Go Back   Sports Car Forum - MotorWorld.net > Automotive Brands Forum > American Cars

American Cars Area dedicated to American Cars from Classic, Muscle, to Modern!



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-19-2008, 02:42 PM   #1
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default Is this how Americans think of the Auto Industry? (my response)

Originally Posted by sammyb View Post
I wrote this article for my Four Wheel Drift site, but figured that my fellow FChatters would find it interesting. I'm sure many will disagree, but the math and history is interesting.

Bailout the Big Three? History Suggests “Don’t Do It”!
originally published Nov 11, 2008 on http://fourwheeldrift.wordpress.com


It would be catchy to lead with something like “I’ll give you fifty-billion reasons why the US government shouldn’t bail out the Big Three automakers.” Instead, I’ll just write: don’t do it.

I need to make something crystal clear here. My views are not ideologically-based. If you’d like some Republican versus Democrat, free market capitalism over big government socialism, Apple against Microsoft rants, you’re not going to find it here.

What you will find is a simple statement: history and common sense intersect at a point with a big marker titled “STOP”.

The Meat Of the Deal

Congress has already given General Motors, Ford and Chrysler around $25 billion so they can retool for production of more fuel-efficient cars. Last week the three CEOs returned to The Hill to ask for as much as $50 billion more to keep their companies floating while they hemorrhage cash in the down economy.

It is true that consumers are not buying new cars right now. That’s a huge problem for all automakers, not just the Big Three. When they start buying cars again, fuel-efficient vehicles like hybrids and compacts will be in demand. Actually, if we’re being truthful here, these vehicles are in demand right now. Just go try to find a Prius on a dealer lot.
In demand? Your inflection is based on intuition that is simply not supported by the facts. So far in 2008, ALL hybrids make up 2.6% of all vehicles SOLD. Another 6% are flex-fuel vehicles, while over 90% of those vehicles have never filled up with E85.


So the Big Three CEOs have the audacity to go to Congress and say “give us money so we can ride out the bad economy and have what the consumers will want when they are ready to buy.” Audacity? Why did I choose that word?
The 25B is already appropriated for retooling costs. The industry is asking the money be used for more than just that. Additionally, meanwhile, foreign automakers building plants in the US have been given tax incentives, loans, and free money to do just that; while the domestics are giving nothing. Also, we have the Japanese government subsidizing much of Toyota itself in Toyota City. The people of japan paid entirely for the development of the Prius. The domestics have entirely been required to develop everything on their own accord. Finally, we are not given the same equal playing ground on foreign land against their competition. Like for Like markets should exist.

Simple, because unless you’ve been living in cave for the last decade, you’ll know that even when GM, Ford and Chrysler were selling SUVs and trucks faster than a Ramones drum beat, they were largely losing money. Keep in mind that building and selling SUVs and trucks was a hell of a lot more profitable than compact and hybrid cars.
Again, you are going on your intuition, and not the reality. The Domestic industry were doing quite well up until the beginning of the credit crunch started hitting home (earlier than the rest of the country).
Imagine if the CEOs told Congress: “we need money, because we couldn’t make profits when we were selling high-profit vehicles. Since we pocketed that money in salaries, union deals, benefits, and executive bonuses, and got drunk on cheap gas (although in our hearts we knew it wouldn’t stay that way, but we hoped we’d be retired by the time it hit $4 per gallon), we never spent enough on R+D, so we didn’t have vehicle products ready to go for this current marketplace.” Unfortunately, that’s the truth.
never spent enough in R+D? Surely you jest. Yet again, you have intuition that is far and away from the reality of the situation. The domestics have the highest level of technology in the world. Guess where the worlds auto makers, and race teams come for talent, innovation, and expertise? Michigan. Why did Diamler merge with Chrysler? Chrysler had the highest tech. facilities in the world to bring Mercedes into the 21st century. When Mercedes transferred the cash to Germany; and brought that technology "home"; they left. The amount of forward thinking happening at GM, and Ford... and cutting build cost at Chrysler are simply staggering. All while giving fantastic wages to the people who assemble the cars. Drunk with greed? Maybe, just maybe... they were bringing everybody up. The 4$ / gallon price was nothing more than a bubble. The market reacted, and reacted quickly.

The level of R+D in the domestics is extreme. Just for example, to bring a car to market takes 4 - 5 years. Much of this is due to regulation. EPA, CAFE, Kalifornia's own independant smog/ global warming laws; DOT crash standards, etc. etc. etc. .... and the union's blocking way to kill existing cars, and start new lines.


Here is a scary reality
If Congress gave $50B directly to American consumers with the condition that we went out and bought new cars, here’s what would happen: $50B would buy 1,666,666 cars, based on the current average price of around $30,000 each. Given the current market share, GM at 22.4 percent would sell 373,333 vehicles, Ford (14.8%) would move 246,666 units, and Chrysler (11%) would sell 183,333 units. In other words, with fifty billion dollars going directly into the hands of consumers to buy a new car, the best any of the Big Three could do would be to sell a group of additional vehicles equating to less than one year’s worth of Honda Accord sales in America. (392,231 Accords were sold in the US in 2007.) Think that’s enough to keep them (or dealers) from failing? Nope!!!
Averaging $30k WTF. Pull another number out of your ass, it will be more accurate. 50% of all vehicle sales are trucks on the domestic side, and trucks are still the no. 1 selling vehicle in the world. After incentives, based F150 Fx4's are about 20,000$ ... perhaps less. And they are still pulling a profit. The no. 1 selling car (excluding trucks) right now is the Lincoln MKS; not a Toyota, not a Honda.

Average cost/car in the Domestic industry = $30,000 LOL. Puhhhhhhhlease. Keep in mind the volume of Focus/ Cobalts/ Saturns/ Stratus/ etc. etc. that sell for 10k or less. Competing right against the POS korean cars; with better build quality (at least in GM and Ford).


Inevitably, there are those out there who will say the Big Three are “too big to fail”. Television news channels are already reporting huge job loss potentials if the companies go out of business—from a few hundred thousand to somewhere around 3.0 million. For every one job at GM, Ford and Chrysler, there are seven positions at vendors providing parts and services for domestic auto production. Many stories assume that if the Big Three fail, all the jobs associated with GM, Ford, Chrysler, as well as all of their major suppliers go up in smoke. In other words: if they fail, we’re in a depression with millions of unemployed workers.
The number of unemployed people if the smallest of the Three fails is nearing 2,000,000 ... Just Chrysler, and increase that when including suppliers, dealers, private repair shops, fleet companies, etc. etc. Today, 1/5 people in the US have a job related to the Auto Industry. AIG employed 100,000 worldwide; and received no conditions of the bailout. The Banking company also received no conditions. Back in 2002, the Airline industry received no conditions; and was much smaller.

As we increase regulation, force Unionizing, we will be a service economy serving the new 1st world... China/ India which have no such regulations... Japan is taking losses too; but the Gov. already subsidizes most of their mfr. industry already in Japan. Why are we not so "proud" to buy American based on principal? Especially now as we have equal, and better vehicles than they do. GM offers more 30+ mpg vehicles than any other company in the WORLD. Additionally, 30 US MPG = 37.5 UK MPG.
The logical conclusion, claim these folks, is to keep the government money flowing– no matter how long it takes, otherwise the companies will implode, everyone in the industry will be out a job, and a depression is unavoidable. To these people I have just two words:
Some people say that. They have limited comprehension of the Automotive and Manufacturing world. If the credit markets hadn't imploded, they would have borrowed in the private sector if necessary... as proved by past actions. The biggest issues is that there is almost no domestic solution for raw goods anymore thanks to Clinton era EPA edicts. The general move is to eradicate Manufacturing from the US altogether; diminishing our ability to excersize our freedom. That does scare me.


BRITISH LEYLAND

Allow me to follow up those two words with a description of why this is critical history for every Member of Congress to know. England used to be tied with America as the automotive powerhouses in the world. We had Ford and Chevy, while they had Austin and Morris. Just like the contraction of companies in America that formed Ford-Lincoln-Mercury and General Motors, Austin joined Morris in BMC. Standard joined with Triumph, which was joined with Jaguar. Finally, by 1968 most British-owned brands were rolled into British Leyland.
British Layland proved that the Gov. should not be consulted when building cars for consumers.
Thanks to equal parts ineptitude, greed and lack of ethics, BL drove the British car industry into the ground. BL executives blamed the economy (including an oil crisis) and labor. Everyone else pointed the finger at products that were inferior to foreign competition, as well as short-sighted contracts and profiteering.
Ahem. It was their inability to build cars that people wanted. You are just hammering in points that seem like they are intuitive; but they are nowhere near the reality. You are short-sighted, and unable to accept that the company was top-heavy with it's gov. control over what was built... group think, cross platforms that were equally crap. If they built good cars that people wanted, they would exist today... stronger than ever.

Despite selling forty percent of the vehicles in Great Britain, by 1975 British Leyland was broke. The British Government sank millions into the group and became the majority shareholder. The corporation was reorganized, and millions more went to cure production and labor problems.

The company was again reorganized into saleable units. Jaguar-Daimler was sold-off in 1984 (two years later it went to Ford). The Leyland truck and bus unit was merged with Dutch DAF in 1987, which later sold bus operations to Volvo. Just a year later the Rover Group (including most of the remaining car business) was sold to British Aerospace, which turned around and immediately sold this remaining part of Great Britain’s auto industry to German BMW.
Gov. control fails, and so do companies that fail to build cars people want... all the while, during that era, new gov. controls nearly destroyed the auto industries WORLDWIDE. The same thing happened in the 2007 legislation in the US to up CAFE as happened 33 years ago. And guess what, it is causing the same issues all over again. Is it any guess?

You are missing such a big part of the picture with your analysis, it would be funny if times weren't so dire. I fear too many people think along the same lines you do.

Which puts us back to GM, Ford and Chrysler

If Congress simply let nature take its course, there is a strong chance that all would fail. In this case, do we honestly think that everything the companies owe would simply be auctioned off to the high bidder in front of the local courthouse?

All three companies own valuable plant assets. All still have cash. All own products and technology that are profit centers. There is certainly a big financial value to Chevy’s Volt, as well as Chrysler’s flexible plant locations, or Ford’s Mustang brand. The comapany and all jobs associated with them don't simply evaporate, because the valuable assets (and the people who create and maintain them) will be purchased.
Again, you are showing a short-sighted view that I fear too many Americans have. The plant's have value, the machinery has value, the brand has value. But after buying a firesale of all this material, who will pay the necessary R+D to bring either a new vehicle to market, or bring an existing vehicle up to EPA/ DOT/ CA SMOG etc. standards and certifications? Who will pay 100,000,000 to do that? A single line alone cannot survive alone.


Considering that Porsche just tried unsuccessfully to buy VW, it puts them back in the market for an entity that will enable them to meet 35-mpg CAFE standards. By the way, Porsche has also been one of the most profitable automakers of the last decade. (Turns out that selling overpriced sports-SUVs is a cash cow.) So even after the botched buyout, they have money to burn.
You must not have heard; Porsche own over 80% of VW now.

Hyundai is also a strong competitor without a good hybrid play, as is Mitsubishi. Both have money. Mitsubishi’s dedication to cars might be questionable, but Hyundai’s certainly is not. Honda could use a more diverse product range, especially upmarket. Even Toyota could make a case to buy one of the Big Three — Chrysler for flexible production facilities or GM for Volt plug-in technology (since it could take a big bite out of Hybrid Synergy Drive sales).
Strong competitor? LOL not based on market share, or competing vehicles. Mitsu have been building low-quality and low reliability for longer than I've been alive. They've been competing with Nissan and the French for poorly made cars for the last 20 years.

Then there’s BMW – the same company that at one time or another has purchased Rover, MG, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Austin/Morris/Mini, and still retains the rights for Triumph. They have cash and good credit…not to mention a pretty good history of acquiring, absorbing, improving operations, and remarketing companies. (We’ll give them a pass on Rover, which was a debacle, only because nothing short of a neutron bomb could have solved that company’s issues.) Finally, BMW has banked way too much on hydrogen over plug-in hybrids, so they could benefit from buying the technology, rather than developing it in house.
Ford have far more cash than BMW. People forget how much of the company is owned privately. Nobody has credit today. Another shortsighted statement. BMW have had quality issues since the beginning of the Bangle era. They are on the forefront of automotive design. They don't have enough market share, or profits to buy a major company...
Don’t count on Mercedes to get involved. The company is still sore from its marriage to Chrysler. It turns out Mercedes was ill prepared to deal with the complexities of a merger with such a dysfunctional corporation at a time when it was challenged with its own operational and technical issues. Consequently, Mercedes lost more money than a drunk billionaire trying to impress the hotties at the high roller baccarat tables.
Sore? Again, short sighted, and "intuitive" thoughts. Chrysler had $36 BILLION in cash when they "merged" and left only enough to cover legacy costs when they sold to Cerberus. Mercedes have a TON of money, and technology out of the merger. They lost nothing. Locally, we call Diamler "Crimeler" do to their treachery.

Hyundai, BMW, Porsche…Any of these companies could benefit by buying GM, Ford, or even Chrysler.
The Chinese are more likely to make the high offer.

All have experience designing, building, marketing, selling, and servicing in America already, and do so with high profit margins.
Their profit margins come from cheap labor, and raw material prices in sweat shops; not from the domestic sales/ servicing/ manufacturing. These companies are happy to take a loss on the US side with plants; and happy to take our talent in their tech centers. But don't kid yourself; the profits come from obsessively cheap labor with little legacy costs.

No doubt each and any foreign buyer would bust the unions and negotiate dumping retirement benefits on the US government. Then the companies would kill poor performing legacy products, as well as the people who continued to push losing strategies. Good niche brands and solid future technologies would be exploited, while albatrosses like Hummer would likely be closed down or sold to a greater fool.
WTF are you talking about? Much of that would not happen until bankruptcy. Buying a company cannot force the unions down. Diamler couldn't, Cerberus couldn't. China can't, and neither can the Koreans. Only bankruptcy can. Obviously you seem to have missed a lot of the announcements. Amid the current market, GM have announced they are postponing truck based SUV's indefinitely. A self proclaimed analyst who doesn't know freely available information such as this scares me that you have a "voice" on the web as an expert, or that people are
+1
your thoughts truly scare me.

In the end, America would have to let go the concept of the American Big Three. One could get caught up in buzzwords like “failure”, but the goal is to save money and jobs.
I see it the failure of the American government, and education process that allow somebody like you to chop it up to the industry failing. They didn't fail in the 70's, they didn't fail in the 21st century. The government has even more then the unions.
No matter how we look at it, American jobs will be lost. The difference is that if the US Congress pushes the Big Three to sell, more people will actually be able to keep jobs. Granted some will do so at reduced wages and most at decreased long-term benefits. Wouldn’t it be better, however, for these people to work for a competitive company again – one that isn’t in jeopardy of needing to make more layoffs or beg for more government money next year?

Congress might still decide to throw good money after bad at GM, Ford and Chrysler, just like the British did for BL, but the best course of action is to allow these dinosaurs implode under their own weight sooner rather than later, and work to convince German, Japanese and Korean automakers to bring them back to life as more efficient, better targeted and longer-reaching versions of their old selves using the American workers and suppliers who are willing to adapt to a new world with a view far beyond the self-interests of Michigan and D.C..
The Germans have no interest in the Big 3, and Ford is in no place to consider selling an option. The only thing that the Asians would do is steal the technology to build better cars, and leave the US "high and dry" forcing the manufacturing industry to be a tiny facsimile of itself.
Editor’s Note: We here at the Four Wheel Drift realize that this whole bailout issue is far more complicated than can be summarized in one article. We expect that if Alan Mulally or Rick Wagoner read the above article, they’d accuse us of missing important details. (We’d expect that Bob Lutz would say we’ve got our heads up our asses if we thought it was that simple.) The fact is that it isn’t simple. It took nearly a century for GM, Ford and Chrysler to create the mess they’re in, and there are no easy answers. We are simply taking a stand that might prove unpopular with car folks, especially those emotionally tied to the long history of American auto producers, and suggesting that the only way to stay competitive is to admit that there is no way to stay competitive by just taking government money and tightening belts.
The cop out statement that says "hey, we aren't the experts!!!" that the little people will overlook. 100 years to get the mess we're in? No, it's taken 100 years for the Government to try to kill it.

I'm not entirely "for" the bailout, but not entirely against it. If they were serious about it, the 2007 CAFE legislation, and DOT crash reg. would be suspended until the industry is ready to meet the next challenge properly.

I hope you take responsibility for your article, and put my challenges to it in your next issue.
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 02:48 PM   #2
dutchmasterflex
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,566
Default

That is a lot of time spent on this.

Seriously, the biggest factor in the US Automakers demise is union workers pension plan. That is the root of why they have lost market share to competing Japanese manufacturers.
__________________
dutchmasterflex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 02:54 PM   #3
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

Originally Posted by dutchmasterflex View Post
That is a lot of time spent on this.

Seriously, the biggest factor in the US Automakers demise is union workers pension plan. That is the root of why they have lost market share to competing Japanese manufacturers.
So, it's not the collapse of the credit market?

Based on my experience, the three biggest factors of where we are today are this

1. Government - Creating the credit crisis worldwide by giving loans to people who had no business getting them.
2. Government - CAFE/ EPA
3. Government - Obtuse DOT laws and trials to ensure. The companies have an interest in protecting their customers.
4. Unions
5. Litigation

People forget oil shot from 90-150$/ barrel in 6 weeks, and dropped now from that high to $55/ barrel. Why? Obviously, the market could not support those prices.
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 05:31 PM   #4
dutchmasterflex
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,566
Default

That is the main reason why America's car manufactures are dying.

And this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallSt...6285739&page=2

On the way to beg for a bail out, they of course, flew on their private jets God forbid they cut costs by flying commercial..
__________________
dutchmasterflex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 07:58 PM   #5
graywolf624
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hellaware USA
Posts: 3,865
Default

So, it's not the collapse of the credit market?
In GMs case.. No it is not. GM has been losing billions a year since 2004. CAFE/EPA changes and the credit crisis had not begun. It's the cost of labor.. The cost of labor to GM is 3-4 x that of a labor at toyotas US plants. Theres no way they can be competitive in that environment. The solution is not a bailout. The solution is chapter 11 and the dealer and union contracts become null and void.
__________________
Common Sense- so rare it's a super power.
graywolf624 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 09:51 PM   #6
r2r
Regular User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Detroit
Posts: 1,562
Default

Just came across this completely random, but it seems like it fits here perfectly...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...s/4292379.html
r2r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 09:58 PM   #7
dutchmasterflex
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,566
Default

Originally Posted by graywolf624 View Post
In GMs case.. No it is not. GM has been losing billions a year since 2004. CAFE/EPA changes and the credit crisis had not begun. It's the cost of labor.. The cost of labor to GM is 3-4 x that of a labor at toyotas US plants. Theres no way they can be competitive in that environment. The solution is not a bailout. The solution is chapter 11 and the dealer and union contracts become null and void.

Whoa, are you serious? If they go bankrupt, they are free from paying out to their employees?!.. makes sense now that I think of it.. but damn that's going to suck for all those workers.
__________________
dutchmasterflex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 10:01 PM   #8
RC45
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,413
Default

Originally Posted by graywolf624 View Post
In GMs case.. No it is not. GM has been losing billions a year since 2004. CAFE/EPA changes and the credit crisis had not begun. It's the cost of labor.. The cost of labor to GM is 3-4 x that of a labor at toyotas US plants. Theres no way they can be competitive in that environment. The solution is not a bailout. The solution is chapter 11 and the dealer and union contracts become null and void.
But the common perception in the market place will be to not buy cars from a bankrupt car company.

Sales will stall and there wil lbe no emergence from receivership.

The US government needs to pony up and do something strategic fo rthe country and make sure that the US maintains its manufacturing base.

When WWWIII breaks out (and it will) the US needs to not be caught napping without any local oil production, steel production and auto production plants.

This may be a "global" market place, but it is still a selfishly nationalistic world.
RC45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 10:52 PM   #9
graywolf624
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hellaware USA
Posts: 3,865
Default

.. makes sense now that I think of it.. but damn that's going to suck for all those workers.
I agree it will suck. But lets face it. To be competitive with Toyota with the current labor GM has three choices: Sell the car at a loss, reduce content by the difference between the twos labor costs, or not sell cars. Short of repositioning themselves to sell luxury cars where you buy with your heart their screwed.

Its not all the unions fault though. Management was dumb enough to agree to it.

But the common perception in the market place will be to not buy cars from a bankrupt car company
Based on what? If that was the case you would think the purchases already would have stopped.. Is there any difference between a company that declared bankruptcy and one everyone knows will? That ignores the fact that the company itself could be parceled off to other buyers eliminating the bankruptcy concern all together. The reality is, the only real losers in a bankruptcy are the employees. In a bailout there is no winner as the conditions that caused GM to fail cannot be removed without bankruptcy.

When WWWIII breaks out (and it will) the US needs to not be caught napping without any local oil production, steel production and auto production plants.
First off the US auto plants won't go away. They will be bought and run by others. GMs assets well exceed its market cap afterall, and buying the line to sell the cars doesnt mean you have to take the UAW.

Second off, dpmestics are not the only local auto production. The Honda, Toyota, etc plants are not going anywhere and could serve the same purpose. Local oil production hasnt gone away either, except when the enviros go nuts. Theres little to no evidence of lack of availability of manufacturing capacity. Manufacturing capacity has reduced of course. But it would have even without foreign competition. The productivity growth of our manufacturing is not good. Case closed.
__________________
Common Sense- so rare it's a super power.
graywolf624 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 12:12 AM   #10
MidEngine4Life
Regular User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 1,126
Default

In demand? Your inflection is based on intuition that is simply not supported by the facts. So far in 2008, ALL hybrids make up 2.6% of all vehicles SOLD. Another 6% are flex-fuel vehicles, while over 90% of those vehicles have never filled up with E85.
He's implying that 100% of hybrids that are made are sold, and quickly. Whereas nobody is buying SUV's these days and their resale value is plummeting because of it. Thats a fact

Of all vehicles, big and small made this year so far, what % of those vehicles are hybrids? 2.6%?
__________________
Clarkson: "Why have they never sold mustangs here?"
May: "Well, because they're rubbish"

Last edited by MidEngine4Life; 11-20-2008 at 12:21 AM.
MidEngine4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 12:18 AM   #11
RC45
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,413
Default

Originally Posted by graywolf624 View Post
Its not all the unions fault though. Management was dumb enough to agree to it.
No - unions have unbelievable political clout and managment over the years had little choice but to agree.

Originally Posted by graywolf624 View Post
Based on what?
Based onthe facts that just a perceived better quality of import cars had buyers flocking to buy the "better" cars.

I think you place far too much fath in statistics skewed to paint a postive picture.

Originally Posted by graywolf624 View Post
If that was the case you would think the purchases already would have stopped.. Is there any difference between a company that declared bankruptcy and one everyone knows will?
Yes - the pre-bankruptcy company is just a foot note in the media.. the post bankcruptcy company will be at the mercy of the anti-American media that did a good job of painting false pictures vizaviz quality etc.

Originally Posted by graywolf624 View Post
That ignores the fact that the company itself could be parceled off to other buyers eliminating the bankruptcy concern all together. The reality is, the only real losers in a bankruptcy are the employees. In a bailout there is no winner as the conditions that caused GM to fail cannot be removed without bankruptcy.
Sure - and with the company goes the patents and technologies etc. So to make the most academic economic sense (which takes no strategic acocunt of the reality of a modern combative world into account) let the companies flounder and fail and let economic darwinism take its course.

I could care less abotu the "ripple effect" in the economy, because many of those satellite comapnies are going to face huge layoffs anyway in 2009 - but again, as stupid as refusing to drill US oil is strategic suicide, so is not maintaining the integrity of tUS manufacturing.

Originally Posted by graywolf624 View Post
First off the US auto plants won't go away. They will be bought and run by others. GMs assets well exceed its market cap afterall, and buying the line to sell the cars doesnt mean you have to take the UAW.
Assuming the plants are not simply closed and scrapped. Buying the lines to make cars is done in the context of the political environment in which the plant exists.

You are not going to buy an auto plant in Michigan in 2009 and simply reopen it without out the UAW. The UAW won Obama the state - that is some powerful political backing.

Originally Posted by graywolf624 View Post
Second off, dpmestics are not the only local auto production. The Honda, Toyota, etc plants are not going anywhere and could serve the same purpose.
Those profits leave the country and you are forgetting a little detail - non-secret ballot for union elections. There is a reason for this push by the Dems - all those UAW-free fuurin plants are in for a rude awakeing in 2009.

But again, that does not save US manufacturing, just guarantees the fuurin makers will eventually be forced ou of the US market and will head to friendlier shores.

Originally Posted by graywolf624 View Post
Local oil production hasnt gone away either, except when the enviros go nuts. Theres little to no evidence of lack of availability of manufacturing capacity. Manufacturing capacity has reduced of course. But it would have even without foreign competition. The productivity growth of our manufacturing is not good. Case closed.
And your conclusion is simply of economic academic interest. And I am willing to bet the "producitvity" reduction was not organic and rather fueled by unbalanced labour agreements, lopsided trade agreements and foreign punitive tariffs.

I was cleaning ou the garage this wekend, and looking at my many sets of tools. I have 3 sets of Stanley chisels - one set bought in 1996 made in England, 1 set bought in 1999 made in the USA and 1 set bought in 2005 made in China.

I have saws, drills, flashlight, knives, scalpels, vices, batteries, rechargers, power cord, pulleys, hoists, lawn care equipment and power tools.

The reality is everything bought prior to 1997 is all eithe rmade in the UK, USA, Germany or Mexico.

Everything else is made in China. This bares repeating - everything else after 1999 is made in China.

Now, explain to me how in 1997 a 25lb vice was able to be forged in the USA while the new vice I bought last year was forged in China a shipped to the USA?

Explain why all my Bosch and DeWalt powertools pre 1998 were made in Germany and the USA and all the replacement parts are made in China?

I do not believe that the "producitvity" of the east improved so drastically that these goods simply found themselves made in China.

No, the producitivty of the west was falsly depressed to make moving these plants and manufacture from the west to China to simply to boost corporate coffers in the short term.

All of the Chinese sourced items have quality issues, where as the US, German and UK sourced items are still going - some already 10 and 12 years old.

This short term pursuit of corporate office profit (and stock price performance) was very short sighted.

The west using China as its factory has done very little for the average citizen - well it has brought untold wealth to China.

People either want the USA (and the west) to remain a powerful and dominanant player in the 21st century, or they don't.

I guess one has to wonder if the exodus of production from the USA to the east was because of groundwork Clinton put in motion orr because Bush was asleep at the wheel and allowed the exodus to cntinue unchecked?

Strategic suicide is what it was.

Last edited by RC45; 11-20-2008 at 12:55 AM.
RC45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 04:47 AM   #12
79TA
Regular User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,570
Default

Just curious, Nth, did you post your response on that other forum too? I'm so sick of people (like whoever wrote that) suddenly playing automotive expert because they see a story about it on the news every now and then.
79TA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 08:04 AM   #13
graywolf624
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hellaware USA
Posts: 3,865
Default

Based onthe facts that just a perceived better quality of import cars had buyers flocking to buy the "better" cars.

I think you place far too much fath in statistics skewed to paint a postive picture.
And I think you choose to ignore 100 years of observations and scientific study to form an opinion based on your emotions rather then whats right for the US.

No - unions have unbelievable political clout and managment over the years had little choice but to agree.
We agree on the first part of the statement at least.

Yes - the pre-bankruptcy company is just a foot note in the media.. the post bankcruptcy company will be at the mercy of the anti-American media that did a good job of painting false pictures vizaviz quality etc.
From where I stand that media has been bashing GM as a potentia bankruptcy for over a decade. I guess Texas has more pro big 3 media then the north east.

Sure - and with the company goes the patents and technologies etc. So to make the most academic economic sense (which takes no strategic acocunt of the reality of a modern combative world into account) let the companies flounder and fail and let economic darwinism take its course.
First your assuming the patents will go to China. You or I could just as well be the next owner of those patents. 2nd off.. economic darwinism and free markets is the best choice. Unless your omniscient as a policy holder theres no way you can know what to promote and what will fail no matter your involvement. Involvement with the wrong group is good money after bad and encouraging the wrong type of movement of business. If you can't succeed then move over for those who can so they can have the capital.

as refusing to drill US oil is strategic suicide, so is not maintaining the integrity of tUS manufacturing.
Completely different issues. 1 has us focus on our comparative advantage which lowers the price of goods in the US.. The other (the oil duh) artificially jacks up prices by keeping someone out of the market that otherwise would be there. Kind of like protectionism actually.

Those profits leave the country and you are forgetting a little detail - non-secret ballot for union elections. There is a reason for this push by the Dems - all those UAW-free fuurin plants are in for a rude awakeing in 2009.
Maybe the solution then is to ban unions. As for where the profits go.. Who cares. The wages go into the local economy as does the employment. The goods sold are cheaper.. And we grab profits from elsewhere and those of us who own toyota stock get the profit anyway.

And I am willing to bet the "producitvity" reduction was not organic and rather fueled by unbalanced labour agreements, lopsided trade agreements and foreign punitive tariffs.
And you would be wrong. The reduction in US productivity is directly traced to 3 things: The drop in US savings rates, the culture where education is not valued, and the movement of technological advancement studies to other locations. Not a one of those has to do with trade and all of them are provable. Tech advancement has more influence on productivity then anything else in the world.

Everything else is made in China. This bares repeating - everything else after 1999 is made in China.
The numbers dont back your assertion. International trade is still only 10 percent or so of the US economy. Thats just your emotional take.

This short term pursuit of corporate office profit (and stock price performance) was very short sighted.
I won't argue against this.. But what goes up, also comes down. The companies are already realizing their mistake and bringing things back. Thats a company decision level though, not a government. Dont like it.. buy from the made in the US company.. Oh wait.. thats Honda and Toyota.

Strategic suicide is what it was.
Funny people use to make your same statements for Japan and the Soviet Union. How did that work out again?
__________________
Common Sense- so rare it's a super power.
graywolf624 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 11:30 AM   #14
RC45
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,413
Default

Originally Posted by graywolf624 View Post
The numbers dont back your assertion. International trade is still only 10 percent or so of the US economy. Thats just your emotional take.
And the other 90%? Some would be inter-company business, and the rest woul be the internal handling and distribution of the mass-imported consumer goods.

To pretend that shipping all manufacture offshore to prop up a just-in-time supplychain model is "the perfect" solution is disingenuous at best, and the musings of an industry insider at worst

Remember how the north east suffered when we had a hurricane and the fuel supply chain was impacted?

Now if the Somali pirates branch out and decide to go after shipping wholeslae I guess the just-in-time model takes a hit.

But anyway, its time for me to go earn some money in this fast shrinking market... heaven knows the stock market (that ultimate tool of the capitalist) is not going to take care of me in the near term
RC45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 11:52 AM   #15
dutchmasterflex
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,566
Default

I totally agree with Gray... not sure if the car companies will actually file bankruptcy though, although they really need to kill those contracts. It all goes down to how Detroit Auto Manufactures are managed.. they were stubborn, not wanting to change with the times and markets, and giving the union workers a killer pension plan has put them in a pretty deep grave.

About WWIII (so glad you brought that up RC), I still think, as a Information Economy (technology) we still have a much stronger advantage when it comes to warfare.. even though the majority of our troops are struggling to get the right equipment on the fields. I've seen what the defense contractors in this country are making.. and it definitely makes me feel safe going into the next few years being an American.... just as long as they dont sell out the latest technology to other countries.
__________________
dutchmasterflex is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump