The US govt owns about 640,000 vehicles. They replace them every 3-5 years.
There’s some bad info being tossed around here. First off, while GM hardly has a lock on it, GM is already very, very big in the fleet vehicle business. Second, national healthcare, unless it were ludicrously generous, would not help GM because its auto workers would prefer their superior contract healthcare. It would also push even more manufacturing outside the country. Tariffs would seriously hurt Gm, probably much mroe than Toyota or Honda.
And frankly, GM just plain sucks. It’s recovered the m@d sk1llz somewhat in recent years, but the plain fact is that the entrenched management was horrifically incompetent and knee-capped their own company. The union doesn’t help, either. When it finally does go under, it will be broken up and valuable parts/brands/resources put to good use, or it will shed bad parts and be totally restructured.
The problem is that, frankly, bailouts don’t actually fix the problem, because the management doesn’t want to face the issue of a painful restrucuting. They’re too close to the company, emotionally, and too much invested in it.
Who the hell said anything about healthcare? Or was the point just to throw around some far right caricatures of liberals? I was simply pointing out that when we deem something to be a sufficient emergency we worry about paying for it later. See the actions of George Bush in response to 9/11 or the bailout plan that was also pushed by the current Republican administration.
I’m not saying that I necessarily agree that it is that dire of an emergency, but if Congress deemed it to be there is ample precedent for acting.
Fair enough.
I wasn’t arguing that the Federal government had the power to do it (although they almost certainly do). Rather I was pointing out that the necessary power to require taxis to go green already exists at the state level.
The Big 3 have been very vigorous in fighting higher fleet averages. They loved making many thousands on each vehicle sold. They are paying for the successful lobbying now. They should have long ago been forced to make smaller more efficient cars. They fought it kicking and screaming until the end. The big ugly over sized vehicles we love to make are no longer viable.
The big 3 had been involved in vehicles that were not ICE s for many years. I remember the Chrysler turbine on the streets in the 60s and 70s. I worked on the Wankel engine program that GM bought . They had electric cars for many years. They just loved making 5 tho a car. Now some one has to pay for their short term greed.
Chrysler Turbine Car - Wikipedia They had a them driving all over the city in the 60s.
I just hope it’s not the line workers.
I find it interesting that the Wall St bailout was “necessary for the economy”, but that the auto manufacturers should “just die”. Guess it depends on who lines the pockets these days, eh?
I was against the Wall St bailout, and I’m against a bailout for the auto industry.
Many people will suffer, including me. (I do a lot of work for Ford & GM.)
But throwing money into a burning building is not a good idea. Let these companies die, and let the smart, capable people go off and find capital to start new, better companies.
I believe you’ll find that many have said the banks should just die, if you take some time too look around. Not that I agree with them, mind you, just saying.
Anyway, I don’t think propping up GM is good for anyone except GM, and even then I’m not sure. It isn’t like the knowledge or technology will vanish. If GM was really so good for all these other industries, as some claim, it wouldn’t be failing. In some cases tariffs might be a good idea (e.g., they could represent a pollution tax on imports from countries with lax legislation) but overall it’s not a good idea. Imports mean we’re using someone else’s resources instead of our own. That’s awesome. Import like a motherfuck, I say.
Has anyone ever read the simplistic but telling story of the Iowa Car crop?
Moderator’s Warning: Driver8, please don’t tell other posters to fuck themselves or to get fucked in this forum.
What is wrong with protecting our country and our citizens? Japan played fast and lose with the value of the yen and we declined to make a fuss about it and that was the main reason people began buying Japanese cars—they were cheaper and there was also a lot of dumping. They bought their way into other industries, including mine, and dumped product at a loss until they learned how to manufacture our products. Do you have any idea as to why South Carolina* is the largest hog raising state? It is simply because Japan is the largest consumer of pork and they decline to louse up their rivers and ground waters with the huge amount of manure that hog farms produce. I think it is well past time that the USA begins to protect the country and its citizens. YMMV
*I believe SC holds the record but my info comes from memory and might be wrong.
If this is the case, American car companies aren’t competing with Japan, they’re competing with American pig farmers.
Draw me a simple graphic that explains just what you’re talking about. As I’ve mentioned, I had spinal surgery in August and I’m still having a lot of pain, off and on. Today is a bad day and it isn’t time for my next pain pill and I’m having a lot of trouble thinking of anything but that pill. I suspect that after I take that pill, though, I still won’t be able to understand your post. I’m sure that it makes sense, but not to me.
Sorry, being the first post on page 2 you may have missed this link telling an intriguing story of growing cars in Iowa.
Can you expand on this? Examples? Because as far as I know there are plenty of international treaties which prevent this kind of thing and countries can complain and there are arbitration and adjudication systems set up. I am quite sure this would not be allowed by the rules of the EU. So, please enlighten us with examples we can discuss in particular.
And, by the way, the USA has a rather poor record of abiding by the rulings when they are not in their favor.
By the way, the Michigan congressional delegation lobbied HARD to have SUVs considered trucks (so they would not be subject to CAFE gasoline mileage requirements). Detroit got what it wanted-lecense to sell those enormous gas guzzling SUVs. This made sense for dtroit-when gasoline was cheap. Now they have factories that can’t make small cars. I guess Senator CarlLevinought to be proud of himself-he is the real author of this disaster!
It was this thinking that made the 1930s so very good economically. It seems to me these arguments are to make GM like the FIAT, a state supported permanent sickman of autos. Maybe with its debt level, the US can now aspire to be like Italy, no?
They are paid compairable wages specifically because of UAW contracts, in order to keep the ‘need for’ unions out.
__
They reason the domestic automakers (not just GM) are looking for some help in the form of Federal Loans (not tarrifs) is due to the economic crisis.
And GMs not the only automaker hurt by the finincial crisis. Toyota is crying to their government for help as well -
It behooved us in the '80s to bail out Chrysler, but not GM in the '00s?
The Chrysler bailout wasn’t actually a bailout. It was a loan guarantee. The government never actually put any money down, they simply acted as a co-signer.