Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Originally Posted by johnsocal
Surcharges and/or import taxes will just make cars more expensive which will only contribute to inflation which will make people have less disposable income.
While this might be a good short term solution but in the long term GM and Ford must correct their money-bleeding business model and make cars that people will pay a premium for. When the government gets into the business of proping up industries that can no longer make a profit with their current business model, it will unfortunately drain money, energy and resources away from those industries and entrepreneurs who can. You either have to finance the future or pay the price of proping-up the past and in then end you have to put your money where you will actually get the best return on your investment.
Historically speaking, government (by design) is an inherently a slow, inefficient, non-innovative monopoly and I wouldn't trust any business decision they came up with or any advice how to cut cost since they are the worst offenders of all time. I personally view the government more of a “leach’ then a “life-raft” .
For those who doubt the free-market or dont understand how it really works I 'really' suggest that you visit http://jonathangullible.com/ and click on the short Flash-animated cartoon in the bottom right-hand corner titled "Philosphy of Liberty".
Or if you think we are all going to hell in a handbasket anyway, checkout the comical 'End of the World' cartoon @ http://www.jokaroo.com/ecards/funny/...the-world.html
While this might be a good short term solution but in the long term GM and Ford must correct their money-bleeding business model and make cars that people will pay a premium for. When the government gets into the business of proping up industries that can no longer make a profit with their current business model, it will unfortunately drain money, energy and resources away from those industries and entrepreneurs who can. You either have to finance the future or pay the price of proping-up the past and in then end you have to put your money where you will actually get the best return on your investment.
Historically speaking, government (by design) is an inherently a slow, inefficient, non-innovative monopoly and I wouldn't trust any business decision they came up with or any advice how to cut cost since they are the worst offenders of all time. I personally view the government more of a “leach’ then a “life-raft” .
For those who doubt the free-market or dont understand how it really works I 'really' suggest that you visit http://jonathangullible.com/ and click on the short Flash-animated cartoon in the bottom right-hand corner titled "Philosphy of Liberty".
Or if you think we are all going to hell in a handbasket anyway, checkout the comical 'End of the World' cartoon @ http://www.jokaroo.com/ecards/funny/...the-world.html
I don't for a minute think GM would go under (unless they don't speed up their approval process, which I think they are already fixing). I think Ford's going to also survive, though they will be a much smaller company.
But I think saying under no circumstances would we offer any assistance to a company like GM or Ford is pretty irresponsible. Anyone who's followed my occasional rants over the years know that I pretty much agree with Bush's assesment that both GM and Ford need to market cars that people want.
It was a completely stupid of GM during the Zarella era to think that fuel prices would never shoot up again and investing so much into trucks at the expense of cars. It was also dumb of Ford to choke out costs of their bread & butter cars to finance PAG and some of the other purchases of the Nasser era. Got to always protect your core.
Both GM & Ford have plenty of assets to sell before they get anywhere near going under, so maybe this whole issue is premature.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,579
From: The Land of Pleasant Living
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Originally Posted by johnsocal
Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
If he didn't bail out FORD or GM then he looks like he anti-worker and if he does bail them out it makes him look like he saving his big corporate buddies from the consequences of making gas guzzeling and earth-killing trucks/SUVs that aren't selling like they used to.
If he didn't bail out FORD or GM then he looks like he anti-worker and if he does bail them out it makes him look like he saving his big corporate buddies from the consequences of making gas guzzeling and earth-killing trucks/SUVs that aren't selling like they used to.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Originally Posted by ProudPony
To expect a guy that ran 2 businesses into bankruptcy (and made money from having them bought out of his control) to have any sympathy for a struggling business is goofy at best.
I could care less what the goober said. He knows nothing about running a business, his record is 0-2, and he should not be commenting on such items as a government representative. He obviously has no clue what kind of employment and economic jeopardy the big 2 automakers yield in our US economy. If they go down, so do HUNDREDS of independent businesses with 100,000's of workers too.
The simple history lesson behind Chrysler in the 1980's should be enough to prove that good things can come from helping those in need when justified.
King Bush has spoken.
GM and Ford must make cars of better design, or they will be wire-tapped, and the US will declare war on their design departments for having "designs of mass destruction".
Bah!
I could care less what the goober said. He knows nothing about running a business, his record is 0-2, and he should not be commenting on such items as a government representative. He obviously has no clue what kind of employment and economic jeopardy the big 2 automakers yield in our US economy. If they go down, so do HUNDREDS of independent businesses with 100,000's of workers too.
The simple history lesson behind Chrysler in the 1980's should be enough to prove that good things can come from helping those in need when justified.
King Bush has spoken.
GM and Ford must make cars of better design, or they will be wire-tapped, and the US will declare war on their design departments for having "designs of mass destruction".
Bah!
I agree.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 627
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Originally Posted by ProudPony
GM and Ford must make cars of better design, or they will be wire-tapped, and the US will declare war on their design departments for having "designs of mass destruction".
Bah!
Bah!
Registered User
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,238
From: Wet Coast
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Curious as to how "import" competitors building their vehicles in plants located on these shores can escape paying their employees similar benefits as the big 3?
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Originally Posted by guionM
I understand completely what you are saying. But there are some companies Both GM & Ford have plenty of assets to sell before they get anywhere near going under, so maybe this whole issue is premature.
As a fellow Californian, you should check out that 'End of the Word' animated cartoon if you want a good laugh.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Political allegiances aside, its just another example of a politician being out of touch with the auto industry.
Surely Bush can see that suppliers are also going broke... maybe Bush should also address the US-based suppliers and tell them what they should do to stay afloat.
Surely Bush can see that suppliers are also going broke... maybe Bush should also address the US-based suppliers and tell them what they should do to stay afloat.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Originally Posted by mr00jimbo
Curious as to how "import" competitors building their vehicles in plants located on these shores can escape paying their employees similar benefits as the big 3?
Recongnized unemployment may be reported at about 5%, but that figure ignores those who have been out of work for over 1 year, those enrolled in school because they can't get work, and those who are working part-time retail to pay bills while looking for a "career" job, etc.
People are really desperate right now, and most don't have any bargaining power to negotiate benefits.
That's it in a nutshell.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Originally Posted by ProudPony
Because TRUE unemployment is around 11% right now and people will work for whatever they can get.
I'll be patiently waiting for your reply.
Last edited by johnsocal; Jan 26, 2006 at 08:41 PM.
Super Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,026
From: Japan
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Originally Posted by mr00jimbo
Curious as to how "import" competitors building their vehicles in plants located on these shores can escape paying their employees similar benefits as the big 3?
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
It looks like Ford doesn't want a government bailout after all.
Ford says 'no thanks' to govt. bailout
The automaker says it's not interested in any government bailout to help it reverse its financial slide.
January 26, 2006: 6:03 PM EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. is not interested in any government bailout to help it reverse its financial slide, the company said Thursday.
Ford (Research) said in a statement there were many steps it could take with government to help its business, but a financial bailout was not one of them.
The Bush administration has signaled that it would not support a bailout for distressed U.S. automakers, while congressional lawmakers have suggested help for the industry that does not include a bailout.
Ford says 'no thanks' to govt. bailout
The automaker says it's not interested in any government bailout to help it reverse its financial slide.
January 26, 2006: 6:03 PM EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. is not interested in any government bailout to help it reverse its financial slide, the company said Thursday.
Ford (Research) said in a statement there were many steps it could take with government to help its business, but a financial bailout was not one of them.
The Bush administration has signaled that it would not support a bailout for distressed U.S. automakers, while congressional lawmakers have suggested help for the industry that does not include a bailout.
Last edited by johnsocal; Jan 26, 2006 at 08:01 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Originally Posted by johnsocal
It looks like Ford doesn't want a government bailout after all.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Originally Posted by ProudPony
Because TRUE unemployment is around 11% right now (much higher in some local areas) and people will work for whatever they can get.
Even in the 1990's we didn't achieve full employment until the later part of the decade and it wasn't until 1999 and 2000 that the dot.com bubble assisted in propelling the US well beyond full employment and people saw huge wage increases in those two short years because of it. Unfortunately most of the dot.com's had poor business models that were not able to produce a profit to justify their 'priced-for-perfection' stock price and it all came crumbling down and took the rest of the economy down with it.
In the interim here's something to read about 'full employment':
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/19/news...reut/index.htm
Jobless claims at nearly 6-year low
Federal Reserve officials believe strong U.S. growth has lifted the economy close to full employment -- a theoretical concept indicating the lowest level of unemployment the United States can sustain without triggering wage inflation.
The unemployment rate dropped to 4.9 percent in December despite lackluster job growth of just 108,000 last month.*
Federal Reserve officials believe strong U.S. growth has lifted the economy close to full employment -- a theoretical concept indicating the lowest level of unemployment the United States can sustain without triggering wage inflation.
The unemployment rate dropped to 4.9 percent in December despite lackluster job growth of just 108,000 last month.*
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11043983/site/newsweek/
For more than a decade now, if you asked a chief executive why his company was shifting operations to China and other cheap-labor manufacturing centers, the answer would be to cut costs. But lately, there’s been a significant shift. According to the CEO survey, nearly two thirds of these executives now say their principle reason for investing in these countries is less to reduce costs than to guarantee access to China's new and fast-growing consumer markets. “Outsourcing is no longer chiefly about lowering costs,” says PricewaterhouseCoopers CEO Samuel DiPiazza. “Increasingly, multinational companies are investing in countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China because they represent substantial growth opportunities in their own right.”
Last edited by johnsocal; Jan 27, 2006 at 01:39 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 826
From: No where
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
To expect a guy that ran 2 businesses into bankruptcy (and made money from having them bought out of his control) to have any sympathy for a struggling business is goofy at best.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Re: Bush to GM, Ford: Make more appealing cars
Originally Posted by mr00jimbo
Curious as to how "import" competitors building their vehicles in plants located on these shores can escape paying their employees similar benefits as the big 3?
Pay and benefits paid by transplants are on par with the domestic automotive industry and for the COL for where their jobs are located.
And please note for those who want to get in an argument about specific leave policy or whatever I said on par meaning not exactly the same - as an overall package, they stack up quite well with the industry.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; Jan 27, 2006 at 09:18 AM.