You are making assumptions, and they are not accurate. I made a very simple statement, and nothing further should be implied.

Personally, if I were to go out and buy a new car right now, it would likely be American, and if it I were to buy a new truck, it certainly would be. That said, I'm not fond of unions, but that wouldn't stop me from buying what I like.

But I only speak for me.
Bob

 

You're kidding, right? That guy was a disaster.

He set ford up into all these other businesses, like autoparts chains and junkyards. Most of them failed and were sold for far less than was paid for them. He destroyed so much shareholder value.

 

I agree with your comments 100%.

Jac Nasser ripped the heart out of Ford. All the core automotive operations were moved to its suppliers. There was never any money invested on new technology, despite Ford making billions each year in profit.

He wasn't called 'Jac the knife' for nothing. At some stage, a guy has to pull his head in and ask whether cost reduction is eating too far into core operations. Jac seemed to think that was the best way to run a company - cut costs or move offshore to cheaper destinations... instead of investing for a stronger future.

Then there was the public Firestone spat.

Jac did buy Volvo, but how was that significant for Ford?

 

I've no idea what that statement is supposed to imply or what "trade ally" you are talking about.

Fortunately in the U.S. most people believe that competition is the best way to decide who "wins"; not quotas, tariffs or "caps" on success.

Such competition is the hallmark of a free market; controls and caps and artificial protections is just socialism concealed and socialism, reguardless of how well it's disguised, has never worked well or in the long term.

 

Fortunately for whom? Again, Nissan put bread on your table.

Robert, we've been down this road before and you keep bashing those who support 'local' industry. You are lucky I let you off lightly (by ignoring totally) the comment about Holden not being a 'local' company to Australia. Holden is a designer and manufacturer of automotive technology and significantly greater employer than Toyota which has NO design base here... you know what, so is Ford OZ, yet Ford Oz's market share is half that of Toyotas.

Yes, you heard right, successful companies like Toyota and Honda and to a lesser extend Nissan are getting there without having to pay billions each year in legacy costs. It's time the playing field was levelled out as the trend curve is showing no sign of a downward slope.

 

Why punish Toyota, Honda and Nissan for policies/decisions made by Detroit and UAW?

I dont believe in punishing a flourishing company just because others are not.

 

I put this to you. Why have the UAW used GM, Ford, Chrysler as punching bags for so long? How have the Japanese American makers avoided the UAW's clutches? If you look at things objectively, it's not just the Big 3 that need fixing, it's the motor industry on the whole that needs fixing.

OK, The Big 3 were fools for agreeing to terms it didn't have the hindsight to see the long term problems it would cause, but enough is enough. Why continue to punish Detroit for mistakes of the past? Let the Asians also share Detroit's burden as the legacy costs have nothing directly to do with building cars.

You can't have one set of rules for one company and have another set for another. That's not fair.

 

Perhaps he wasn't good for the non Auto part of Ford but what he had setup within the auto lines was great, IMO. Perhaps to bring back an old thread with some very valid points would help. http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...ghlight=nasser

 

Then I apologize, but that's how it came off, to me, maybe it was incomplete?Yeah, and they live in a Police State with a National Healthcare system, I don't think I'd trade our Legacy issues for that.
And Toyota is seeing some retirees now, soon they will have some of their own Legacy costs...
..and BTW the UAW Retirement Health Plans around here aren't much to brag about, much worse than an active employee.
The Legacy issues go far beyond the Big 3 anyways, as we know, our Health-Care/Health-Insurance systems are broken, the costs are a run-away train.
And with more patients dying from malpractice than anytime before(Just saw a news report), it's not likely to come down soon...showing our Health Professional schools also need some work.

 

Fortunate for every business in this country.

Pointing out flaws and incorrect statements is not "bashing".

I frankly don't care what's in Australia or who has or doesn't have design centers there nor is it for you to decide for other companies where they should put their design centers. Do you think that GM and Ford have design centers in every country in which they sell cars? Do you think they need one in every country in which they sell cars?

If Holden is owned by GM and if GM is an "American" company (as is the opinion of most) then GM/Holden in IS a foreign company to Australia...your refusal to acknowledge that notwithstanding.

Nissan, Toyota, Honda nor any other company, in or outside of the auto industry are not responsible for other manufacturer's "legacy costs" or where they put or didn't put design centers; the other manufacturers are responsible for them and need to deal with them without running to the government for protection.

 

Ther rules ARE exactly the same for all companies...Detroit's legacy costs and poor marketing/product decisions have nothing to do with "rules"; they have everything to do with decisions they made and agreements they entered into of their own free business will...people beat up on the Big 3 for those decisions because THEY made those decisions.

The transplant automakers have avoided the unions for one main reason, the union has had nothing to offer except huge deductions from paychecks and then using that money to fund political candidates that the rank and file often don't support.

 

So, you think its ok for the Japanese economy to impose tariffs on us, but not the other way around? Please explain that one.

 

I'm not in favor of trade barriers period; ours or theirs. That aside, the U.S. is not "innocent" in this game either - but new protections have never been and will never be the answer.

 

okay, irrelavent to the subject at hand, but

- Ponchoman49

It had me confused for a minute, like I was reading something from say, 2003??? then there was the bit about the 500/Tarus and now my brain has just melted Perhaps I should have just kept to Bob's article only.

 

Great post guionM.

If Chrysler gets bought out by private bankers as rumored, they will want install new management, and there's a very good chance they will put together a "crack team" as you mention.

But private ownership would be a temporary situation -- the eventual goal would be a new public offering or sale to another auto manufacturer. That's going to require a pretty radical slash-and-burn of unprofitable lines -- much more so than a public company can get away with because they do not need to report quarterly profits.

In the most extreme, unthinkable situation, any one of the Big Three could reduce operations to just Pickup Trucks and be an insanely profitable company.