And I have to specify how un-innovative the Viper is. It was the brainchild of Carrol Shelby, the guy who invented the Cobra in 1962. It was not innovation in concept (big engine, small car), but getting his engine from Ford, and his chassis from AC, was an innovation.
Ah, but let us not forget the tax breaks. One could get up to a $100,000 tax break for buying an SUV, but only $4000 for a hybrid or electric.
The corporations and the workers pay the price of misguided management. The execs have huge retirements and big salaries. Then the good old boy exec network gets them jobs screwing up another industry.Their motivation is to look profitable while they are in charge,whether they are or not.
The viper is innovative in the styling and the fact that it is not just another box with a wheel in each corner.It is a completely different market than most previously produced.
Fit of the autos is a canard. The fit is assured through robotic assembly and design. There is automation everywhere and it is as good in the big three as anywhere else,probably a lot better.
Ever heard of a Corvette? They’ve been producing it since '53. There is absolutely nothing innovative about the Viper. It is a formula that is at least 45 years old, and done by the same person as back then, and it was not really an innovation when he did it last time. Chrysler really does not innovate lately. Bosch has, Lotus has, I can’t think of an innovation by a U.S. auto manufacturer in a long time. (End hijack)
The owners are some ambiguous group 'the stock holders. They have no power. The execs run the candy shop and do what they want. Ford actually was a little different. The Ford Fam actually could exercise some control. Who thinks a rich privileged group like that has their pulse on the wants and needs of the masses.?
The companies were at their best when the car lovers ran them.
What’s your point? It’s the stock holders’ own fault that they did not exercise their power, and let the management drive the company into the ground.
I still don’t see why this is a failure of capitalism. Capitalism provides no guarantee that every company will survive and succeed. It guarantees that inefficient, mismanaged companies will fail, and more efficient ones will take their place. Which is exactly what is happening here.
Nothing inefficient about the Big Three. They made huge amounts of money only a few years ago. The management,however was thinking short term and thinking of themselves.The Big Three were able to produce huge quantities of cars in many sizes ,shapes and colors. Not inefficient but poorly managed.
Inefficient in the long term, then. Do we need to quibble about definitions? I think the point is made.
Actually inefficient and poorly run are not synonymous.
Stock holders run no corporations. They invest and sign proxy statements.
A poorly-run company will become inefficient.
Stock holders have the power to control who runs the company, using said proxy statements. They also have the power to sell their stock if they don’t approve of the way management is conducting business.
Stockholders are such a diverse group that they have no commom interests and lines of communication. Stock holders do not arise.
I would say they all have a common interest in seeing that the company they are investing in is well-run and well-managed.
No, they are largely institutions (in the UK) and pile out at the first sign of trouble.
A sensible fund manager is a computer trader, sell on any downturn, buy on any upturn. The underlying company is of little interest.
Did Iacocca say that or did you say that? With no cites, quotes, or real attributions in a rather weak OP, it’s hard to know exactly what your reality is.