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and hydrogen, as well as compressed natural gas and liquefied propane. The American companies, including small independents such as Tesla, can and will do more. But they will need a country and a government to support them in those endeavors, just as many of their foreign rivals have received and continue to receive aid from their respective governments.

Or, of course, we can go on pursuing the Wal-Mart economy -- finding cheap talent and labor elsewhere to supply the expertise, goods and services we need at the low prices we want, while relying on Wall Street to keep moving money in circles fast enough to create the whirlpool of loans we're using to move ever faster down the drainpipe of debt.
 
C

CFHockeyMom

New member
Don't Forget American Automakers' History of Goodwill
Washington Post
By Warren Brown
Nov. 16, 2008

It is easy to feel disassociated from Detroit in this city of imported products, services, celebrities and mannerisms. It is easy to laugh at the stumbling, homegrown industrial giants of the Midwest in this bastion of urbanity and sophistication that makes money the old-fashioned way -- changing it from one hand to another, often at profitable interest rates; and then running to the federal government for help when the elaborate Ponzi scheme of lending, borrowing and insuring comes crashing down.

Here is where newspaper columnists -- Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times comes to mind -- routinely dismiss the idea of federal aid to an ailing Detroit, suggesting that the city and its automobile industry be consigned to the scrap heap of history, having failed dismally in their core mission to design and develop the kinds of cars and trucks Americans really want.

It is sophist nonsense, of course, the kind of tale spun by people who haven't bothered to check the numbers, and who have paid even less regard to the history of their supposed knowledge.

The truth, all things considered, is that Detroit has done reasonably well. The American Three -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- still hold an estimated 47 percent of a home market that is wide open to competition from car companies all over the world. Until July of 2007, domestic automobile manufacturers historically held more than a 50-percent U.S.-market share. But in a country where consumers have made Wal-Mart the retail king -- that's Wal-Mart, one of America's biggest importers of foreign goods -- that was bound to change.

If you are a free-trade advocate, have no fear. This isn't a treatise in defense of protectionism. It is simply a more accurate assessment of reality, the bottom line of which is that free trade isn't free.

American consumers, in their passionate pursuit of the very best goods at the lowest possible prices, have undermined their own economic well-being. It is rather difficult to maintain high salaries and premium health and pension benefits in a business environment built on profitably moving a maximum number of high-quality products at bargain prices. Something has to give.

In the automobile industry, it was union influence and organizing. Unions failed miserably in wooing the U.S. workforces of foreign automobile manufacturers -- nearly all of which strategically have set up shop in nonunion or "pro-business" states, usually in the South and Southwest.
Those nonunion, foreign car companies have been successful because American consumers want them to be successful. Why not? If consumers can get great cars from Toyota or Honda free of the costs associated with United Auto Workers union-represented labor at General Motors, well, that is what they're going to do. They're not going to look for the union label, let alone pay more for it.

But the more American consumers make those kinds of decisions -- choosing goods and services unburdened, or less-burdened, by health-care and pension costs -- the more they reduce the protective power of UAW contracts and similar labor agreements. GM could have all of the good intentions in the world; but if Honda, aided by less-expensive labor contracts, can build a car as good as GM for less money, Honda has the clear advantage.

That is an inconvenient truth that pundits here and in similar redoubts of sophistry delight in ignoring. They'd much rather beat up Detroit for mistakes in product judgment real and imagined, as if foreign car companies have made none of the same errors. It's baloney.

The simple truth, as I've stated in this space many times, is that car companies play first to the markets in which they find themselves. Toyota, for example, got much of the money to develop its gas-electric hybrid Prius car from lucrative sales of gas-guzzling trucks and sport-utility vehicles in United States, where those big rides, before soaring fuel prices, once constituted more than 50 percent of new-vehicle sales.
Why didn't the American Three adopt the same strategy of taking profits from trucks and putting them into more fuel-efficient cars? Truth is, they did; but they did it in a way that didn't tickle the fancy of lawmakers and media pundits.

GM, for example, reasoned that gas-electric technology was an expensive, short-term approach to fuel economy heavily dependent on batteries that did not yet exist -- the kind that could deliver the driving range of a full tank of regular gasoline at an equivalent cost of about $2.50 a gallon. (Actually, rising gasoline prices helped to make a better business case for gas-electrics.) GM decided to put its money in long-range, less-glamorous, more-complicated, more-difficult-to-understand-and-explain hydrogen fuel-cell research. It was a public relations blunder.

Curiously, Toyota and Honda had made similar decisions, backing away from early electric vehicle projects -- before Toyota returned to the idea, first proffered by Porsche in the early 1900s, of creating a hybrid gas-electric.

You can blame GM and the other members of the American Three for guessing wrong on gas-electrics; but it is wrong to accuse them of deliberate malfeasance in pursuit of fuel-efficient technologies -- an alleged crime for which critics here and elsewhere wish to punish them by allowing them to sink into fiscal oblivion in the current global recession.

The truth is that the American Three have contributed much to the development of alternative fuels and alternative-propulsion technologies -- those employing the gas-electric hybrid approach, as well as those making efficient use of fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and hydrogen, as well as compressed natural gas and liquefied propane. The American companies, including small independents such as Tesla, can and will do more. But they will need a country and a government to support them in those endeavors, just as many of their foreign rivals have received and continue to receive aid from their respective governments.

Or, of course, we can go on pursuing the Wal-Mart economy -- finding cheap talent and labor elsewhere to supply the expertise, goods and services we need at the low prices we want, while relying on Wall Street to keep moving money in circles fast enough to create the whirlpool of loans we're using to move ever faster down the drainpipe of debt.
 
C

CFHockeyMom

New member
Don't Forget American Automakers' History of Goodwill
<br />Washington Post
<br />By Warren Brown
<br />Nov. 16, 2008
<br />
<br />It is easy to feel disassociated from Detroit in this city of imported products, services, celebrities and mannerisms. It is easy to laugh at the stumbling, homegrown industrial giants of the Midwest in this bastion of urbanity and sophistication that makes money the old-fashioned way -- changing it from one hand to another, often at profitable interest rates; and then running to the federal government for help when the elaborate Ponzi scheme of lending, borrowing and insuring comes crashing down.
<br />
<br />Here is where newspaper columnists -- Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times comes to mind -- routinely dismiss the idea of federal aid to an ailing Detroit, suggesting that the city and its automobile industry be consigned to the scrap heap of history, having failed dismally in their core mission to design and develop the kinds of cars and trucks Americans really want.
<br />
<br />It is sophist nonsense, of course, the kind of tale spun by people who haven't bothered to check the numbers, and who have paid even less regard to the history of their supposed knowledge.
<br />
<br />The truth, all things considered, is that Detroit has done reasonably well. The American Three -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- still hold an estimated 47 percent of a home market that is wide open to competition from car companies all over the world. Until July of 2007, domestic automobile manufacturers historically held more than a 50-percent U.S.-market share. But in a country where consumers have made Wal-Mart the retail king -- that's Wal-Mart, one of America's biggest importers of foreign goods -- that was bound to change.
<br />
<br />If you are a free-trade advocate, have no fear. This isn't a treatise in defense of protectionism. It is simply a more accurate assessment of reality, the bottom line of which is that free trade isn't free.
<br />
<br />American consumers, in their passionate pursuit of the very best goods at the lowest possible prices, have undermined their own economic well-being. It is rather difficult to maintain high salaries and premium health and pension benefits in a business environment built on profitably moving a maximum number of high-quality products at bargain prices. Something has to give.
<br />
<br />In the automobile industry, it was union influence and organizing. Unions failed miserably in wooing the U.S. workforces of foreign automobile manufacturers -- nearly all of which strategically have set up shop in nonunion or "pro-business" states, usually in the South and Southwest.
<br />Those nonunion, foreign car companies have been successful because American consumers want them to be successful. Why not? If consumers can get great cars from Toyota or Honda free of the costs associated with United Auto Workers union-represented labor at General Motors, well, that is what they're going to do. They're not going to look for the union label, let alone pay more for it.
<br />
<br />But the more American consumers make those kinds of decisions -- choosing goods and services unburdened, or less-burdened, by health-care and pension costs -- the more they reduce the protective power of UAW contracts and similar labor agreements. GM could have all of the good intentions in the world; but if Honda, aided by less-expensive labor contracts, can build a car as good as GM for less money, Honda has the clear advantage.
<br />
<br />That is an inconvenient truth that pundits here and in similar redoubts of sophistry delight in ignoring. They'd much rather beat up Detroit for mistakes in product judgment real and imagined, as if foreign car companies have made none of the same errors. It's baloney.
<br />
<br />The simple truth, as I've stated in this space many times, is that car companies play first to the markets in which they find themselves. Toyota, for example, got much of the money to develop its gas-electric hybrid Prius car from lucrative sales of gas-guzzling trucks and sport-utility vehicles in United States, where those big rides, before soaring fuel prices, once constituted more than 50 percent of new-vehicle sales.
<br />Why didn't the American Three adopt the same strategy of taking profits from trucks and putting them into more fuel-efficient cars? Truth is, they did; but they did it in a way that didn't tickle the fancy of lawmakers and media pundits.
<br />
<br />GM, for example, reasoned that gas-electric technology was an expensive, short-term approach to fuel economy heavily dependent on batteries that did not yet exist -- the kind that could deliver the driving range of a full tank of regular gasoline at an equivalent cost of about $2.50 a gallon. (Actually, rising gasoline prices helped to make a better business case for gas-electrics.) GM decided to put its money in long-range, less-glamorous, more-complicated, more-difficult-to-understand-and-explain hydrogen fuel-cell research. It was a public relations blunder.
<br />
<br />Curiously, Toyota and Honda had made similar decisions, backing away from early electric vehicle projects -- before Toyota returned to the idea, first proffered by Porsche in the early 1900s, of creating a hybrid gas-electric.
<br />
<br />You can blame GM and the other members of the American Three for guessing wrong on gas-electrics; but it is wrong to accuse them of deliberate malfeasance in pursuit of fuel-efficient technologies -- an alleged crime for which critics here and elsewhere wish to punish them by allowing them to sink into fiscal oblivion in the current global recession.
<br />
<br />The truth is that the American Three have contributed much to the development of alternative fuels and alternative-propulsion technologies -- those employing the gas-electric hybrid approach, as well as those making efficient use of fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and hydrogen, as well as compressed natural gas and liquefied propane. The American companies, including small independents such as Tesla, can and will do more. But they will need a country and a government to support them in those endeavors, just as many of their foreign rivals have received and continue to receive aid from their respective governments.
<br />
<br />Or, of course, we can go on pursuing the Wal-Mart economy -- finding cheap talent and labor elsewhere to supply the expertise, goods and services we need at the low prices we want, while relying on Wall Street to keep moving money in circles fast enough to create the whirlpool of loans we're using to move ever faster down the drainpipe of debt.
 
6

65rosessamurai

Guest
Since I consider the Detroit Free Press and Washington Post to be good sources of information, why isn't this filtering out to Japan, where their "Big Three" are located?

Is it the fault of the Media here? Is the Japanese media trying to give America (and Americans) a bad rep? Already, they've kept the U.S. elections focused on Obama with a Zoom Lens...never heard anything (from Japanese media) about any other candidates (except Sen. Clinton) during the entire race!

So now the Japanese media's gonna castrate the U.S. Big 3, next?

So, they (Big 3) all are really trying to work on alternative fuels?

I'm so confused <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif" border="0">

Can't they just walk up like Iacoca did in the 80's and ask for a loan instead?! (Where is Lee when you need him?)
 
6

65rosessamurai

Guest
Since I consider the Detroit Free Press and Washington Post to be good sources of information, why isn't this filtering out to Japan, where their "Big Three" are located?

Is it the fault of the Media here? Is the Japanese media trying to give America (and Americans) a bad rep? Already, they've kept the U.S. elections focused on Obama with a Zoom Lens...never heard anything (from Japanese media) about any other candidates (except Sen. Clinton) during the entire race!

So now the Japanese media's gonna castrate the U.S. Big 3, next?

So, they (Big 3) all are really trying to work on alternative fuels?

I'm so confused <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif" border="0">

Can't they just walk up like Iacoca did in the 80's and ask for a loan instead?! (Where is Lee when you need him?)
 
6

65rosessamurai

Guest
Since I consider the Detroit Free Press and Washington Post to be good sources of information, why isn't this filtering out to Japan, where their "Big Three" are located?

Is it the fault of the Media here? Is the Japanese media trying to give America (and Americans) a bad rep? Already, they've kept the U.S. elections focused on Obama with a Zoom Lens...never heard anything (from Japanese media) about any other candidates (except Sen. Clinton) during the entire race!

So now the Japanese media's gonna castrate the U.S. Big 3, next?

So, they (Big 3) all are really trying to work on alternative fuels?

I'm so confused <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif" border="0">

Can't they just walk up like Iacoca did in the 80's and ask for a loan instead?! (Where is Lee when you need him?)
 
6

65rosessamurai

Guest
Since I consider the Detroit Free Press and Washington Post to be good sources of information, why isn't this filtering out to Japan, where their "Big Three" are located?

Is it the fault of the Media here? Is the Japanese media trying to give America (and Americans) a bad rep? Already, they've kept the U.S. elections focused on Obama with a Zoom Lens...never heard anything (from Japanese media) about any other candidates (except Sen. Clinton) during the entire race!

So now the Japanese media's gonna castrate the U.S. Big 3, next?

So, they (Big 3) all are really trying to work on alternative fuels?

I'm so confused <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif" border="0">

Can't they just walk up like Iacoca did in the 80's and ask for a loan instead?! (Where is Lee when you need him?)
 
6

65rosessamurai

Guest
Since I consider the Detroit Free Press and Washington Post to be good sources of information, why isn't this filtering out to Japan, where their "Big Three" are located?
<br />
<br />Is it the fault of the Media here? Is the Japanese media trying to give America (and Americans) a bad rep? Already, they've kept the U.S. elections focused on Obama with a Zoom Lens...never heard anything (from Japanese media) about any other candidates (except Sen. Clinton) during the entire race!
<br />
<br />So now the Japanese media's gonna castrate the U.S. Big 3, next?
<br />
<br />So, they (Big 3) all are really trying to work on alternative fuels?
<br />
<br />I'm so confused <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif" border="0">
<br />
<br />Can't they just walk up like Iacoca did in the 80's and ask for a loan instead?! (Where is Lee when you need him?)
 
K

kayleesgrandma

New member
Sorry, i don't feel bad for a state/city that doesn't make concessions or tax breaks for a better business environment, and for unions that terrorize their companies, (and the workers who don't agree with the union policies.) I also don't feel sorry for a union that gave exorbident contributions to the political compaigns--seemed to have enough money then, didn't they!!! Sorry, I don't feel like bailing out the unions benefit packages, when the members make 3 times what I make (with the total package)..."

If a bailout is to be given, the Big Three and their unions must thoroughly revamp their businesses, almost as if it were a bankruptcy. Call it a Chapter 11 Bailout.

Above all, the companies' poisonous contracts with the United Auto Workers union have to be torn up. The problem is that the UAW, under President Ron Gettelfinger, remains adamant: No givebacks. This is financial lunacy.

Thanks in part to managerial incompetence, but mostly due to pricey union contracts, it costs American carmakers too much to build cars here; they can't compete. When you fold in health care, pensions, hourly pay, vacations and the rest, average total compensation for a Big Three autoworker is $73.21 an hour, according to data cited by University of Michigan economist Mark Perry.

Toyota, Honda and Nissan pay a still-generous $44.20 an hour in total compensation - a cost edge of nearly 40%. Is it any wonder that Ford, GM and Chrysler can't compete? Or that, after paying their workers, they never have enough cash left to retool?

Today the total market capitalization of the Big Three has fallen to about $7 billion. Is it better for the owners of those companies to suffer a total loss or for taxpayers to lose $25 billion? The answer is obvious. As such, the only case for a bailout is if it would force major changes on the industry. That won't happen with current management in place or with giveaway union contracts that make the companies unviable.

These aren't temporary problems. They've been brewing for decades, as management agreed over and over to labor deals that now financially strangle the industry. Yet, UAW's Gettelfinger claims the weak economy is to blame for the industry's woes. Nonsense. As blogger (and former corporate CEO) Jim Manzi notes, American carmakers in 1960 owned 90% of the U.S. auto market. This year, for the first time ever, that share slipped below 50%.

Japan's Big Three - Honda, Nissan and Toyota - make anywhere from $900 to $1,600 in pretax profit on each car they make in North America (mostly in southeastern states, with non-union contracts). America's Big Three, by comparison, lose anywhere from $400 to $1,500.

Truth is, they're being out-hustled and out-priced in their own backyard due mainly to labor agreements that have driven up costs and become a millstone around their neck.

Problem is, according to a study by the Center for Automotive Research, letting the Big Three go belly up would kill at least 3.1 million jobs and erase $400 billion in personal income from the nation's GDP. Congress doesn't want to be responsible for this.

The industry must be accountable, and that includes the UAW. If a bailout is inevitable, we should require the Big Three and their unions to restructure as if they were in bankruptcy. Otherwise, we'll just be throwing good money after bad.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311818292128101
">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...311818292128101
</a>

Saving the unions is not how I want my money to be spent...
<i>"The success of those foreign transplants has led to a steady drain of autoworkers from both the Big Three and the UAW. The union's membership has fallen from a high of about 1.5 million in 1979 to 465,000 as of 2007 - the first time since World War II that it has stood under a half million. It would no doubt fall further if Detroit goes through the type of reorganization typical of Chapter 11.

Saving a shrinking union is the worst reason to bail out Detroit with taxpayer money. Unfortunately, it may be one of the strongest, politically. That's why the public needs to be enormously skeptical when it hears that bankruptcy for the Big Three would be a catastrophe for much of the U.S. economy."</i>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311560040175474
">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...311560040175474
</a>
 
K

kayleesgrandma

New member
Sorry, i don't feel bad for a state/city that doesn't make concessions or tax breaks for a better business environment, and for unions that terrorize their companies, (and the workers who don't agree with the union policies.) I also don't feel sorry for a union that gave exorbident contributions to the political compaigns--seemed to have enough money then, didn't they!!! Sorry, I don't feel like bailing out the unions benefit packages, when the members make 3 times what I make (with the total package)..."

If a bailout is to be given, the Big Three and their unions must thoroughly revamp their businesses, almost as if it were a bankruptcy. Call it a Chapter 11 Bailout.

Above all, the companies' poisonous contracts with the United Auto Workers union have to be torn up. The problem is that the UAW, under President Ron Gettelfinger, remains adamant: No givebacks. This is financial lunacy.

Thanks in part to managerial incompetence, but mostly due to pricey union contracts, it costs American carmakers too much to build cars here; they can't compete. When you fold in health care, pensions, hourly pay, vacations and the rest, average total compensation for a Big Three autoworker is $73.21 an hour, according to data cited by University of Michigan economist Mark Perry.

Toyota, Honda and Nissan pay a still-generous $44.20 an hour in total compensation - a cost edge of nearly 40%. Is it any wonder that Ford, GM and Chrysler can't compete? Or that, after paying their workers, they never have enough cash left to retool?

Today the total market capitalization of the Big Three has fallen to about $7 billion. Is it better for the owners of those companies to suffer a total loss or for taxpayers to lose $25 billion? The answer is obvious. As such, the only case for a bailout is if it would force major changes on the industry. That won't happen with current management in place or with giveaway union contracts that make the companies unviable.

These aren't temporary problems. They've been brewing for decades, as management agreed over and over to labor deals that now financially strangle the industry. Yet, UAW's Gettelfinger claims the weak economy is to blame for the industry's woes. Nonsense. As blogger (and former corporate CEO) Jim Manzi notes, American carmakers in 1960 owned 90% of the U.S. auto market. This year, for the first time ever, that share slipped below 50%.

Japan's Big Three - Honda, Nissan and Toyota - make anywhere from $900 to $1,600 in pretax profit on each car they make in North America (mostly in southeastern states, with non-union contracts). America's Big Three, by comparison, lose anywhere from $400 to $1,500.

Truth is, they're being out-hustled and out-priced in their own backyard due mainly to labor agreements that have driven up costs and become a millstone around their neck.

Problem is, according to a study by the Center for Automotive Research, letting the Big Three go belly up would kill at least 3.1 million jobs and erase $400 billion in personal income from the nation's GDP. Congress doesn't want to be responsible for this.

The industry must be accountable, and that includes the UAW. If a bailout is inevitable, we should require the Big Three and their unions to restructure as if they were in bankruptcy. Otherwise, we'll just be throwing good money after bad.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311818292128101
">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...311818292128101
</a>

Saving the unions is not how I want my money to be spent...
<i>"The success of those foreign transplants has led to a steady drain of autoworkers from both the Big Three and the UAW. The union's membership has fallen from a high of about 1.5 million in 1979 to 465,000 as of 2007 - the first time since World War II that it has stood under a half million. It would no doubt fall further if Detroit goes through the type of reorganization typical of Chapter 11.

Saving a shrinking union is the worst reason to bail out Detroit with taxpayer money. Unfortunately, it may be one of the strongest, politically. That's why the public needs to be enormously skeptical when it hears that bankruptcy for the Big Three would be a catastrophe for much of the U.S. economy."</i>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311560040175474
">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...311560040175474
</a>
 
K

kayleesgrandma

New member
Sorry, i don't feel bad for a state/city that doesn't make concessions or tax breaks for a better business environment, and for unions that terrorize their companies, (and the workers who don't agree with the union policies.) I also don't feel sorry for a union that gave exorbident contributions to the political compaigns--seemed to have enough money then, didn't they!!! Sorry, I don't feel like bailing out the unions benefit packages, when the members make 3 times what I make (with the total package)..."

If a bailout is to be given, the Big Three and their unions must thoroughly revamp their businesses, almost as if it were a bankruptcy. Call it a Chapter 11 Bailout.

Above all, the companies' poisonous contracts with the United Auto Workers union have to be torn up. The problem is that the UAW, under President Ron Gettelfinger, remains adamant: No givebacks. This is financial lunacy.

Thanks in part to managerial incompetence, but mostly due to pricey union contracts, it costs American carmakers too much to build cars here; they can't compete. When you fold in health care, pensions, hourly pay, vacations and the rest, average total compensation for a Big Three autoworker is $73.21 an hour, according to data cited by University of Michigan economist Mark Perry.

Toyota, Honda and Nissan pay a still-generous $44.20 an hour in total compensation - a cost edge of nearly 40%. Is it any wonder that Ford, GM and Chrysler can't compete? Or that, after paying their workers, they never have enough cash left to retool?

Today the total market capitalization of the Big Three has fallen to about $7 billion. Is it better for the owners of those companies to suffer a total loss or for taxpayers to lose $25 billion? The answer is obvious. As such, the only case for a bailout is if it would force major changes on the industry. That won't happen with current management in place or with giveaway union contracts that make the companies unviable.

These aren't temporary problems. They've been brewing for decades, as management agreed over and over to labor deals that now financially strangle the industry. Yet, UAW's Gettelfinger claims the weak economy is to blame for the industry's woes. Nonsense. As blogger (and former corporate CEO) Jim Manzi notes, American carmakers in 1960 owned 90% of the U.S. auto market. This year, for the first time ever, that share slipped below 50%.

Japan's Big Three - Honda, Nissan and Toyota - make anywhere from $900 to $1,600 in pretax profit on each car they make in North America (mostly in southeastern states, with non-union contracts). America's Big Three, by comparison, lose anywhere from $400 to $1,500.

Truth is, they're being out-hustled and out-priced in their own backyard due mainly to labor agreements that have driven up costs and become a millstone around their neck.

Problem is, according to a study by the Center for Automotive Research, letting the Big Three go belly up would kill at least 3.1 million jobs and erase $400 billion in personal income from the nation's GDP. Congress doesn't want to be responsible for this.

The industry must be accountable, and that includes the UAW. If a bailout is inevitable, we should require the Big Three and their unions to restructure as if they were in bankruptcy. Otherwise, we'll just be throwing good money after bad.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311818292128101
">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...311818292128101
</a>

Saving the unions is not how I want my money to be spent...
<i>"The success of those foreign transplants has led to a steady drain of autoworkers from both the Big Three and the UAW. The union's membership has fallen from a high of about 1.5 million in 1979 to 465,000 as of 2007 - the first time since World War II that it has stood under a half million. It would no doubt fall further if Detroit goes through the type of reorganization typical of Chapter 11.

Saving a shrinking union is the worst reason to bail out Detroit with taxpayer money. Unfortunately, it may be one of the strongest, politically. That's why the public needs to be enormously skeptical when it hears that bankruptcy for the Big Three would be a catastrophe for much of the U.S. economy."</i>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311560040175474
">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...311560040175474
</a>
 
K

kayleesgrandma

New member
Sorry, i don't feel bad for a state/city that doesn't make concessions or tax breaks for a better business environment, and for unions that terrorize their companies, (and the workers who don't agree with the union policies.) I also don't feel sorry for a union that gave exorbident contributions to the political compaigns--seemed to have enough money then, didn't they!!! Sorry, I don't feel like bailing out the unions benefit packages, when the members make 3 times what I make (with the total package)..."

If a bailout is to be given, the Big Three and their unions must thoroughly revamp their businesses, almost as if it were a bankruptcy. Call it a Chapter 11 Bailout.

Above all, the companies' poisonous contracts with the United Auto Workers union have to be torn up. The problem is that the UAW, under President Ron Gettelfinger, remains adamant: No givebacks. This is financial lunacy.

Thanks in part to managerial incompetence, but mostly due to pricey union contracts, it costs American carmakers too much to build cars here; they can't compete. When you fold in health care, pensions, hourly pay, vacations and the rest, average total compensation for a Big Three autoworker is $73.21 an hour, according to data cited by University of Michigan economist Mark Perry.

Toyota, Honda and Nissan pay a still-generous $44.20 an hour in total compensation - a cost edge of nearly 40%. Is it any wonder that Ford, GM and Chrysler can't compete? Or that, after paying their workers, they never have enough cash left to retool?

Today the total market capitalization of the Big Three has fallen to about $7 billion. Is it better for the owners of those companies to suffer a total loss or for taxpayers to lose $25 billion? The answer is obvious. As such, the only case for a bailout is if it would force major changes on the industry. That won't happen with current management in place or with giveaway union contracts that make the companies unviable.

These aren't temporary problems. They've been brewing for decades, as management agreed over and over to labor deals that now financially strangle the industry. Yet, UAW's Gettelfinger claims the weak economy is to blame for the industry's woes. Nonsense. As blogger (and former corporate CEO) Jim Manzi notes, American carmakers in 1960 owned 90% of the U.S. auto market. This year, for the first time ever, that share slipped below 50%.

Japan's Big Three - Honda, Nissan and Toyota - make anywhere from $900 to $1,600 in pretax profit on each car they make in North America (mostly in southeastern states, with non-union contracts). America's Big Three, by comparison, lose anywhere from $400 to $1,500.

Truth is, they're being out-hustled and out-priced in their own backyard due mainly to labor agreements that have driven up costs and become a millstone around their neck.

Problem is, according to a study by the Center for Automotive Research, letting the Big Three go belly up would kill at least 3.1 million jobs and erase $400 billion in personal income from the nation's GDP. Congress doesn't want to be responsible for this.

The industry must be accountable, and that includes the UAW. If a bailout is inevitable, we should require the Big Three and their unions to restructure as if they were in bankruptcy. Otherwise, we'll just be throwing good money after bad.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311818292128101
">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...311818292128101
</a>

Saving the unions is not how I want my money to be spent...
<i>"The success of those foreign transplants has led to a steady drain of autoworkers from both the Big Three and the UAW. The union's membership has fallen from a high of about 1.5 million in 1979 to 465,000 as of 2007 - the first time since World War II that it has stood under a half million. It would no doubt fall further if Detroit goes through the type of reorganization typical of Chapter 11.

Saving a shrinking union is the worst reason to bail out Detroit with taxpayer money. Unfortunately, it may be one of the strongest, politically. That's why the public needs to be enormously skeptical when it hears that bankruptcy for the Big Three would be a catastrophe for much of the U.S. economy."</i>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311560040175474
">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...311560040175474
</a>
 
K

kayleesgrandma

New member
Sorry, i don't feel bad for a state/city that doesn't make concessions or tax breaks for a better business environment, and for unions that terrorize their companies, (and the workers who don't agree with the union policies.) I also don't feel sorry for a union that gave exorbident contributions to the political compaigns--seemed to have enough money then, didn't they!!! Sorry, I don't feel like bailing out the unions benefit packages, when the members make 3 times what I make (with the total package)..."
<br />
<br />If a bailout is to be given, the Big Three and their unions must thoroughly revamp their businesses, almost as if it were a bankruptcy. Call it a Chapter 11 Bailout.
<br />
<br />Above all, the companies' poisonous contracts with the United Auto Workers union have to be torn up. The problem is that the UAW, under President Ron Gettelfinger, remains adamant: No givebacks. This is financial lunacy.
<br />
<br />Thanks in part to managerial incompetence, but mostly due to pricey union contracts, it costs American carmakers too much to build cars here; they can't compete. When you fold in health care, pensions, hourly pay, vacations and the rest, average total compensation for a Big Three autoworker is $73.21 an hour, according to data cited by University of Michigan economist Mark Perry.
<br />
<br />Toyota, Honda and Nissan pay a still-generous $44.20 an hour in total compensation - a cost edge of nearly 40%. Is it any wonder that Ford, GM and Chrysler can't compete? Or that, after paying their workers, they never have enough cash left to retool?
<br />
<br />Today the total market capitalization of the Big Three has fallen to about $7 billion. Is it better for the owners of those companies to suffer a total loss or for taxpayers to lose $25 billion? The answer is obvious. As such, the only case for a bailout is if it would force major changes on the industry. That won't happen with current management in place or with giveaway union contracts that make the companies unviable.
<br />
<br />These aren't temporary problems. They've been brewing for decades, as management agreed over and over to labor deals that now financially strangle the industry. Yet, UAW's Gettelfinger claims the weak economy is to blame for the industry's woes. Nonsense. As blogger (and former corporate CEO) Jim Manzi notes, American carmakers in 1960 owned 90% of the U.S. auto market. This year, for the first time ever, that share slipped below 50%.
<br />
<br />Japan's Big Three - Honda, Nissan and Toyota - make anywhere from $900 to $1,600 in pretax profit on each car they make in North America (mostly in southeastern states, with non-union contracts). America's Big Three, by comparison, lose anywhere from $400 to $1,500.
<br />
<br />Truth is, they're being out-hustled and out-priced in their own backyard due mainly to labor agreements that have driven up costs and become a millstone around their neck.
<br />
<br />Problem is, according to a study by the Center for Automotive Research, letting the Big Three go belly up would kill at least 3.1 million jobs and erase $400 billion in personal income from the nation's GDP. Congress doesn't want to be responsible for this.
<br />
<br />The industry must be accountable, and that includes the UAW. If a bailout is inevitable, we should require the Big Three and their unions to restructure as if they were in bankruptcy. Otherwise, we'll just be throwing good money after bad.
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311818292128101
<br />">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...311818292128101
<br /></a>
<br />
<br />Saving the unions is not how I want my money to be spent...
<br /><i>"The success of those foreign transplants has led to a steady drain of autoworkers from both the Big Three and the UAW. The union's membership has fallen from a high of about 1.5 million in 1979 to 465,000 as of 2007 - the first time since World War II that it has stood under a half million. It would no doubt fall further if Detroit goes through the type of reorganization typical of Chapter 11.
<br />
<br />Saving a shrinking union is the worst reason to bail out Detroit with taxpayer money. Unfortunately, it may be one of the strongest, politically. That's why the public needs to be enormously skeptical when it hears that bankruptcy for the Big Three would be a catastrophe for much of the U.S. economy."</i>
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311560040175474
<br />">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...311560040175474
<br /></a>
<br />
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top